Trust flags

[bill gator]

A negative rating right now is completely useless ... I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.

It's like you really are a cat; so afraid of a changing environment!

I'd be careful with taking a liberal approach towards the scammer flags. Your statement makes it sounds like you're just going to replace your previous usage of negative trust with scammer flags, at least that's how I heard it; can you please correct me where I'm wrong?

1. Getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location, sort of like reviews on sites like EBay.

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

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.

Negative ratings are far from useless, and it's almost like you didn't read the OP. If all you've gotten from this thread is "Negatives are useless, we use flags now", then you're in for a bumpy ride.

Side-Note: Any plans to have a "flag history" per user, those that they've created, supported and opposed?

[Lauda]

It's like you really are a cat; so afraid of a changing environment!

I'd be careful with taking a liberal approach towards the scammer flags. Your statement makes it sounds like you're just going to replace your previous usage of negative trust with scammer flags, at least that's how I heard it; can you please correct me where I'm wrong?

There is no requirement for one to be a scammer to receive a negative rating any more. I will not be participating in the flag games other than for a few notable cases/figures. Once more people start getting scammed because of a lack of victim-created-flags, then liberals might see why such a system is flawed. Then again, liberals like to be blind in spite of evidence. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[suchmoon]

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

Why would those not be considered "written"?

I thought "casual or implied" was something not specifically stated. For example you shipped me an item won in an auction but it got damaged in the mail. Neither party had said anything about insurance beforehand. I might have an implied contract claim against you because the sender is typically responsible for delivery.

But if you don't honor the winning bid, or don't ship after taking the money, or fail to do something else that's spelled out in your auction terms - that sounds like a written contract violation.

[Lauda]

But if you don't honor the winning bid, or don't ship after taking the money, or fail to do something else that's spelled out in your auction terms - that sounds like a written contract violation.

Where in the auction is it written that I'm supposed to ship to you after I take your money? Maybe I implied I will ship it to somewhere else regardless of who wins? Funny Swiss-cheese system this is.

[bill gator]

There is no requirement for one to be a scammer to receive a negative rating any more. I will not be participating in the flag games other than for a few notable cases/figures.

Was being a scammer a requirement to receive negative ratings before? *Checks self for buggies* Flagging should be left to more clear-cut cases of scamming, if that's what you mean by notable then I have no qualms with that.

Once more people start getting scammed because of a lack of victim-created-flags, then liberals might see why such a system is flawed. Then again, liberals like to be blind in spite of evidence. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I was using the word "liberal" non-politically. That was one of my concerns as well, the fact that it requires a victim to create the flag - I understand the reasoning behind it, but I just hope that a high enough percentage of victims actually follows through and understands the system well enough to use it as intended.

Be nice to the liberals or FH is gonna bite ya!

I think semantic games are going to be our biggest hurdle before actually seeing the flags do their job.

[Lauda]

Was being a scammer a requirement to receive negative ratings before? *Checks self for buggies* Flagging should be left to more clear-cut cases of scamming, if that's what you mean by notable then I have no qualms with that.

Yes and no. It was semi-silently introduced as a "guideline" not long ago; never really enforced, and now it's irrelevant due to flags and removal of the warning. Your rating is valid and my flag on your is also valid, I guess. Maybe. Who knows. It's a terrible system either way; it would have worked if it was like this from day one (maybe).

Be nice to the liberals or FH is gonna bite ya!

Liberals remind me of Patrick's pet rock.

[TheNewAnon135246]

@Theymos, I have opened a scam accusation here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153498.0

People have lost money/had to recover their funds because of this user and I have included several clear fact-statements in my topic. Would it be against the rules for me to (attempt to) add a scammer flag since I personally haven't dealt with the user in question?

[wwzsocki]

I already see a lot of improvements in this new system and I am sure that it will be much fairer than the previous one.

There is already no way to destroy an account with only one accusation or single vote from DT1 member.

Thought exactly about something like this, that more DT1 members have to agree, that one is a scammer to tag him.

I hope, we finally have a trust system which would be really working and give us the filling of security here on the forum.

[Lauda]

Would it be against the rules for me to (attempt to) add a scammer flag since I personally haven't dealt with the user in question?

Yes. You can only leave the weakest-type flag if you weren't harmed personally.

Just to confirm, you are not allowed to create a contract violation flag unless you were personally harmed, correct?

Correct.

[bill gator]

Your rating is valid and my flag on your is also valid, I guess. Maybe. Who knows.

I'm like 99% sure this is exactly what theymos classified as "crystal-clear abuse" in his OP.
Let me know when you make the thread, please?
I think your rating is flimsy, and unwarranted.

Liberals remind me of Patrick's pet rock.

I've always wanted a pet rock, but they keep biting me.

[Lauda]

Your rating is valid and my flag on your is also valid, I guess. Maybe. Who knows.

I'm like 99% sure this is exactly what theymos classified as "crystal-clear abuse" in his OP.

No, that's for the contract-violation flag. Your flag has nothing to do with that. Read the whole thread again.

[bill gator]

No, that's for the contract-violation flag. Your flag has nothing to do with that. Read the whole thread again.

So you've made a thread about flagging me and the local-rule is that I am not allowed to respond or defend myself from your blatantly slanderous flag. I wouldn't expect anything less from a meower.

Code:

This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions.

You're telling me any knowledgeable and reasonable forum user agrees that you're likely to lose money if dealing with me?
This is not based on your opinion(s)?

If this isn't opinion-based, or rather fantasy-based, then please point me to the facts that would lead any reasonable and knowledgeable person to believe anyone that conducts business with me is likely to lose money.

I'll be waiting with a stack of users that have not lost money doing business with me, and that would be happy to continue doing business with me.

I don't even think you believe that anyone is at risk of losing money by transacting with me.

[Lauda]

I don't even think you believe that anyone is at risk of losing money by transacting with me.

I would not trust you with $1, that's how strongly I believe that you are a risk. Nobody should transact with you, ever.

[bill gator]

I would not trust you with $1, that's how strongly I believe that you are a risk. Nobody should transact with you, ever.

You're in the super-minority with that thought.

Waiting to hear how this isn't your opinion.

[The-One-Above-All]

It's like you really are a cat; so afraid of a changing environment!

I'd be careful with taking a liberal approach towards the scammer flags. Your statement makes it sounds like you're just going to replace your previous usage of negative trust with scammer flags, at least that's how I heard it; can you please correct me where I'm wrong?

There is no requirement for one to be a scammer to receive a negative rating any more. I will not be participating in the flag games other than for a few notable cases/figures. Once more people start getting scammed because of a lack of victim-created-flags, then liberals might see why such a system is flawed. Then again, liberals like to be blind in spite of evidence. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There never was any requirement before. You gave negative ratings because people presented irrefutable evidence you scammed yourself? how does that make them a scammer exactly??

Great news LaudaM. Bye!!

We don't need you using this excuse to hide and threaten people not to present evidence of your own scamming any longer.

Just stop crying and whining on though like a little bitch.

Mid level scammers like you sneaked around the edges of the old system just managing to stay "gray"

At least now scammers like you are unable to use this system to silence whistle blowing of their own foul deeds.

Just shut up now, we have heard enough of your crying on that you want to retain your powers to trust abuse. You have no power here lauda worm tongue.

....and then lauda said: this trust system is flawed now that I can no longer use it to silence whistle blowing ....hahahaha
.....what will I do now that I can not brand members scammers for presenting observable instances that I lied and scammed......hahaha
..... it's all just so flawed now, what kind of trust system is this?

It just doesn't make any sense for me to use this system any longer says laudaM ... I simply can not game it for my own personal use any longer. I'm not playing.

Ok don't let the door slam on the way out. Thanks for being the main driving force for change, you trust abusing scamming wretch. We'll let you know when you we need you to dance again monkey.

[TheNewAnon135246]

Would it be against the rules for me to (attempt to) add a scammer flag since I personally haven't dealt with the user in question?

Yes. You can only leave the weakest-type flag if you weren't harmed personally.

Just to confirm, you are not allowed to create a contract violation flag unless you were personally harmed, correct?

Correct.

I understand what Theymos is trying to do with the flag system but not being able to an obvious scammer, and supplying supporting evidence, who caused people to lose money is odd.

EDIT: Can we try to not derail this topic with personal accusations? Please let's keep this about the flags in general.

[Lauda]

I would not trust you with $1, that's how strongly I believe that you are a risk. Nobody should transact with you, ever.

You're in the super-minority with that thought.

Waiting to hear how this isn't your opinion.

This determination is based on concrete red flags

You bought your account = red fact. No opinion needed. Are you asking for a stronger tag or what?

I understand what Theymos is trying to do with the flag system but not being able to an obvious scammer, and supplying supporting evidence, who caused people to lose money is odd.

I don't understand how people didn't realize this right away: If there is no victim around / no victim creates a flag = no scam has occurred. That is the new system.

[redsn0w]

Who said there will be no drama? I'll be back in a few minutes with some pop-corn to read all the posts that I'll miss.....

[bill gator]

No opinion needed. Are you asking for a stronger tag or what?

I'm looking for justification. How does purchasing an account equate to others losing money by dealing with me? Especially considering I have done dozens of deals worth thousands of dollars without a single negative trust related to any transaction I've ever done.

Please stop making these ominous threats, about "stronger" tags (abuse) when I am being nothing but nice and trying to have a conversation with you about where I believe you're going about things incorrectly.

What you're claiming conflicts with reality, entirely.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I thought "casual or implied" was something not specifically stated. For example you shipped me an item won in an auction but it got damaged in the mail. Neither party had said anything about insurance beforehand. I might have an implied contract claim against you because the sender is typically responsible for delivery.

I'm not sure.

To me, a written contract needs to have a clearly written set of rules, which the user in question explicitly says they are agreeing to. Anything less than that would be implied. Many escrow, loan, auction, sales, etc., threads have a list of rules which could be considered a written contract in OP's post, but not all. As Lauda says, many auctions don't state anywhere in writing that the item will actually be shipped after the auction. This is simply implied. And very rarely does a user ever post "I fully agree with the rules/contract which OP has posted", but it is implied that they do by posting in the thread in question.

As I said, these are just my initial thoughts on reading theymos' post, and I may be way off mark here. I think we need some clarification from theymos on this so that everyone in the forum is adhering to the same set of rules for using these new flags.