Trust flags

[NLNico]

I wonder can the user that received the Flag can counter it themselves?  

Yes, it is possible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=32 but if user not in DT (well your trust network).. I guess it's equal to a new account opposing it.

[1714139117]

1714139117

[1714139117]

1714139117

[1714139117]

1714139117

[1714139117]

1714139117

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Edit: I supported it, not sure if I'm in your network but that may have made it visible

I am not seeing any difference when I try it with ";dt" and without ";dt"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817;dt
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817



Both you and DS are not in my trust network yet.

You and DS are in DT, QS is not so he doesn't count. Your support minus DS opposition = 0, box not shown. Yellow box needs more supporters than opponents (at least one more). Red box needs three more supporters than opponents. Only users in DT (or your custom trust network if you use that) count as supporters or opponents.

Yes I missed the DT part. It made sense for me after Steamtyme's vote.

[rhomelmabini]

Lastly, what doest the meaning of smaller font size and grey color of supporters?

I wanted to know it as well because for flag there's only "Support" and "Oppose" options and there's no such thing as neutral. What is it really meant to those italicized member on the flag?

And to create a flag will there be a specific board it will be posted?

[The Cryptovator]

So for every red flags we need create thread so that other DT member will aware about flags. Also other members will aware by "#" symbol but need to enter on profile.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I wanted to know it as well because for flag there's only "Support" and "Oppose" options and there's no such thing as neutral. What is it really meant to those italicized member on the flag?

They are not in the DT network. Their vote do not count.

And to create a flag will there be a specific board it will be posted?

No.

[Quickseller]

So for every red flags we need create thread so that other DT member will aware about flags. Also other members will aware by "#" symbol but need to enter on profile.

You need to create a thread and obtain support from others that the flag is accurate.

Each type of flags make very specific statements that articulate how/why a person is unsafe to deal with.

[LoyceV]

For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created.

Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io violated a contract, but BetKing Support, dean nolan and PocketRocketsCasino are his alt-accounts.

[bones261]

I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented. Correct? Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?

[Quickseller]

For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created.

Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io violated a contract, but BetKing Support, dean nolan and PocketRocketsCasino are his alt-accounts.

I would argue that if the flag is true in regards to a business, the flag should be applicable to agents or employees of the businesses in most circumstances.

If someone were to resign from said business, and they did not play a role in the underlying facts that cause the flag to be accurate, the flag would probably be no longer appropriate for the now former employee.

There might be other circumstances in which a flag might not be appropriate, for example someone being hired by a business to clean up the mess surrounding the scam that resulted in the flag.

I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented. Correct? Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?

Each person can create a flag, however it will probably be redundant to to create more than a handful.

Also, if a person exit scammed, they generally will not continue trying to trade. If they never login again, getting the person flagged is probably redundant, if they try to continue trading, they should be flagged.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created.

Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io violated a contract, but BetKing Support, dean nolan and PocketRocketsCasino are his alt-accounts.

If there is a proof of connection (same person/company) then it should be practical.

[roosbit]

I am wondering will users be able to remove a scammer flag early in the spirit of forgiveness. Do users in your trust network automatically support flags or do they need to take action?

The original accuser can withdraw their support, but they can't delete the flag. So other users could take it up even if they withdraw.

Flags need to be actively supported.

Here's a user with a flag that you could support/oppose:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=157669
And if you log out or use a newbie account, you can see the banner on their topic:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2690003.0

Scenario one talks more of a flag being supported but in the event of the flag being outweighed by opposers does that mean the flag won't stand ??
And what happens in the case of a deadlock were support=oppose

Admin can we get a child board in meta for all FLAGS

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented. Correct? Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?

Each victim can make their own flag.

[Lauda]

Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.

[theymos]

Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io violated a contract, but BetKing Support, dean nolan and PocketRocketsCasino are his alt-accounts.

Yes, one of the victims can.

I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented.

Correct.

Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?

It's probably best if one of the victims makes a flag and the rest support it.

[mightyDTs]

Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.

Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck.

I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it.

Good work theymos.

Good bye from mightyDTs

[JayJuanGee]

Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.

Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck. I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it.

I think that Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given).  They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer....   I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).

[Lauda]

Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.

Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck. I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it.

I think that Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given).  They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer....   I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).

In many cases it would require action from a total of 3 members per the tagged user. All in all, it's probably closer to 5k flags and at least 5k-10k support clicks. Who has time to do that? It's just not plausible (even though it would be worth it).

[Quickseller]

Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.

Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck. I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it.

I think that Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given).  They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer....   I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).

The purpose of the new system is to demonstrate that there is consensus that someone is not safe to trade with. The ability to one person to label a person as a scammer is being removed, which is a good thing.

If it is clear a person is a scammer, this should be a nonissue, but controversial ratings will be more difficult to backup. 

[Lauda]

Two problems already:

An Error Has Occurred!
That topic does not exist, or it is self-moderated or locked.

5) the incident occurred roughly in the month given above.

In many cases, the "incident" has been going on for a considerable time before being discovered.

The purpose of the new system is to demonstrate that there is consensus that someone is not safe to trade with. The ability to one person to label a person as a scammer is being removed, which is a good thing.

If it is clear a person is a scammer, this should be a nonissue, but controversial ratings will be more difficult to backup. 

Don't worry, you'll be flagged again.

[JayJuanGee]

Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.

Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck. I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it.

I think that Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given).  They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer....   I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).

The purpose of the new system is to demonstrate that there is consensus that someone is not safe to trade with. The ability to one person to label a person as a scammer is being removed, which is a good thing.

If it is clear a person is a scammer, this should be a nonissue, but controversial ratings will be more difficult to backup.  

Yes... overall I get the purpose as you describe, which seems quite legitimate, but I still stand by my earlier post concerning some of the seeming problematic transitional work aspects.. and seemingly even some necessity for repeated work that might not get carried out because frequently people do not like to go back and repeat work that they have already done.. and that would have been more fresh in their mind when they had done it earlier, as compared to now or after the passage of time.  This will cause some members who deserve negative ratings to receive a blank slate that they might not deserve.. and that blank slate might not get returned to where it should be... but yeah, hopefully no babies die along the way... and during this transition period.