Bitcoin Forum
October 22, 2020, 07:06:54 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Trust flags  (Read 10257 times)
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2019, 07:13:17 PM
 #201

"Hello, beloved crypto community. I'm Josh Zerlan, better known as Inaba on BitcoinTalk. Feel free to search Google for "Inaba", whereupon you'll be hard-pressed to find any nefarious activities in my name. In closing, Sonny and I are getting the Butterfly Labs Band back together."[/center]
Sounds and looks trustworthy to me. Where are the victims? Roll Eyes

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
1603393614
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603393614

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603393614
Reply with quote  #2

1603393614
Report to moderator
1603393614
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603393614

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603393614
Reply with quote  #2

1603393614
Report to moderator
1603393614
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603393614

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603393614
Reply with quote  #2

1603393614
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1603393614
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603393614

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603393614
Reply with quote  #2

1603393614
Report to moderator
1603393614
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603393614

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603393614
Reply with quote  #2

1603393614
Report to moderator
1603393614
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603393614

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603393614
Reply with quote  #2

1603393614
Report to moderator
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 2148


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
June 12, 2019, 07:17:31 PM
Merited by mprep (1)
 #202

Feels a little clunky, but I definitely support the idea behind it and the direction we can go with the update. I agree with others that the symbols need some updating as well, I don't think the # is fantastic. I don't know that you need a ! or WARNING or any red/yellow/orange colors, even something that just says, "This user has feedback" click here:_____ to see it would work. My only major complaint to this point with the trust system was that red or green letters and arbitrary numbers can be misleading. Just saying, Hey this guy has feedback, why don't you check it out is useful in my opinion.

Separating the, this guy likes lemons! Anyone who doesn't like lemons should avoid this trader! And, hey this guy scammed me, without disallowing either is a good step.


*edit*

"Hello, beloved crypto community. I'm Josh Zerlan, better known as Inaba on BitcoinTalk. Feel free to search Google for "Inaba", whereupon you'll be hard-pressed to find any nefarious activities in my name. In closing, Sonny and I are getting the Butterfly Labs Band back together."[/center]
Sounds and looks trustworthy to me. Where are the victims? Roll Eyes

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.

No one has flagged them yet.
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 5727


https://bpip.org


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2019, 07:34:13 PM
 #203

Is countering feedback still a thing?

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2019, 07:35:12 PM
 #204

Is countering feedback still a thing?
I don't think it is as negative has kind-of-become ineffective. I've been asked this several times today actually.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 5727


https://bpip.org


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2019, 07:49:00 PM
Merited by Lauda (25)
 #205

Is countering feedback still a thing?
I don't think it is as negative has kind-of-become ineffective. I've been asked this several times today actually.

Ah fuck it, I did it anyway. If it's ok to red-trust for lying then I might as well post a positive trust for telling the truth. You have told me the truth at least once, right?  Grin

Are there any way to see all trust flags with reasoning filter? I think it could save time for those who usually often give trust feedback.

Not at this time but a similar feature has been requested: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153606.0

mikeywith
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 3064


be constructive or S.T.F.U


View Profile
June 12, 2019, 07:57:21 PM
Merited by sandy-is-fine (2)
 #206

I don't like the fact that many scammers' profiles now look somehow legit, thanks to every  DT member who misused the trust system and to everyone who kept rambling about it for the past couple months/years.

Can't say i don't like the update yet, let's see how it goes from here, meanwhile let's encourage everyone to use a custom trust list.

otrkid1970
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 253
Merit: 16


View Profile
June 12, 2019, 08:06:02 PM
 #207

RE: Abuse of the Flagging

Lauda lied when they flagged Quickseller and Lauda received a RED Neg  from theymos himself. Now the question remains will Lauda be expelled from the DT?  It has only been 1 day since the new flagging program has been alive and already Lauda is abusing it.

What say you theymos?
dogie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1128


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2019, 08:59:15 PM
 #208

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

Showing what is essentially a scammer flag to people with account ages only less than 7 days essentially just opened the door to 10,000's of scammers. There are so many accounts that I've previously tagged that I no longer can, because it doesn't fit into the narrow definitions.

For example, the guy with 20-30 accounts who is permabanned off the site but who keeps creating more... I can't 2. or 3. tag him, and 1. will do next to nothing...

Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2254
Merit: 1956


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2019, 09:07:21 PM
 #209

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

Showing what is essentially a scammer flag to people with account ages only less than 7 days essentially just opened the door to 10,000's of scammers. There are so many accounts that I've previously tagged that I no longer can, because it doesn't fit into the narrow definitions.

For example, the guy with 20-30 accounts who is permabanned off the site but who keeps creating more... I can't 2. or 3. tag him, and 1. will do next to nothing...
You could say that he is violating a written or implied contract/agreement. If the violation is ongoing, you could move the date up to the present.

Further, if he is banned, you should report him to the administration and additional accounts he creates should be banned.

The head executive of the executive office of the department of the redundancy department’s office
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2478
Merit: 5727


https://bpip.org


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2019, 09:21:03 PM
 #210

You could say that he is violating a written or implied contract/agreement.

Wait, what now? "say that he is"? How about there being a contract to begin with?

TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 1937


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2019, 10:13:55 PM
 #211

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

Showing what is essentially a scammer flag to people with account ages only less than 7 days essentially just opened the door to 10,000's of scammers. There are so many accounts that I've previously tagged that I no longer can, because it doesn't fit into the narrow definitions.

For example, the guy with 20-30 accounts who is permabanned off the site but who keeps creating more... I can't 2. or 3. tag him, and 1. will do next to nothing...
You could say that he is violating a written or implied contract/agreement. If the violation is ongoing, you could move the date up to the present.

Further, if he is banned, you should report him to the administration and additional accounts he creates should be banned.

Since ban evasion is a violation of the terms of service of the site, this clearly falls within violation of contractual agreement.

mikeywith
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 3064


be constructive or S.T.F.U


View Profile
June 12, 2019, 10:38:38 PM
 #212

this clearly falls within violation of contractual agreement.

The forum rules are buried in a section that most people don't visit, there is no guarantee that member has read and agreed on those terms, therefore I don't see how this fits into a  "contractual agreement ".

Anyway that member should be reported to Mods for breaking the rules, a feedback/flag for that is a terrible idea.

dogie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1128


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2019, 10:46:00 PM
 #213

Anyway that member should be reported to Mods for breaking the rules, a feedback/flag for that is a terrible idea.

Sure, that makes sense. But what do you do when the mods ignore it for ~4 years?

mikeywith
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 3064


be constructive or S.T.F.U


View Profile
June 12, 2019, 10:58:37 PM
 #214

Sure, that makes sense. But what do you do when the mods ignore it for ~4 years?

If you reported him for being a scammer, nothing will happen, not in a 40 years, if you reported him for ban evasion and he is not yet banned, then you are probably wrong in thinking they are the same "person" - as the mods have better tools than us to determine these ban evasions.


SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2520
Merit: 1064


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2019, 11:51:26 PM
 #215

I somewhat like the idea that anyone can create a flag after creating a scam accusation thread searching support for the claims. It's a clear and clean thing that can be followed.

But my question is, a flag can be supported only for:
a single case
of a contract breach
flagged by the victim
or is it broader?

Judging from what theymos wrote it sounds like it's intended only the victim can flag? Also contract means a deal between two parties? If it means the forum rules then it would be way broader and include admin work.

Let's use this feature right from the start, I'm sure it will be beneficial.

Also, will there be some form of pm showing the flags of the day or so in order to raise awareness of the flags? Might be a good thing if a broader mass of members is checking.

Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2019, 11:53:02 PM
 #216

Judging from what theymos wrote it sounds like it's intended only the victim can flag?
No victim creates flag = no scam happened. That's what the system is now.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
The-One-Above-All
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 56


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 01:03:53 AM
 #217

Judging from what theymos wrote it sounds like it's intended only the victim can flag?
No victim creates flag = no scam happened. That's what the system is now.

can we see the victims that we scammed we notice you and your pal hhampuz and some noob dreg have given us a shiny new flag.

be great when you are all blacklisted.

dogie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1128


dogiecoin.com


View Profile WWW
June 13, 2019, 01:40:16 AM
 #218

Judging from what theymos wrote it sounds like it's intended only the victim can flag?
No victim creates flag = no scam happened. That's what the system is now.
And we're back to troll + 20 alt accounts = scam happened. This system is 10 steps back - it'd almost be better if everything was deleted.

theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3906
Merit: 7946


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 03:25:14 AM
Merited by suchmoon (4), LoyceV (1), klarki (1), redsn0w (1), Steamtyme (1), mikeywith (1)
 #219

Some changes:
 - If the number of pre-flags-system negative trust ratings is greater than the number of all positive trust ratings, a warning banner is shown for guests & low-login-time newbies.
 - I added "These warning banners will disappear when you have 7 days of login time. You should familiarize yourself with the trust system before then." to the newbie warning banner. Note BTW that it usually takes months for someone to get 7 days of login time: among all 4096 users with 6.5 to 7.5 days login time, the account age (lastLogin-dateRegistered) is: maximum 3216 days, minimum 7.5, median 677, average 936.
 - The pages you see after clicking "next" are now bigger.
 


Some people are acting as though these changes are "letting scammers off the hook", but I don't really think so. Let's assume for a moment that flag types 2 & 3 are too restrictive and will therefore never be used. Even then, you can still give scammers negative feedback, which will display next to their posts in orange, and the threshold for giving negative feedback has been loosened. You can also give newbie-warning flags very easily, and the warning which this creates is shown to more people than any previous warning.

The only thing that scammers got is that they don't have red trust scores or a "trade with extreme caution" warning. But when you consider the measures in the previous paragraph, who is actually going to be scammed due to the absence of this? I think few if any. IMO the main point of these things was to punish/deter scamming, which is what was causing a lot of drama. And by making the threshold for this specific thing higher, it became reasonable to lower the threshold and widen the effect for the other warnings.

I think that scamming will be net-reduced due to these changes.

This system actually incentivizes one-account-one-scam

If someone creates a newbie account and tries to scam with it, they have roughly the same ability as before. The only thing they might be missing is a tiny piece of screen real estate shown only to logged-in users with a trust score and "Trade with extreme caution!" The more effective warnings are the banners, which have been expanded.

If someone does a long con, they have more to lose, since the scam flags create a banner for all users, and it's more exclusive and therefore meaningful. This can give you a bit more confidence in veteran members.

So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?

Newbie-warning flag.

Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

That's all misuse of the system.

@Theymos, I have opened a scam accusation here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153498.0

People have lost money/had to recover their funds because of this user and I have included several clear fact-statements in my topic. Would it be against the rules for me to (attempt to) add a scammer flag since I personally haven't dealt with the user in question?

If you have not been scammed by him, then you should not create a scam flag. A newbie-warning flag and/or trust rating would be OK.


On agreement types:

A written contract is a piece of text taking the rough form of "I will do this, and then you will do this in return," where both sides clearly agreed to it. It needn't be super formal, but there definitely shouldn't be any case of someone not realizing that they were agreeing to something. "I'll send you 1 BTC for the coin" -> "OK" is enough of a written contract.

Exactly what falls into an "implied agreement" may be somewhat grey-area, and certain very obvious torts may also count. Let's see how the culture around this develops.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Mpamaegbu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 383


Join the fight -#EndSARS & Police brutality in Nig


View Profile WWW
June 13, 2019, 03:50:44 AM
 #220

I guess bounty managers too will now need to tweak this rule to accommodate the new flag system rather than the default trust as almost all the negative trusts have disappeared.

Quote
*Do not have any legitimate negative feedback from any DT member. Receiving negative feedback during your stay could lead to your termination from the campaign without payment or notice.

        ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▄▄
    ▄  ▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▀▀▄
  ▄▀▄▀▀             ▀▀▄▀
 ▄▀▄▀         ▄       ▀▄
  ▄▀         ███       ▀▄▀▄
▄ █   ▀████▄▄███▄       █ █
█ █     ▀▀▀███████▄▄▄▄  █ █
█ █       ██████████▀   █ ▀
▀▄▀▄       ▀▀█████▀    ▄▀
   ▀▄        ▐██▄     ▄▀▄▀
  ▀▄▀▄▄       ███▄  ▄▄▀▄▀
    ▀▄▄▀▀▄▄▄▄▄████▀▀ ▄▀
       ▀   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

        ▄     ▀
         █ ▄▀
   ▄▀     █    ▄▀
  ▄   ▄▄  ██▄▄▀
 ▀      ▀▄▄██   ▄ ▄▄▀▀

          ▀██ ▄▀▀▀▄ ▀▄
           ███▀
 ▀▄
  ▄  ▀▄ ██▌  ▀▄
    ▀  ▄  ▐██
    ▄
   ▐██      ▄
     ▀
   ▄███▌ ▄▄   ▀
  ▄▄
▄▄ ▄█████▄ ▄▄ ▄▄
P L A Y   S L O T S   o n    
CRYPTO'S FASTEST
GROWING CASINO
★ ‎‎
‎ ★
UP
TO
15%CASH BACK
EVERY SPIN

‎ ★
       ▄▄██████▄▄▄
      ██▄▄▀▀█▀▀
     ████▄▀▀▄██▀
     ▄▀▀▄▄▄██▀
    ▀  ▀▀▀▀▀
             ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
          ▄███▄▄▄████▄  ▄▄▀
        ▄████████▀▀▀█▄▀▀
     ▄███▀▀▄▄██▄▄▀▀█████
 ▄▄████▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀████████
▀▀██▀▀▀▄▀███████▄▀████
   ▀▀██████████████▀
       ▀▀▀███████▀▀
█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀











█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
.
PLAY NOW
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█











▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!