Did anyone explain grandfathering in PROVEN tagging abuse ?

[KaneVWE]

Why did Theymos grandfather in to the trust system the very abuse that motivated him to try to fix this issue by introducing the flagging system.

So let's think about this.

1.  Under the old system (pre flag) red tags were intended for proven scammers or where there was strong corroborating evidence of scamming , attempting to scam or other explicit financially motivated wrong doing.

2. This was clearly stated regardless of mods claiming your admission of drinking lemon tea was sufficient to have your account ruined and labelled a scammer.

3. All other tags were clear abuse of the old tagging system. Unless theymos specific words when asked for clarity were meaningless.


The flagging system comes in which actually made things far worse.  But that's another thread.  


4. Theymos grandfathers in the very abuse that was the driving force to supplement / fix with the flagging system.?


Why?

Your threads all get a " this is a scammer or financially dangerous " warning on them forever?

How come? Surely all tags that do not provide a link that provides the required threshold for giving a tag should be removed?

If you can prove that none of your tags are based on financially motivated wrongdoing before the flagging system removed that stipulation on the tagging system then you should not have a warning on all of your threads?? Or any tags at all before that date.


There is no logic at all to grandfathering in trust abuse ?

Those that were demonstrably given tags that were not meeting the stipulated financially motivated wrong doing or scamming.
Should have the tags removed.

Sure they can be reapplied under the " you can tag people for drinking lemon tea" or " if you think" it may make them unsafe to trade with subjective easily abused nonsense.

But those reapplied bullshit tags would not guarantee abused honest members threads were labelled scammers threads or financially dangerous.

Seems ludicrous to me that the very abuse that drove the need for flagging system is grandfathered in forever.

What is the logic and explanation for this?

Should members be permitted to request DT members present their pre flagging date evidence  via PM or dedicated thread and demand those tags are removed if those were clear abuse of the prior system?

Failure to remove them should result in DT blacklisting.

This would remove the grandfather in abuse.  They could reapply those same bogus tags now but they would not result in warnings on the top of the members threads.



It is also clear to me that the new lemons flag is pointless if it is the same as the new tagging system aka " for any reason you want to make up and nothing to do with financially motivated wrong doing at all "  

The type 1 flag must be at least as powerful as the old tagging system or what is the fucking point of it?  Some form of strong evidence of scamming or setting up a scam or some kind of financially motivated wrong doing ?

Or how else do you justify giving a header on threads that say " financially dangerous "

That heading is clearly bogus if there is zero evidence for that at all.

It seems the system was slapped together with very little thought of the implications for those that have never engaged in any form of financially motivated wrongdoing at all .. zero.

Let's debate this sensibly.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I had to un-ignore you to read your post (which I now regret), and I just have to ask you:  can you please be more succinct in your posts instead of this exploding word-diarrhea that makes it hard to understand what your main point is?

What is your main point?  I honestly don't understand what you're trying to ask/argue here. 

Please, if you want a discussion, give us a TL;DR version at the bottom.

[suchmoon]

[KaneVWE]

I had to un-ignore you to read your post (which I now regret), and I just have to ask you:  can you please be more succinct in your posts instead of this exploding word-diarrhea that makes it hard to understand what your main point is?

What is your main point?  I honestly don't understand what you're trying to ask/argue here.  

Please, if you want a discussion, give us a TL;DR version at the bottom.

It does not surprise me you genuinely may not have understood.

I will spoon feed it to you as simply as I can.

1. Provable trust abuse aka red tags that were applied for any other reason than proven scamming, or strong evidence of scamming, IOW must be evidence to prove or corroborate financially motivated wrong doing ( the strict stipulation for red tags before flagging was introduced ).  Must be removed.

2. Why? Because they are the very reason the flagging system was introduced.

3. The warnings of scamming and financially motivated wrong doing at the top of every thread that are based on these old bogus tags ( where there is no such evidence)  are provably false and incorrect.

These abuses and false claims are grandfathered into the system. This is crazy.

Sure you can tag people for any reason now. However they do not get warnings claiming scammer or financially wrongdoing on the top of all of their threads. So that is why the incorrect and false warnings on the very innocent members that inspired the need for the flagging g system is grandfathered in ? Tags no longer have this power.


It is completely crazy.

If you don't understand what I'm explaining now but genuinely want to then get someone with experience in assisting those with learning  difficulties.

Let's tackle this point first.

TLDR.

why does the forum software convert a claim saying perhaps "you drink lemons" or " I think you're rude to whistleblow on DT1" into a claim on the top of your threads claiming you're a scammer or guilty of financially motivated wrong doing ?

This is slander and defamation on the same abused honest members who's unfair treatment inspired the flagging system.

No new members will have to endure such bullshit due to tags. This is a reserved treat for elder members.

Where is the logic or reasoning behind this ?

[Steamtyme]

I didn't know theymos become grandfather at age of 29¹

Just refers to allowing something that has been in place pre-change (Law, rule, qualification), to remain in effect despite being sub-par by new (build/hiring) requirements.

For OP, you are mistaken

How are the existing ratings converted into the new flags?

They're not. I decided that too many negative ratings aren't flag-worthy, and there's no way to automatically determine it. If you believe that a past negative rating is flag-worthy, you'll need to create a flag.

If you are just complaining about ratings in general having been grandfatheres then there is nothing more to discuss. A tweaked system didn't automatically negate anyone's feedback. It actually diminished the "power" of the previous DT grouping. So now if someone constantly remains neg'd it's because a larger percentage of the population here agrees they exhibit, let's say "Shitty" behavior.

You can also read the OP. of that quote. The need for flags was to allow more freedom in specifically targeting trade risks, and separating them from more personal opinion ratings. Which of course anyone can use as they see fit.

[KaneVWE]

I didn't know theymos become grandfather at age of 29¹

Just refers to allowing something that has been in place pre-change (Law, rule, qualification), to remain in effect despite being sub-par by new (build/hiring) requirements.

For OP, you are mistaken

How are the existing ratings converted into the new flags?

They're not. I decided that too many negative ratings aren't flag-worthy, and there's no way to automatically determine it. If you believe that a past negative rating is flag-worthy, you'll need to create a flag.

If you are just complaining about ratings in general having been grandfatheres then there is nothing more to discuss. A tweaked system didn't automatically negate anyone's feedback. It actually diminished the "power" of the previous DT grouping. So now if someone constantly remains neg'd it's because a larger percentage of the population here agrees they exhibit, let's say "Shitty" behavior.

You can also read the OP. of that quote. The need for flags was to allow more freedom in specifically targeting trade risks, and separating them from more personal opinion ratings. Which of course anyone can use as they see fit.

So to be clear you are saying that a persons threads do not have a financially dangerous or scammer warning at the start of them without them having a flag?

I am sure that if you have more negatives than positives before flags came in then you got one of these false and defamatory warnings.
Unless this has been changed.

Are you saying this had been changed?

I mean even a type 1 flag can be given for any reason. There is no requirement for their to be any evidence of scamming , attempting to scam or any financially motivated wrong doing of any kind. You can give it people for whatever?
This is a different point but equally as strange. There is no point of a type 1 flag it can be given for any reason.

But let's tackle the first point. Why are the abuses that inspired the need for the flagging system grandfathered in.
If they were given for any other reason that scamming attempting to scam or some form of financial wrongdoing they should not bet there. So for the forum software to convert you drink lemon tea into you are a scammer is ludicrous.

Are you sure this doesn't happen? Some may say well only people with less than 10 days login time or whatever see those warnings but still that is quite a bit and it's defaming members that have never even thought of scamming.

We can discuss the level 1 flag requirement also. Let's clear the original point up first.

Constantly remained tagged now is different because you only have to not like the individual. Previously it was for proven scamming or strong evidence of scamming,  attempting to or setting up a scam.

How does the forum excuse telling new members that all threads started by a member that maybe was here 8 yrs with no evidence of any financially motivated wrongdoing is a scammer or guilty of financial wrong doing.
Needs to be fixed unless you believe indisputable defamation or deliberately false accusation is sensible.

I mean even the new type 1 flag is almost as bad. That should not have any financially dangerous or misleading bullshit warnings when there is zero evidence of any scamming or financially motivated wrongdoing in years of being a member.
That should just say some twat DT scum don't like this person for some reason that has nothing to do with financially motivated wrongdoing or scamming. Totally bogus nonsense the forum tells about members ? Wtf?