Trust flags

[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. 

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 take 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.

Negative ratings still exist and show up as having unique negative ratings on their trust number.

[1713510429]

1713510429

[1713510429]

1713510429

[1713510429]

1713510429

[1713510429]

1713510429

[Steamtyme]

Let's not forget these are complementary systems. It's just like having more signs on the highway. The old system is still there with the ability to leave feedback. So really there is no need to go back over everything in the past.

Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.
Neutral - Other comments.
Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.

The ratings are still there and moving forward the flags can be applied as needed. You really only have to go back to flag cases you think are still active. Which is why my previous mention of something indicating a banned user or preventing a flag from being created can prevent unnecessary flags.

I created a flag for an implied contract for ky94PjDw I made it for 3 years and 1 month. So I'm wondering how it gets handled, right now it appears:

Despite the 3 year limitation it can be created
If made active, will it immediately disappear due to the time limitations on these?
Is there a permanent record of previous flags for which the time has been served?
Edit:
So this received enough support to but remained as expired, it does still show up under " inactive flags".

theymos can you elaborate on the whole concept of these flags disappearing. In the case of the newbie warning flag, if all supporters and the creator of the flag remove their support on that does the flag and it's warning dissapear?

[TheBeardedBaby]

I can put a flag on my own account. This should be disabled as before.



Edited: Seems like I can also Support or Oppose the flag myself.

[Lauda]

Let's not forget these are complementary systems. It's just like having more signs on the highway. The old system is still there with the ability to leave feedback. So really there is no need to go back over everything in the past.

Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.
Neutral - Other comments.
Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.

The ratings are still there and moving forward the flags can be applied as needed.

A negative rating right now is completely useless and will be disregarded by the supermajority of the users (the same way that neutral ratings always have been). I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.

[Steamtyme]

I can put a flag on my own account. This should be disabled as before.

I opposed it, nothing but slanderous lies 

A negative rating right now is completely useless and will be disregarded by the supermajority of the users (the same way that neutral ratings always have been). I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.

That's unfortunate then. It still shows up right there on any board that displays it, just as visible. The only change there is that there isn't a trust score which I felt was less informative than a tally of all feedback left. I do think I'll still be leaving a healthy mix of them all, just going to be a while figuring out when to use what. I still like the idea of using the negatives because there is no guarantee that they'll be activated in a timely fashion, so it's a good back up.

[Quickseller]

A negative rating right now is completely useless and will be disregarded by the supermajority of the users (the same way that neutral ratings always have been). I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.

That's unfortunate then. It still shows up right there on any board that displays it, just as visible. The only change there is that there isn't a trust score which I felt was less informative than a tally of all feedback left. I do think I'll still be leaving a healthy mix of them all, just going to be a while figuring out when to use what. I still like the idea of using the negatives because there is no guarantee that they'll be activated in a timely fashion, so it's a good back up.

I don't see any reason why people will outright ignore negative ratings. They will still review the ratings, and take them into consideration, but if there is no clear articulation as to why or how they are unsafe to trade with, they will be rightfully ignored.

I don't think it will be possible to weaponize the trust system anymore. Or at least it will be much more difficult to do so. 

[TECSHARE]

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).

I think that is kind of the point, that people who make an industry of leaving negative ratings aren't incentivized to do so any more, leaving the task to those directly effected. You personally have done more to bring about this change than anyone. I won't hold my breath for the sky falling, but you feel free to.

[Lauda]

I can put a flag on my own account. This should be disabled as before.

I opposed it, nothing but slanderous lies  

A negative rating right now is completely useless and will be disregarded by the supermajority of the users (the same way that neutral ratings always have been). I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.

That's unfortunate then. It still shows up right there on any board that displays it, just as visible. The only change there is that there isn't a trust score which I felt was less informative than a tally of all feedback left. I do think I'll still be leaving a healthy mix of them all, just going to be a while figuring out when to use what. I still like the idea of using the negatives because there is no guarantee that they'll be activated in a timely fashion, so it's a good back up.

This also means that the previous guideline for negative ratings is not valid anymore. You don't need to be scammed, not even close to that. You can, much more freely, leave negative ratings. It's all about those unconsidered side-effects.   This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.

[hd49728]

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.

You likely were wrong. I even can flag myself, and my name in Support List is not in italic font style or grey color
Please check it there: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1520746
As iasenko suggeted, users should not be able to flag themselves. Maybe it is a bug.

I can put a flag on my own account. This should be disabled as before.

[Quickseller]

This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.

I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags.

[Lauda]

This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.

I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags.

Anyone who has bought either one of those coins thinking it was Bitcoin has been outright scammed. There are thousands of these victims. I will be leaving them, especially on HostFat. You can cry somewhere else.

[redsn0w]

For example Lauda left a flag (that is labeled as inactive) to quickseller (reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5152349.0)



What do you think about it?

[Lauda]

What do you think about it?

I think I should be blacklisted as the victims are gone or afraid to speak out, and acting on their behalf is against the format.

[TECSHARE]

This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.

I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags.

Let Lauda bury themselves... they are now fighting an uphill battle.

[Quickseller]

For example Lauda left a flag (that is labeled as inactive) to quickseller (reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5152349.0)



What do you think about it?

I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this:

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.

Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2.

What do you think about it?

I think I should be blacklisted as the victims are gone or afraid to speak out, and acting on their behalf is against the format.

More projection I see.

[Lauda]

For example Lauda left a flag (that is labeled as inactive) to quickseller (reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5152349.0)



What do you think about it?

I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this:

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.

Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2.

It's excellent. Most DT members will be afraid to support this move; the more do and show that they actually do back up their words, the more fun this will be. Wipe out most of the old DT for flagging a known scammer, that will show them abusers! Direct link to flag is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35.
FYI, BSV has already been handled. Next is HostFat and Bcash.

[Quickseller]

For example Lauda left a flag (that is labeled as inactive) to quickseller (reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5152349.0)



What do you think about it?

I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this:

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.

Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2.

It's excellent. Most DT members will be afraid to support this move; the more do and show that they actually do back up their words, the more fun this will be. Wipe out most of the old DT for flagging a known scammer, that will show them abusers! Direct link to flag is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35.

Well to be entirely fair, there are a decent number of scammers who support you on DT, so blacklisting these people would not be all that bad.

[Lauda]

Well to be entirely fair, there are a decent number of scammers who support you on DT, so blacklisting these people would not be all that bad.

Yawn. Is this all you got? You got a dose of hopium, thinking you'll get back to scamming again just before I flagged you again.



Looks great to me. Most of your threads are fraudulent, and it should be shown as such.

[TheNewAnon135246]

This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.

I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags.

Craig Wright is pretending to be Satoshi and he plagiarized the Bitcoin whitepaper. There are countless of examples shown here: https://stopcraigwright.com. Anyone actively supporting BSV is claiming that it is Bitcoin. BSV is a scam.

[Quickseller]

This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.

I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags.

Craig Wright is pretending to be Satoshi and he plagiarized the Bitcoin whitepaper. There are countless of examples shown here: https://stopcraigwright.com. Anyone actively supporting BSV is claiming that it is Bitcoin. BSV is a scam.

It sounds to me like you are supporting weaponizing the trust system. You should be blacklisted.

If you have technical arguments as to why BSV is inferior to bitcoin, or other altcoins, you should make them. While I acknowledge you are incapable of making a well rounded argument, about anything, I do not doubt that others who are smart can make arguments against BSV, and people can judge for themselves if they want to buy/use it.