Trust flags

[Timelord2067]

Just in case my post in the *cough* "uncensored" betking.io thread ^{(with at least two posts deleted by the creator of the flag)} ... would someone in this thread like to have a look over my discussion in that thread as I feel it should probably be ported to this thread.

[1715476433]

1715476433

[1715476433]

1715476433

[1715476433]

1715476433

[1715476433]

1715476433

[LoyceV]

I feel it should probably be ported to this thread.

I'll quote it here:

The terms of creating Flags is quite clear in that the thread cannot be a self moderated one (this thread is self moderated) and the thread cannot be locked.   You did not create the thread, therefore, you cannot guarantee that the thread won't ever be locked.

I'm pretty sure the requirements apply for creating the Flag. There's no way as a user to guarantee a Mod won't lock the thread later. I would Oppose Flags if the Reference topic doesn't exist, not when it's created by someone else.
If theymos intended the Flag system to have a consequence when the topic gets locked, he would have automated it.

I'm pretty sure theymos said when introducing Flags that a locked thread is one of the many reasons that makes a Flag invalid.  (but in saying that, I've just scrolled all 20+ pages and can't find where theymos said that...)

I can't find it either. When creating a Flag, it only says it shouldn't be self-moderated.

True, but Flag 2809 is a type one flag while flag 2810 - type three was created just one second later.

There was more time between creating those Flags. BPIP doesn't update real-time.

Flag 2809 is redundant in more ways than one, hence my continued opposition to it.

Type 3 Flags expire 10 years after the date mentioned. Type 1 Flags don't expire. So long-term, Flag 2809 will stand when Flag 2810 doesn't show anymore.

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.

We either work within the guidelines as set out.  Or, we do our own thing, then join a gang when we don't like what others are doing in this place and dish out rough justice.

That's quote is about type 2/3 Flags, type 1 Flags can be created by anyone.

[Timelord2067]

(Hopefully I've attributed the quotes correctly, please advise if the attributions are incorrect)

I would Oppose Flags if the Reference topic doesn't exist, not when it's created by someone else.

I can see you've opposed about fifty of the Flags (about one in five Flags) listed on this page: https://loyce.club/trust/flags/personal/ReferenceTopicDoesNotExist.html (Flag 1264 that you support has had it's thread removed, so that might be a grey area).  A few of those Flags are now neither supported nore opposed by anyone.  Should those be opposed if the accused is NOT banned?

If theymos intended the Flag system to have a consequence when the topic gets locked, he would have automated it.

I doubt it, but you can always suggest it to him.

I'm pretty sure theymos said when introducing Flags that a locked thread is one of the many reasons that makes a Flag invalid.  (but in saying that, I've just scrolled all 20+ pages and can't find where theymos said that...)

I can't find it either. When creating a Flag, it only says it shouldn't be self-moderated.

I don't know where I read that, but it makes sense that "the accused" must have a platform (the thread) to respond to the accusation made against them.  Surely it follows an unlocked thread that is referenced in the Flag is that platform?  And, the only way to guarantee a thread remains unlocked (without admin/mod intervention) is for the thread to have been created by the one who creates the flag, not another person.  (Otherwise, accusers would probably just start one thread and dump all their accusations in that thread, or, another thread started by someone else where Flags and accusations would get mixed up) - (One Flag|One thread) * (where "one" could be a group accused of the one Flag/Flag type)

There was more time between creating those Flags. BPIP doesn't update real-time.

Thanks for clarifying that, at the time I wrote my comments I felt your flag type 3 for the same person at (notionally) the same time overrides the type one flag?  But then you have now posted this:

Type 3 Flags expire 10 years after the date mentioned. Type 1 Flags don't expire. So long-term, Flag 2809 will stand when Flag 2810 doesn't show anymore.

That's quote is about type 2/3 Flags, type 1 Flags can be created by anyone.

True, but if there isn't any accountability, then you end up with the shills and those with vendettas indiscriminately creating flags that will never fade away regardless of whether or not they then withdraw their support for those flags.

[PrimeNumber7]

The terms of creating Flags is quite clear in that the thread cannot be a self moderated one (this thread is self moderated) and the thread cannot be locked.   You did not create the thread, therefore, you cannot guarantee that the thread won't ever be locked.

I'm pretty sure the requirements apply for creating the Flag. There's no way as a user to guarantee a Mod won't lock the thread later. I would Oppose Flags if the Reference topic doesn't exist, not when it's created by someone else.
If theymos intended the Flag system to have a consequence when the topic gets locked, he would have automated it.

IIRC, if a reference thread is locked, it is not possible for someone to add support for a flag, while you can oppose a flag that is referenced by a locked thread.

[LoyceV]

I can see you've opposed about fifty of the Flags (about one in five Flags) listed on this page: https://loyce.club/trust/flags/personal/ReferenceTopicDoesNotExist.html (Flag 1264 that you support has had it's thread removed, so that might be a grey area).  A few of those Flags are now neither supported nore opposed by anyone.  Should those be opposed if the accused is NOT banned?

I added a comment with an archive link to my Trust list viewer to the one Active Flag without Reference link. I don't want to remove my Support for the Flag because user percenter isn't banned. In general, it's better to create a separate scam accusation thread to use as reference for the Flag.

That's quote is about type 2/3 Flags, type 1 Flags can be created by anyone.

True, but if there isn't any accountability, then you end up with the shills and those with vendettas indiscriminately creating flags that will never fade away regardless of whether or not they then withdraw their support for those flags.

I don't think type 2/3 Flags disappear after they expire, I expect them to still show up as inactive. Unfortunately I can't confirm this yet. Only 2 Flags (36 and 2669) expired, but those Flags don't have enough Support to show them anyway.

IIRC, if a reference thread is locked, it is not possible for someone to add support for a flag, while you can oppose a flag that is referenced by a locked thread.

That's easy to test, and it's incorrect:
I can Support and Oppose Flags with a locked Reference thread.
I can Support and Oppose Flags without a Reference thread.

[naim027]

Hey, theymos. I have a question. It seems Trust Flags Rules say that only a Victim can create a Flag. But, What about when it comes to a Company? For example casino. If Casino is the Victim. Who is able to create a Flag against scammers? Should Casino owners create a Flag because he owns the casino and he is the actual victim? If yes, I have something to tell you about this.

I am a Moderator Cum Support agent of the casino. We got paid to work for the casino. I guess A Casino owner doesn't have that much time to operate every single thing. So, He might not be able to create a Flag that's why he hired us to work for his Company. In my opinion, The Agent should be able to create a flag because our staff is indirectly victims of the scammers.

[icopress]

I will send you merit if theymos responds to you. 

No victim creates flag = no scam happened. That's what the system is now.

But if you are not personally affected, you can create a type 1 flag.

[LoyceV]

Cum Support agent

You may want to rephrase this

[theymos]

Hey, theymos. I have a question. It seems Trust Flags Rules say that only a Victim can create a Flag. But, What about when it comes to a Company? For example casino. If Casino is the Victim. Who is able to create a Flag against scammers? Should Casino owners create a Flag because he owns the casino and he is the actual victim? If yes, I have something to tell you about this.

If an organization is the victim, then anyone authorized by the organization to act on the organization's behalf in these sorts of things can create the flag.

[Timelord2067]

Hey, theymos. I have a question. It seems Trust Flags Rules say that only a Victim can create a Flag. But, What about when it comes to a Company? For example casino. If Casino is the Victim. Who is able to create a Flag against scammers? Should Casino owners create a Flag because he owns the casino and he is the actual victim? If yes, I have something to tell you about this.

If an organization is the victim, then anyone authorized by the organization to act on the organization's behalf in these sorts of things can create the flag.

With the "Bitcoin-SV" cluster of alts planting flags in rows across more senior ranking accounts without any checks and balances, how do you propose verifying that anyone claiming to be such a representative be vetted *before* being allowed to start waving their flags?

[LoyceV]

With the "Bitcoin-SV" cluster of alts planting flags in rows across more senior ranking accounts without any checks and balances, how do you propose verifying that anyone claiming to be such a representative be vetted *before* being allowed to start waving their flags?

That's not necessary, those Flags are unlikely to receive support. A lot of incorrect Flags are created out of revenge too, and as long as enough people use a proper Trust list, they aren't visible.

[Timelord2067]

With the "Bitcoin-SV" cluster of alts planting flags in rows across more senior ranking accounts without any checks and balances, how do you propose verifying that anyone claiming to be such a representative be vetted *before* being allowed to start waving their flags?

That's not necessary, those Flags are unlikely to receive support. A lot of incorrect Flags are created out of revenge too, and as long as enough people use a proper Trust list, they aren't visible.

Except of course, for the "gang" members, or, perhaps even people who reside in similar geo/political regions who decide to close ranks and vote as a block to vote up or down a flag ...

If an organization is the victim, then anyone authorized by the organization to act on the organization's behalf in these sorts of things can create the flag.

Getting back to the topic that naim027 asked and my example given; "Bitcoin-SV" cluster of alts claimed to represent an organisation.  How do you ( LoyceV and or theymos) propose representatives of organizations (including, but no limited to Casinos) are vetted prior to planting Flags on people's front lawns?

[actmyname]

How do you ( LoyceV and or theymos) propose representatives of organizations (including, but no limited to Casinos) are vetted prior to planting Flags on people's front lawns?

With some subjective standard that we try to implement as objectively as possible, just like the regular DefaultTrust trust list.

Only, flags are good because you can properly oppose/affirm individual feedback from users instead of having to include all of their feedback.
Where they aren't that great is in the limited usage of them being post-scam for the flags that can be displayed to most users (non-Newbie/7-day).

If you are able to pragmatically determine that a user is appropriately representing the will of some group, that's all. Though, in application, I would probably extend the threshold a touch more due to the nature of forum limitations.

[GazetaBitcoin]

I will send you merit if theymos responds to you. 

He actually responded

Cum Support agent

You may want to rephrase this

Actually, in elevated English, there is the expression of two attributes of a same entity, tied up with the Latin term cum, which means "with" or "and". For example, in the extraordinary Wired article from 1993 named Crypto rebels, Stephen Levy, the author, named the Cypherpunks as "techie-cum-civil libertarians". This meant that Cypherpunks were both "techie libertarians" and "civil libertarians".

Indeed, this expression containing the Latin word "cum" is not very used. Mostly authors use it. But, coming back to naim's post, he said

I am a Moderator Cum Support agent

If we are to give him credit for no spelling error, then maybe he actually used also the Latin "cum" and if so, his statement means "I am a Moderator agent and Support agent (too)"

[digaran]

Hey boss😘😘. How can I see who created and supported a flag on me? With my account I couldn't find anything, as a guest I could see the following, with an imprisoned(newbie) account I can see the same with no links.

Is the above gigantic warning a default setting based on negative feedback? According to OP, one has to create a flag for the warning to show up, I wonder who planted that flag on my territory.🤔

Edit, couldn't see such red box on a DT member with several negatives.

[shasan]

Is the above gigantic warning a default setting based on negative feedback? According to OP, one has to create a flag for the warning to show up, I wonder who planted that flag on my territory.🤔

Edit, couldn't see such red box on a DT member with several negatives.

It is not based on negative trust but it is based on the flag type as well as flag supporters. When any flag (flag type 2/3) is created and supported by 3 or more DTs. It shows on the profile "Trade with extreme caution" and the topic created by that person shows like the image you have mentioned.

[digaran]

Is the above gigantic warning a default setting based on negative feedback? According to OP, one has to create a flag for the warning to show up, I wonder who planted that flag on my territory.🤔

Edit, couldn't see such red box on a DT member with several negatives.

It is not based on negative trust but it is based on the flag type as well as flag supporters. When any flag (flag type 2/3) is created and supported by 3 or more DTs. It shows on the profile "Trade with extreme caution" and the topic created by that person shows like the image you have mentioned.

So do I need to remove the exclusions on my trust page to see who posted, supported the flag? I didn't know I was such of a big threat to this community to have me red flagged during inactivity, or maybe it's recent? I can't tell because there is no time and date.

Anyways this is a sad development for scammers like me, no more shortcuts then. lol.

[shasan]

So do I need to remove the exclusions on my trust page to see who posted, supported the flag? I didn't know I was such of a big threat to this community to have me red flagged during inactivity, or maybe it's recent? I can't tell because there is no time and date.

Anyways this is a sad development for scammers like me, no more shortcuts then. lol.

There is no flag against you. But you received several negative trusts from DT several years ago. You can see those from your trust page. You may remove them from your default trust but that will not help you cause others will be able to see your negative trust. There is no way to remove those except those who gave you negative trust.

[LoyceV]

How can I see who created and supported a flag on me?

If there is an inactive Flag, you can see this on the Trust page:

Inactive flags
This user has inactive flags, which may be totally inaccurate.

If there's an active Flag, it's harder to miss.

[digaran]

So the red box above is just there by default on non-DT members but doesn't show on DT members? Viewing DT members as guest doesn't show that red box, they have negative trust though.