Bitcoin Forum
July 20, 2019, 02:14:17 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   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 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Trust flags  (Read 7792 times)
The-One-Above-All
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 13


View Profile
June 17, 2019, 01:23:15 PM
 #301

So unless you get a flag, no amount of negative trust you get will make your trust turn to negative/red? right. That doesnt seem right to me. Because this opens the door for merit abusers to abuse merit, get tagged negative, and still be get put into signature campaigns because there trust isnt red. Unless signature campaigns specify no negative feedback. Eh. answered my own question

but.

I don't think its "fair" that you have to get a flag in order for your account to be marked red.

Well that demonstrates you are unable to comprehend what this thread undeniably demonstrates

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0

Why should ANYONE that is not CLEARLY demonstrated to have scammed someone out of money or attempted to scam someone out of money be given a RED DANGER and message saying they are a CLEAR DANGER TO MEMBERS FINANCIALLY. Makes zero sense for someone that tried to warn the board about a DT members past scamming be given a tag that says they are a financial danger? how would that be fair? or useful? it would be confusing and would facilitate scamming.

The clear point is you can not allow SUBJECTIVE and GAMED metrics to be a base for anything. They are not reliable metrics and merit is pretty much MEANINGLESS as suchmoon correctly recognized after cryptohunter helped her gain some clarity on the entire subject.

This seems like a concern of people that want UNFAIR advantage for sig campaigns themselves.

If the campaign manager can NOT demonstrate the person does NOT meet the transparent threshold for post quality and can NOT demonstrate he is a scammer then they should be allowed on to the sig campaign on a first come first served basis. This is the only fair way UNLESS he wants to go to a LOT more trouble himself IE to garner a lot of interest and then demonstrate clearly he is selecting the best posters that are NOT scammers.  This will NOT be within the capacity of the low functioning campaign managers we currently have here. You will then need the smartest people on the board (not ex bin men)  that are capable of clearly demonstrating WHY certain members posts are more VALUABLE than others. That is not a task for 99.9% of meta posters.

I mean really perhaps you should stipulate that only the MOST technically proficient members that are ABLE to digest complex designs on white papers to see if the design is plausible and valuable should be campaign managers for NEW alt projects.  Therefore ensuring we don't get a ton of HUGE ICOS sucking peoples bitcoins away for vaporware and projects that would require multiple nobel prizes to reach early milestones.

The real problem here is that most people are quite low functioning and would have no chance of really isolating the most valuable posters, this is clear from the merit system where most merit is allocated on political grounds on a tiny sub board and given out by tiny tiny tiny fraction of members that are the primary receivers . So if you get average joe's as campaign managers then they need to set a threshold they can comprehend and say if the members posts meet this and have no scammed people for money or tried to then they get accepted first come first served.

It will be our latest goal here to ensure the insider gangs gaming of the top sig spots comes to an end.


@ xtraelv

I guess you mean lose funds? even then intent would surely be the key factor here to a scam tag. Bankrupt is going to be hard to prove it was a scam in most cases I would guess. Gross negligence is it scamming? some may say it could get a higher flag than a lemons flag.
Some people you are just going to have to warn people on thread also. For instance cryptopia ? what would most say about this? scam? negligence? I guess until the entire debacle is done we won't know. Looks like an exit scam but impossible to say for sure.




1563588857
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563588857

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563588857
Reply with quote  #2

1563588857
Report to moderator
1563588857
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563588857

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563588857
Reply with quote  #2

1563588857
Report to moderator
1563588857
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563588857

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563588857
Reply with quote  #2

1563588857
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563588857
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563588857

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563588857
Reply with quote  #2

1563588857
Report to moderator
1563588857
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563588857

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563588857
Reply with quote  #2

1563588857
Report to moderator
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2940
Merit: 1388


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
June 17, 2019, 02:53:19 PM
 #302

So unless you get a flag, no amount of negative trust you get will make your trust turn to negative/red? right. That doesnt seem right to me. Because this opens the door for merit abusers to abuse merit, get tagged negative, and still be get put into signature campaigns because there trust isnt red. Unless signature campaigns specify no negative feedback. Eh. answered my own question

but.

I don't think its "fair" that you have to get a flag in order for your account to be marked red.

Buddy, if we are talking about what is fair, you would have been red long ago. I can't even remember how many second chances you have got and here you are crying about things not being strict enough. Maybe count your blessings instead of training to be the next internet police. Let the campaign managers worry about it.

THIS SPACE FOR RENT  Did I post something you found helpful? Send me a tip: 1Hz3HZT4v8qxtyYiRQ66UHTUSK3dKCnVMW
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554
Merit: 4309


Self-made Legendary outside Meta!


View Profile WWW
June 17, 2019, 07:11:50 PM
Last edit: June 17, 2019, 07:25:39 PM by LoyceV
Merited by DdmrDdmr (1)
 #303

I've updated my Trust Flag viewer, see http://loyce.club/trust/flags/13.html

I've seen requests for some statistics, and with the color coding it's easy to count:
Active flags
The large majority of flags are either type 1 (yellow) or inactive.
There are only 15 Active red flags. 2 of those involve ky94PjDw. I'm not entirely sure what the story is, but it seems to be a Flag testing account.
That leaves just 13 red flags: type 2 (1x) and type 3 (12x). Out of 12 type 3 flags, 4 were flagged by me, and they're alt-accounts.

Insufficient support
9 type 3 flags have insufficient support. I didn't count type 1, and type 2 has no unsupported flags.

I expect the number of type 2 or 3 flags to rise once new scams are reported, and the victim can be pointed in the right direction to create a flag.

thd26bct
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 301
Merit: 93


View Profile
June 18, 2019, 02:39:44 AM
 #304

Could you sort out all flags into categories, such as casinos? I have a topic, Trust/ Flag of casino/dice sites' owners, so it might be more convenient if the Flag List can have some categories. I know that I have to do it myself for my topic, by screening your Flag List. I just worry that I might miss some casinos that I don't know. Anyway, I am so thankful to have access to your Flag List, for free.
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554
Merit: 4309


Self-made Legendary outside Meta!


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2019, 06:32:03 AM
 #305

Could you sort out all flags into categories, such as casinos?
No, sorry. I only add things that I can automate to the list.

coinlocket$
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 1051


One of the world's leading Bitcoin-powered casinos


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2019, 11:14:22 AM
 #306

Can we add one more flag for ban evaders/ abusers/multiaccount etc? Huh

malevolent
can into space
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1105



View Profile
June 18, 2019, 11:29:16 AM
 #307

Ban evaders should be reported for ban evasion, you can use the Newbie-flag to flag an alt account of a scammer.

coinlocket$
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616
Merit: 1051


One of the world's leading Bitcoin-powered casinos


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2019, 01:25:30 PM
 #308

Ban evaders should be reported for ban evasion, you can use the Newbie-flag to flag an alt account of a scammer.

What about alt abusers? flag type 1 is worthless in my opinion.

Flag 1 is visible only for newbie and guests, I've sent over 1k feedback for alt abusing in the past.

Now if I flag them all, the flag will be visible only for people who don't care about the abusing.

Managers will not see the flag.

marlboroza
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1498


View Profile
June 18, 2019, 01:47:58 PM
 #309

What about alt abusers? flag type 1 is worthless in my opinion.
~
Managers will not see the flag.
You can still send them negative feedback(or, neutral) which managers will see and they can click trust to read why someone has -.

It is not that old system completely disappeared, it is still here, with some adjustments.

eddie13
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 950


BTC or BUST


View Profile
June 18, 2019, 02:01:13 PM
 #310

Now if I flag them all
You cannot flag them all.. It is not technically possible..

Managers will not see the flag.
I'm pretty sure they will/can if they check trust pages..

This Space For Rent
malevolent
can into space
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1105



View Profile
June 18, 2019, 02:38:41 PM
 #311

What about alt abusers? flag type 1 is worthless in my opinion.
Flag 1 is visible only for newbie and guests, I've sent over 1k feedback for alt abusing in the past.
Now if I flag them all, the flag will be visible only for people who don't care about the abusing.
Managers will not see the flag.

What do you mean by alt abusing? People who use more than one account in the same bounty campaign? Just keep a thread in Reputation, like the ones Lauda or DarkStar_ have with lists of sig spammers and other shitposters.

Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1717



View Profile WWW
June 26, 2019, 03:47:23 PM
 #312

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

Click Here to See Alex Morgan Twerking||2nd Video
(Videos Suchmoon doesn’t want you to see)
Royse777
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 767


CyberDice - Best Bitcoin Dice Game


View Profile
June 26, 2019, 03:53:17 PM
Last edit: June 26, 2019, 04:13:29 PM by Royse777
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
 #313

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #293 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2
What am I missing?

I see no oppose from any of the above users. In fact except marlboroza who supported, none of the above left any vote for this flag.


~image removed~

DT view: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=293;dt

Edit:
Quote edited: #292

Just received a PM asking that it was wrong flag number and the right one is #292. I have gone through the topic and I see two side.

One side is that bob123 on purpose tried to get the information of the account the seller was selling. Perhaps by proving it, he can tag the seller.
Other side is that, should we allow this kind of tricky business to get information? Seems like we need to trust bob123 to read his mind.

Anyway, I know things can go nasty in this forum when politics involves and I like to keep myself away from all these. I am in a neutral position here.

JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1960
Merit: 1861


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 26, 2019, 07:29:33 PM
 #314

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

Link or it didn't happen.

 Tongue Tongue

Edit:

Found it through Royse777.... (the above post, of course)   Wink

Thanks Royse.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=292

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
bob123
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1259



View Profile WWW
June 26, 2019, 07:41:14 PM
 #315

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

 Grin Grin Grin

Oh quicksy.. how many threads do you want to spam with this?


For once and all, the flag says:
Quote
SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages [...]

I don't want to start arguing whether we had an agreement or not.
I also don't want to start arguing again whether the account seller got damage.

I have answered that in the 2 other threads already.


But.. IF i violated an agreement and IF the account seller got monetary damage because i tagged his accounts as untrustworthy:

The 'damage' has not been done because of violation.

Based on this (which is enough already), and the fact that 'damage' and 'violation of agreement' can't bee seen as such.. the flag absolutely is inappropriate.



LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554
Merit: 4309


Self-made Legendary outside Meta!


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2019, 07:44:45 PM
Merited by actmyname (1)
 #316

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2
I'd like to see theymos' opinion on this flag. It seems to be dividing users:

Quote

mindrust
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1460


Bitcoin or gtfo


View Profile
June 26, 2019, 07:51:43 PM
Last edit: June 26, 2019, 08:09:30 PM by mindrust
Merited by bones261 (2)
 #317

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

While I agree with you, what bob did was unethical but since his actions revealed a scammer  who was trying to sell an account which he didn't originally own or paid for, it doesn't matter how and why Bob shared these information with us.

He (SeW900) was selling a hacked account (zackie) which overrides Bob's unethical actions. I am not sure if he deserves a flag even if the account wasn't hacked, I would just ignore the flag probably but not now. Nack.

You know what I think now?

I think zackie should create a flag for SeW900 for hacking and selling his account.

SeW900 deserves a red flag all around his forehead. I guess I'll just PM him.




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

#1 CRYPTO CASINO & SPORTSBOOK
  WELCOME
BONUS
.INSTANT & FAST.
.TRANSACTION.....
.PROVABLY FAIR.
......& SECURE......
.24/7 CUSTOMER.
............SUPPORT.
BTC      |      ETH      |      LTC      |      XRP      |      XMR      |      BNB      |     more
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1717



View Profile WWW
June 26, 2019, 08:20:08 PM
 #318

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2
I'd like to see theymos' opinion on this flag. It seems to be dividing users:

Quote
I am willing to listen to theymos’ opinion on the matter, however what he says will not be the deciding factor in my opinion on the matter, unless he is able to make an argument that changes my mind (or if someone else does the same).

I believe the elements of a contract were met, including acceptance of said contract. There was clearly deceit based on bon’s own words, and there was clearly financial damages. This meets the criteria for supporting the flag.

Account sales are allowed, and as such there are no public policy exceptions to not enforcing the contract. No portion of the contract forced bob to actually use the account he agreed to buy, so the argument that enforcing the contract would cause bob to do something immoral.

I think this is a pretty clear case that should not be controversial.

Click Here to See Alex Morgan Twerking||2nd Video
(Videos Suchmoon doesn’t want you to see)
Matthias9515
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 779



View Profile
June 26, 2019, 08:30:04 PM
 #319

[FLAG] Mindrust [DT1] member gave me redtrust without reason

He obsessed with me because we had couple arguments in past.

Here's his slander

I've never encouraged merit farming/trading in my life. I use this forum properly and never cross the general rules.

He became a DT member just a 2-3 weeks ago and appearently he doesn't even know how to use his power.

Quote
Ortada hiçbir kanıt yok çünkü seçime katılan hiçbir üye o bahsettiğin grupta değil.

Quote
There is no evidence because none of the members in the election is in 'that merit trading group'

This was fully what i wrote. I do not know what to say because Mindrust is obviously crossing my words and trying to change the meaning.

I believe that DT members will oppose this. It's not fair someone to crop only one part of my sentences and giving me red trust. I hope someone will fix this.

FLAG #295
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1883


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
June 26, 2019, 09:00:52 PM
 #320

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

While I agree with you, what bob did was unethical but since his actions revealed a scammer  who was trying to sell an account which he didn't originally own or paid for, it doesn't matter how and why Bob shared these information with us.

He (SeW900) was selling a hacked account (zackie) which overrides Bob's unethical actions. I am not sure if he deserves a flag even if the account wasn't hacked, I would just ignore the flag probably but not now. Nack.

You know what I think now?

I think zackie should create a flag for SeW900 for hacking and selling his account.

SeW900 deserves a red flag all around his forehead. I guess I'll just PM him.

While I wholeheartedly support an investigation on SeW900 and the hacked account matter, they are two unrelated instances. You don't get free license to damage others because they committed some other offense. The account being hacked wasn't brought up until 2 days after the fact, it did not have any bearing on Bob's initial actions which I'm calling scamming.

Its a really bad road to travel if we start justifying people's actions based on perceived problems with the other people. Maybe tomorrow it'll be cool to scam investors in ICOs since they are perpetuating what some perceive as dishonest investments. Maybe we can all decide its ok to rip off Bitcoin Cash users because we don't support their fork.

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

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!