Trust flags

[Thule]

You are running very interesting social experiment here  

So basically, color has changed from red to orange and DT feedback is still visible. And some users are happy that their visible red "-ve" feedback remained visible to whoever clicks on their trust page, and, it shows the same number when they post, but different color and number order has been changed. For example:

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

I just don't get it.


And these flags are for people who are not logged in, everyone else can click on each users profile and read why someone has..."-ge"...

Exectly everyone needs to read and see's instantly Laudas and the other BS explanation/claim

So what has changed? Color?

No that people actually have to read these feedbacks and can make their own judement is this is scamming or some kind of BS instead of instantly juding when seeing the negative trust score.
Big diffrence.
And also i'm not called a scammer anymore for which i asked proof for nearly 2 years now but these are just personal opinions now.

But the most important part is that now forum members will be punished for adding false flags which was previously ignored.

[1685874641]

1685874641

[1685874641]

1685874641

[1685874641]

1685874641

[marlboroza]

You are running very interesting social experiment here  

So basically, color has changed from red to orange and DT feedback is still visible. And some users are happy that their visible red "-ve" feedback remained visible to whoever clicks on their trust page, and, it shows the same number when they post, but different color and number order has been changed. For example:

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

I just don't get it.


And these flags are for people who are not logged in, everyone else can click on each users profile and read why someone has..."-ge"...

Exectly everyone needs to read and see's instantly Laudas and the other BS explanation/claim

So what has changed? Color?

No that people actually have to read these feedbacks and can make their own judement is this is scamming or some kind of BS instead of instantly juding when seeing the negative trust score.
Big diffrence.

Ok, so what has changed except color, for example, in your case?

edit

For him: Nothing. Thule will remain where he is.

And for other users who are tagged and now they have negative orange number? I don't think this change things too much, at least not from my point of view.

[Lauda]

[ad hominem]
[insults]
[deflection]
[holier-than-thou attitude]

You sure are a pleasant one to engage with.

I wonder whose alts you will be.

Be wary with thy merit, feline friend. Anticipate the incontinence of one's ability to hold back on the alt accusation.

Have fun. I'll merit you even if you start going after me. I'm not a source, I don't have alts nor would I ever sell merit. Ya'll good.

Ok, so what has changed except color, for example, in your case?

For him: Nothing. Thule will remain where he is.

[TECSHARE]

[ad hominem]
[insults]
[deflection]
[holier-than-thou attitude]

You sure are a pleasant one to engage with.

I wonder whose alts you will be.

Be wary with thy merit, feline friend. Anticipate the incontinence of one's ability to hold back on the alt accusation.

Has Lauda totally lost it now and their mind has finally fractured into multiple personalities conversing with themselves?

[sandy-is-fine]

A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google.   IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.

[mosprognoz]

A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google.   IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.

You nailed it!

[suchmoon]

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.

Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

[The-One-Above-All]

We just presented observable instances of lauda lying and scamming.

You presented nothing. And as marlboroza mentioned for scammers like you nothing changed. Only color. Now instead of red scammer you are  orange scammer   Here is your trust page. Anyone can see it.

Yes when you are low functioning it is easy to be confused.

You see when I said present evidence of us scamming you must of conflated that with present evidence of your puppet masters trust abusing the old system to hide their own scamming?

Have another try fool. Not just present a wall of blatant trust abuse and observable garbage.

Please do it on a scam accusation thread and not derail this thread which is regarding removing the power of your masters whom you like felching to trust abuse whistle blowers like us.

Feltch your masters in private please not here.

Now look back a few pages and you will see we on the other hand presented an observable instance of lauda lying for financial gain. That is scamming.

[bones261]

A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google.  IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.

A newbie warning flag will also give a nice banner to guests and accounts less than 7 days old, on each thread the potential scammer creates. Only problem with the flag is that you need to reference a thread that is not locked. So if you want to warn newbies about someone who uses locked threads to sell their goods, you will need to open a thread stating your case and then flag them using your thread as a reference. I guess theymos figures that by day 8, a newbie should figure out that # means there is a newbie warning flag on the user.

[suchmoon]

A newbie warning flag will also give a nice banner to guests and accounts less than 7 days old, on each thread the potential scammer creates. Only problem with the flag is that you need to reference a thread that is not locked. So if you want to warn newbies about someone who uses locked threads to sell their goods, you will need to open a thread stating your case and then flag them using your thread as a reference. I guess theymos figures that by day 8, a newbie should figure out that # means there is a newbie warning flag on the user.

I believe it's 7 days online, which could be far more than 7 days old unless they spend 24 hours a day on the forum.

for guests and for users with less than 7 days of login time

(emphasis mine)

[ChemicalSpillage]

Is a non-victim creating a flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports an factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

It seems odd to defer the system to the principle of acting reactively rather than proactively. Removing the ability for those that are not involved in the transaction or contract means removing the potential for a flag (apart from newbie flags) to be placed on a high-risk individual before they scam.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Yeeee-ahh!  This should satisfy everybody.  Joking, of course, but I am glad that Theymos is making distinctions between things.  I definitely think that's a good idea, because as much as I don't trust members who sell accounts....not all of them are really scammers, but a negative trust (unless you read what it says) does not make that distinction.

All of these big changes seem to be made while I'm asleep.  I wake up and there's a merit system.  I wake up again and there's a 1-merit requirement to become a Jr. Member and a bunch of members are now Newbies again.  I wake up and now there's flags.  None of these were bad changes, I might add.  Thank you, Theymos.

[Lauda]

Is a non-victim creating a flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports an factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

It seems odd to defer the system to the principle of acting reactively rather than proactively. Removing the ability for those that are not involved in the transaction or contract means removing the potential for a flag (apart from newbie flags) to be placed on a high-risk individual before they scam.

No worries, this system will create victims and will tackle the culprits after they've done their scamming. This is, of course, assuming that victims do speak out and flag.

[The-One-Above-All]

A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google.  IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.

LOL says someone who obviously does not have a college degree.

They don't need to know that that score means because it means NOTHING.

Only a flag would be important to them for buying their gift card. Then they will get a red warning to help them.

The only people who will benefit are THE ENTIRE BOARD that are not scammers. Well done sandy.

If they need to study another 4 years to read some feedback they are like unable to operate a gift card.

[bones261]

A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google.  IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.

LOL says someone who obviously does not have a college degree.

They don't need to know that that score means because it means NOTHING.

Only a flag would be important to them for buying their gift card. Then they will get a red warning to help them.

The only people who will benefit are THE ENTIRE BOARD that are not scammers. Well done sandy.

If a person posts their scam solicitation post in a thread they did not start, and all they have is a newbie warning flag, all anybody will see is a # sign and perhaps an indication that a negative comments was made. This is like having a toy poodle act as a guard dog.

[Quickseller]

A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google.   IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.

LOL says someone who obviously does not have a college degree.

They don't need to know that that score means because it means NOTHING.

Only a flag would be important to them for buying their gift card. Then they will get a red warning to help them.

The only people who will benefit are THE ENTIRE BOARD that are not scammers. Well done sandy.

If a person posts their scam solicitation post in a thread they did not start, and all they have is a newbie warning flag, all anybody will see is a # sign and perhaps an indication that a negative comments was made. This is like having a toy poodle act as a guard dog.

I believe they also have a trade with extreme caution warning under their name.

[The-One-Above-All]

A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to  figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean.  I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google.   IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake.  The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.

LOL says someone who obviously does not have a college degree.

They don't need to know that that score means because it means NOTHING.

Only a flag would be important to them for buying their gift card. Then they will get a red warning to help them.

The only people who will benefit are THE ENTIRE BOARD that are not scammers. Well done sandy.

If a person posts their scam solicitation post in a thread they did not start, and all they have is a newbie warning flag, all anybody will see is a # sign and perhaps an indication that a negative comments was made. This is like having a toy poodle act as a guard dog.

I believe they also have a trade with extreme caution warning under their name.

Yes that's for a flag, so this is another non issue people are trying to dream up to prevent a fair and transparent system being introduced.
Won't wash.

[Lauda]

Lauda alleges: Bitcoin SV violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. Bitcoin SV did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around May 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.
Support: Foxpup, Lauda, TheNewAnon135246, redsn0w, mocacinno, yogg, mindrust, Hhampuz, iasenko, bitcoinPsycho, mosprognoz, Iamtutut
Opposition: Quickseller, hv_, HardFireMiner, sirsplashalot, williamuk, Olga Buzova, Bitcoin SV, reckon, Sorbent, Alex LZ Saver, exp0it, Bitcoin Cash, binance.com, Alfabank

Good system theymos. Look at the opposing accounts individually, especially "binance.com" and "Alfabank".

[mosprognoz]

Have another try fool.

Now you are a celebrity. The screenshots from your profile are posted in the warning thread for beginners.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153576.msg51442422#msg51442422

[bones261]

If a person posts their scam solicitation post in a thread they did not start, and all they have is a newbie warning flag, all anybody will see is a # sign and perhaps an indication that a negative comments was made. This is like having a toy poodle act as a guard dog.

I believe they also have a trade with extreme caution warning under their name.

Yes that's for a flag, so this is another non issue people are trying to dream up to prevent a fair and transparent system being introduced.
Won't wash.

Wrong, only a scammer flag will have that warning. A newbie warning flag will not. By the way OAA, there you go again supporting an argument and not having your facts straight. I'm not "dreaming this up." I presented the facts and then made my analogy/opinion...

A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it. It shows a banner on topics started by the flagged user for guests and for users with less than 7 days of login time. For all users, a "#" is shown next to their trust scores.

For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created. This is the only thing which causes the "Warning: trade with extreme caution" warning to return. It also triggers a banner similar to the newbie-warning banner which is visible to all users. A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.