Trust flags

[Lauda]

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

I'm looking for justification. How does successfully 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.

I don't care about your opinion, belief or whatever. My statement on your shadiness is probably permanent and given your behaviour recently pre- and post- discovery, there is absolutely no reason to invest any more thought into considering a change. Stop wasting your own and my time. The weakest-type flag is not abuse for this, which is why I picked it and will be using this type of flag for cases where I am not a direct victim.

[1715614800]

1715614800

[1715614800]

1715614800

[1715614800]

1715614800

[1715614800]

1715614800

[bill gator]

If there is no victim around / no victim creates a flag = no scam has occurred. That is the new system.

That's sort of the opposite of what you're doing to me; no scam has occured, no victim ever existed, but you're happy to create a false-flag.

My opinion ...

That's kind of where the problem is, this is not opinion based and you are playing games with words.

Code:

it is not based on the user's opinions.

The weakest-type flag is not abuse for this, which is why I picked it and will be using this type of flag for cases where I am not a direct victim.

You're using this in a case where there is no victim, and have no reason to believe there ever would have been or will be.
You literally just justified your flag on me, by stating "My opinion" when that is clearly the opposite of it's intended use.

Edit: I like how you changed "opinion" to statement, niiiiiiice.

[Lauda]

Statement, no opinions. Cry elsewhere and let people get back on topic.

[bill gator]

You don't think that this is precisely on topic? You've left a flag that I believe to be the opposite of the intended use of the system. Let's talk about anything other than what Lauda is doing, shh.

You're the one that called it your opinion, then edited it and are now claiming "no opinions."

I believe you're using your opinions where facts should go, and I think you're using your dislike of me as justification to see how far you can bend the new system from the beginning.

[Lauda]

I believe you're using your opinions where facts should go, and I think you're using your dislike of me as justification to see how far you can bend the new system from the beginning.

No opinions. I'm getting blacklisted because of this early flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35. So quit crying already and grow up.

[bill gator]

No opinions.

I'm worried for you, you're becoming a broken-record. How you feel about me, is your opinion, and anything you wrap around that won't make it any less of an opinion.
I have never scammed anyone, never had intentions to scam anyone and I have not violated any contracts (casual, written or otherwise). Nobody reasonable or knowledgeable would consider me a scammer, potential-scammer or someone that puts the other party at financial risk simply for doing business with me.

I'm getting blacklisted because of this early flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35.

Why are you intentionally trying to get blacklisted?

[Lauda]

I'm getting blacklisted because of this early flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35.

Why are you intentionally trying to get blacklisted?

The system is terrible. Other's have followed in blindly on that flag not knowing/understanding the full stupidity of the system (or just for the sake of testing - see yahoo's post) at the time. I wasn't sure of how bad the implications of it either, i.e. it's much more worse than I originally thought. Now that that has sorted (there is no support on the flag), it's all good. I'm fine with a blacklist if mr. theymos wants to. All flags created after that are fully valid; maybe only not the flag on BSV.
Update: Rewrite.

[bill gator]

I'm fine with a blacklist if mr. theymos wants to.

You're kind of forcing their hand if you're going to intentionally go against the system and leave flags that you know are blacklist-worthy.
Do you think that's going to push the system out of existence or in a more positive direction?

[Hhampuz]

Some users seem to be very happy with this change, so wholesome.

[Lauda]

You're kind of forcing their hand if you're going to intentionally go against the system and leave flags that you know are blacklist-worthy.

All flags created after that are fully valid; maybe only not the flag on BSV.

I stand by it. Roger Ver:

It seems that it is fine to support a flag, as long as the accusation is based on clear fact-statements and doesn't contain false accusations.

There you go. I used August 2017 as the date. Flag link:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=52.

[bill gator]

Some users seem to be very happy with this change, so wholesome.

Some users seem to be very unhappy with this change, so loathsome.

Realistically, people get excited for change - most of America's leaders get elected on the idea "Our system sucks, I'm gonna make change!" Of course there's going to be excitement whenever a change is introduced, people want to be optimistic and see a brighter future. Whether or not the change is going to be in favor of the people happy about it, that's a problem for the next election.

The change seems positive, because it further compartmentalizes the trust-system in an appropriate direction.

The semantic games are going to ensue that will attempt to keep the system as it was/has been, but give it a couple of headache filled weeks where the usual members bash their heads together until we find a middle-ground that nobody is happy about.

[The-One-Above-All]

Some users seem to be very happy with this change, so wholesome.

Yes, probably the members that are sick and tired of your trust abusing pals using red trust to silence observable instances of their lying and scamming, and enforcing double standards and different rules for their "friends".

Why don't you just stick to supporting the dox of forum treasurers than poking your brown nose in here.

Looks like the racket you campaign mangers were running with these red trusting / meriting goons is almost up.

If you start moving the goal posts to claiming they must now not have a negative score (that is NOW NOTHING TO DO WITH SCAMMING) you will be showing how far you are really willing to go to keep creaming off the best campaign manager jobs and giving the best spots to your trust abusing friends. That will be your certain demise. Sorry people here want a fair and transparent system where each member is treated equally.

Also where is that 0.5 BTC gone to?  You seem to be keeping quiet about that.

The only people crying about this change seem to be the ONLY people that have observable undeniable instances of scamming in their post histories that they can not hide now.

The new flag system is pushing towards a very transparent and observably fair system (if enforced). What's the matter don't like things being transparent and fair hhampuz??

You already admitted that you do not want to be transparent and open about the rules you selectively apply to different people to grant access or deny them entry to your shady campaigns. TRANSPARENT FAIR RULES THAT APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL MEMBERS - this is what this community is all about. Not shady back room deals.

If you don't like this new transparent and open flag system you are demonstrating clearly you should not be a campaign manager. Not that you have not demonstrated that previously by refusing to be transparent anyway.

1. refusing to be transparent in the selection process of your campaigns
2. supporting the doxing and bullying of a forum treasurer
3. not answering where the remaining funds went to from best mixer

stop trying to pretend you are wholesome- dirt bag.

[Thule]

Nice to see finally a positive change which is more transparent fair and most important limits the possibilities of abuse from Lauda and a few other people by saying that only victims are allowed to create flags which makes it now impossible for them to instantly create 4-8 negative trust feedbacks based on nothing


Good work Theymos

[Hhampuz]

Some users seem to be very happy with this change, so wholesome.

~

Oh shit, didn't mean to step on any toes here. Just thought it was wholesome that so many people are happy with the change.

[mosprognoz]

A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it.

Does that mean that a newbie with a lot of alts (There are a lot of them here) can red flag you and destroy you profile? In that case you must search for a bunch of opposers to clear it. Please correct me if I'm wrong

[AB de Royse777]

A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it.

Does that mean that a newbie with a lot of alts (There are a lot of them here) can red flag you and destroy you profile? In that case you must search for a bunch of opposers to clear it. Please correct me if I'm wrong

You will need support or oppose from DT members if I get the idea correct.

[eddie13]

- Globally, per year you can only create 1 flag per activity point you have, but at least 1/year.

So this means if a person has 1000 activity they can create up to 1000 flags this year, and it resets in roughly a year from now so they can create another 1000 flags next year?

[suchmoon]

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.

I think auction templates and trade threads may need some updates with the new rules in mind along the lines of "You're supposed to pay within two days after winning, I'll ship it the next business day after paying, your bid means you agree to my terms, etc" if they don't have that yet. But yeah some clarification would be nice.

Does that mean that a newbie with a lot of alts (There are a lot of them here) can red flag you and destroy you profile? In that case you must search for a bunch of opposers to clear it. Please correct me if I'm wrong

You're wrong

The trust system still works and only people in your trust network (DT by default) will count as supporters or opponents.

[mosprognoz]

A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it.

Does that mean that a newbie with a lot of alts (There are a lot of them here) can red flag you and destroy you profile? In that case you must search for a bunch of opposers to clear it. Please correct me if I'm wrong

You will need support or oppose from DT members if I get the idea correct.

DT members are not mentioned in Theymos post. It is written "A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it."

[TheNewAnon135246]

I think it should be allowed to open a scammer flag against someone without personally being a victim if:

• Victims have actually been scammed/lost money
• The accusation contains enough factual evidence

Perhaps a rule could be added that a scam accusation needs to receive an x amount of merit before being able to add a scammer flag while not being a victim, showing that accusation has received enough support from the community.

EDIT:

An accusation like this:

There you go. I used August 2017 as the date. Flag link:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=52.