Trust flags

[coinlocket$]

1st feedback is visual

I think the code of trust score should be Bolded on the profile to be more effective

Before talking more on it, I need to study it see u later.




 

[1714953970]

1714953970

[1714953970]

1714953970

[1714953970]

1714953970

[yahoo62278]

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.

I deleted my support as I was just testing the flag system, but if someone flags you over the self escrow ordeal I will support that and keep it there.

Still reading this thread and new system and seems like a lot of extra work but it does force a user to show their work so to speak. Should we go through all our previous feedbacks left and flag users for scam activities? For example, in my case I have a few bounty cheaters and signature campaign cheaters?

[yogg]

I deleted my support as I was just testing the flag system, but if someone flags you over the self escrow ordeal I will support that and keep it there.

It's a shame that we cannot use self-moderated and/or locked threads as references for flag. What about archives ? They prevent some posts from being edited.
This thread & msg wouldn't work but is highly relevant : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12421096#msg12421096

[coinlocket$]

Another feedback

I have over 1000 Negative feedback sent to abusers and with the new limited feedbacks for page on trust profile https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1339716 is a nightmare to navigate them.

Can you please rollback this page as it was before?

For people with a lot of feedbacks is impossible so search something there.

[LoyceV]

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.

Neutral tags serve a purpose. Some examples from the feedback I left:

See Reference link for a signed message that proves ownership of the account.
Shasan has a temp ban. If you need to contact him, use other means.
Leaves fake red trust to spam hunters after theymos wiped all yobit signatures.
I tagged this account as being stolen on August 7, 2018. It has been recovered by the original owner on February 22, 2019.

These have nothing to do with scams, it's more like adding sticky notes to a user. And indeed, they're intended to be ignored by users.
From what I understand, you can only create Flags when you've been scammed. That means negative ratings still serve a purpose.

I like the much bigger warning on topics created by a Flagged scammer! It also makes sense to only create Flags for users that scammed you personally. That means it's really worth the extra effort, and it shouldn't be used at massive numbers. I've checked all my feedback, and only one person (with 4 accounts) really qualifies for a Flag. Can I request Flag support here?

Flags
Flag on BetKing.io
Flag on BetKing Support
Flag on PocketRocketsCasino
Flag on dean nolan

I have over 1000 Negative feedback sent to abusers and with the new limited feedbacks for page on trust profile https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1339716 is a nightmare to navigate them.

Can you please rollback this page as it was before?

For people with a lot of feedbacks is impossible so search something there.

I'd like to see at least 1000 ratings per page, that's high enough to make searching easier, and low enough to load the page quickly.

[TheBeardedBaby]

We need a log for all the flag activity now, all the created flags + those who support or oppose them.
I can change my support to opposition as many times as I want no restrictions there. I've tested it on my own Flag which I created.

Just a side note> I can create a new flag after 180 days of creation of the first one.
and the Trust feedback are rearranged from top to bottom- newest to oldest.

[LoyceV]

We need a log for all the flag activity now, all the created flags + those who support or oppose them.

If Vod doesn't beat me to it, I'll cook something up when I have time. Don't expect it within a few weeks though.
Update: see LoyceV's Trust Flag viewer.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I'm curious as to what we should be doing about the obvious attempted, but not yet successful, scams. Things like:

• Promoting a doubler, "Send 0.2 ETH to get 2 ETH back", 20% a day ROI, that kind of thing
• Promoting obvious Ponzis, "HYIP", etc.
• Selling gift cards or codes at a huge discount from a locked/self moderated thread with auto-buy links
• Obvious sockpuppet accounts leaving fake vouches for any of the above

These are all blatantly obvious scam attempts to any experienced user, but can and do regularly fool newbies in to parting with their coins. Are we expected to create a brand new thread in Reputation for each and every one to link to with a flag? Is simply linking to the thread they started acceptable? What about leaving them red trust as well explaining the reasons behind the flag?

Also, do newbie-warning flags expire the same as scammer flags?

[babo]

1st feedback is visual

I think the code of trust score should be Bolded on the profile to be more effective

Before talking more on it, I need to study it see u later.




 

you win the internet prize for fast meme ever

rotfl

ot: big bag theory ROCKS

[LoyceV]

I'm curious as to what we should be doing about the obvious attempted, but not yet successful, scams.

Red trust and a Newbie-warning Flag?

[Steamtyme]

I'm curious as to what we should be doing about the obvious attempted, but not yet successful, scams.

Red trust and a Newbie-warning Flag?

Agreed. It's no different to the threads I plan to generically link when I find Selfmod/locked sales topics with nothing more than an off forum communication.


Has anyone thought much about what they are considering a loose commitment and written contract. I'm guessing it should go further than the "typed word= written contract". What would the standards be for pushing towards a 10 year Flag versus a 3 year flag.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Agreed. It's no different to the threads I plan to generically link when I find Selfmod/locked sales topics with nothing more than an off forum communication.

Generically link to where? A single reputation thread? That would be a much preferable outcome than having to create a single thread for every single flag for the same cluster of reasons.

Has anyone thought much about what they are considering a loose commitment and written contract. I'm guessing it should go further than the "typed word= written contract". What would the standards be for pushing towards a 10 year Flag versus a 3 year flag.

On first thought, I would have said a "casual or implied" agreement would be something along the lines of winning an auction, buying an item, or taking out a loan, where as a "written contract" would be someone signing a message from a staked address, implicitly agreeing to a stated contract. This would mean the "written contract" flag would only be used very rarely, but I suspect that might be theymos' intention given his push towards a culture of forgiveness.

[Steamtyme]

Generically link to where? A single reputation thread? That would be a much preferable outcome than having to create a single thread for every single flag for the same cluster of reasons.

You can see how I set something up rather quickly to try it out. Here's the post  in this thread.

On first thought, I would have said a "casual or implied" agreement would be something along the lines of winning an auction, buying an item, or taking out a loan, where as a "written contract" would be someone signing a message from a staked address, implicitly agreeing to a stated contract. This would mean the "written contract" flag would only be used very rarely, but I suspect that might be theymos' intention given his push towards a culture of forgiveness.

That makes sense. It may help people establish an expectation when entering certain agreements. I could see there being a services aspect to it as well, covering things like an Escrow/Lender exit scam. I guess we'll see how this develops further. The OP gives the impression that the flags might be moderated the more I reread through it. Considering there seems to be the potential for recourse if abused, and that there is a "wrong" way to use 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. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

[morvillz7z]

Under sent feedback/comments it only shows "(Created flag)" in red.

Wouldn't it be better to have what regular trust feedback has, an option to make a comment?

Now you have to click a link and then click another link. I'd rather have a brief description of what the flag is for ^[1] and a direct path to the referenced topic.

[1] - Before and After

[Lauda]

I deleted my support as I was just testing the flag system, but if someone flags you over the self escrow ordeal I will support that and keep it there.

I can't link to the original thread; my flag is about the self-escrow, it just points out a flaw in the system.

Still reading this thread and new system and seems like a lot of extra work but it does force a user to show their work so to speak. Should we go through all our previous feedbacks left and flag users for scam activities? For example, in my case I have a few bounty cheaters and signature campaign cheaters?

Have fun doing that for several thousand people, three times.

[LoyceV]

Suggestion:

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer.

This could be more accurate by replacing "One" by "Three".

[The-One-Above-All]

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.

Lauda by that logic you MUST have a scam tag.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.msg6748208#msg6748208


Lying about the dark launch. THOUSANDS of members who purchased believing your LIES there was no premine because you WERE THERE  all those that were scammed into believing the initial distribution was legit.

By your own reasoning above YOU MUST have a scam tag.  For now I believe you can tag yourself. Get on with it.

The other ratings are now just what they always should have been : FEEDBACK that is to be read and examined not just taken at face value that the person has done something wrong.

When you started using red trust to silence and deter people from presenting observable instances of SCAMMING from your own past you ensured the trust sytem had to change. You tried to use the old system to facilitate and hide your OWN scamming. Now you are crying that is no longer possible.

A great day for bitcointalk. Satoshi is celebrating right now. Free speech is returning.

We notice lauda is already refusing to act within the guidelines let's see how long he gets away with it before being put in his place.

I will not be following any broken formats. He can either fix it or blacklist me because I flagged a known scammer if he wants create damage the common good. Up to him. Last change made DT less relevant, this change makes it next to completely irrelevant. I don't care about nor support liberalist bullshit.

Already people are refusing to support his NEW abuse. Now they know their sigs are safe (if they are not scammers) you will notice more people standing up to these bullies.

The common good is getting rid of bullies like you Lauda. You had a good ride scamming, extorting, shady escrowing, top paid sig spots. Looks like soon you will need to compete on a fair level with every other member here not bully your way to extreme advantage.

This new system (if enforced) is HUGE step in returning free speech to this board.

[suchmoon]

You likely were wrong. I even can flag myself, and my name in Support List is not in italic font style or grey color

You're always in your own trust network so your vote will show as trusted for yourself. The greyed-out ones are not trusted and don't count in the +1 or +3 thresholds for the boxes to show up.

[redsn0w]

Suggestion:

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer.

This could be more accurate by replacing "One" by "Three".

Nice idea, it would be useful also to add a counter in the flag page. Something like that:

[Lafu]

Wouldnt it not be better when theymos makes an pinned thread in the reputation section and all can post there flags in there ?

So when we get this not every User has to do there one Flag thread and all flags are in one thread , and i guess this will also help to get maybe some support one some flags they where posted in there !

Dont know if this suggestion was posted already , when yes sry !