Bitcoin Forum
June 20, 2019, 02:35:00 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Trust flags  (Read 5971 times)
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3416
Merit: 5929


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 03:25:14 AM
Merited by suchmoon (4), redsn0w (1), LoyceV (1), Steamtyme (1), mikeywith (1)
 #221

Some changes:
 - If the number of pre-flags-system negative trust ratings is greater than the number of all positive trust ratings, a warning banner is shown for guests & low-login-time newbies.
 - I added "These warning banners will disappear when you have 7 days of login time. You should familiarize yourself with the trust system before then." to the newbie warning banner. Note BTW that it usually takes months for someone to get 7 days of login time: among all 4096 users with 6.5 to 7.5 days login time, the account age (lastLogin-dateRegistered) is: maximum 3216 days, minimum 7.5, median 677, average 936.
 - The pages you see after clicking "next" are now bigger.
 


Some people are acting as though these changes are "letting scammers off the hook", but I don't really think so. Let's assume for a moment that flag types 2 & 3 are too restrictive and will therefore never be used. Even then, you can still give scammers negative feedback, which will display next to their posts in orange, and the threshold for giving negative feedback has been loosened. You can also give newbie-warning flags very easily, and the warning which this creates is shown to more people than any previous warning.

The only thing that scammers got is that they don't have red trust scores or a "trade with extreme caution" warning. But when you consider the measures in the previous paragraph, who is actually going to be scammed due to the absence of this? I think few if any. IMO the main point of these things was to punish/deter scamming, which is what was causing a lot of drama. And by making the threshold for this specific thing higher, it became reasonable to lower the threshold and widen the effect for the other warnings.

I think that scamming will be net-reduced due to these changes.

This system actually incentivizes one-account-one-scam

If someone creates a newbie account and tries to scam with it, they have roughly the same ability as before. The only thing they might be missing is a tiny piece of screen real estate shown only to logged-in users with a trust score and "Trade with extreme caution!" The more effective warnings are the banners, which have been expanded.

If someone does a long con, they have more to lose, since the scam flags create a banner for all users, and it's more exclusive and therefore meaningful. This can give you a bit more confidence in veteran members.

So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?

Newbie-warning flag.

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?

That's all misuse of the system.

@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?

If you have not been scammed by him, then you should not create a scam flag. A newbie-warning flag and/or trust rating would be OK.


On agreement types:

A written contract is a piece of text taking the rough form of "I will do this, and then you will do this in return," where both sides clearly agreed to it. It needn't be super formal, but there definitely shouldn't be any case of someone not realizing that they were agreeing to something. "I'll send you 1 BTC for the coin" -> "OK" is enough of a written contract.

Exactly what falls into an "implied agreement" may be somewhat grey-area, and certain very obvious torts may also count. Let's see how the culture around this develops.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
1561041300
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561041300

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561041300
Reply with quote  #2

1561041300
Report to moderator
1561041300
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561041300

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561041300
Reply with quote  #2

1561041300
Report to moderator
1561041300
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561041300

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561041300
Reply with quote  #2

1561041300
Report to moderator
COINSWITCH
Trade 300+ coins
No Login
No KYC
Get $5 on 1st order
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1561041300
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1561041300

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1561041300
Reply with quote  #2

1561041300
Report to moderator
Mpamaegbu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 291

Africa, My Heritage!


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 03:50:44 AM
 #222

I guess bounty managers too will now need to tweak this rule to accommodate the new flag system rather than the default trust as almost all the negative trusts have disappeared.

Quote
*Do not have any legitimate negative feedback from any DT member. Receiving negative feedback during your stay could lead to your termination from the campaign without payment or notice.

▬▬▬▬▬      BITCOINS - AFRICA     ▬▬▬▬▬
There's a thread dedicated for Africans to hangout and discuss general issue and issue relating to blockchain development in Africa.
▬▬ Join Africa Bitcointalk signature campaign ▬▬
Pffrt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 39

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 03:51:52 AM
 #223

I guess bounty managers too will now need to tweak this rule to accommodate the new flag system rather than the default trust

Quote
*Do not have any legitimate negative feedback from any DT member. Receiving negative feedback during your stay could lead to your termination from the campaign without payment or notice.
That's not relevant here.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
PLINKO    |7| SLOTS     (+) ROULETTE    ▼ BIT SPINBITVESTPLAY or INVEST ║ ✔ Rainbot  ✔ Happy Hours  ✔ Faucet
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 3528


Pedal-powered plaguebot


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 03:54:02 AM
 #224

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?

That's all misuse of the system.

Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=60
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?

Mpamaegbu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 291

Africa, My Heritage!


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 03:54:58 AM
 #225

I guess bounty managers too will now need to tweak this rule to accommodate the new flag system rather than the default trust

Quote
*Do not have any legitimate negative feedback from any DT member. Receiving negative feedback during your stay could lead to your termination from the campaign without payment or notice.
That's not relevant here.
Oh! You really do think so? Don't be ludicrous. This is going to have a ripple effects if you don't know and tweaking that campaign rule is one of such.

▬▬▬▬▬      BITCOINS - AFRICA     ▬▬▬▬▬
There's a thread dedicated for Africans to hangout and discuss general issue and issue relating to blockchain development in Africa.
▬▬ Join Africa Bitcointalk signature campaign ▬▬
Pffrt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 39

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 04:00:02 AM
 #226

I guess bounty managers too will now need to tweak this rule to accommodate the new flag system rather than the default trust

Quote
*Do not have any legitimate negative feedback from any DT member. Receiving negative feedback during your stay could lead to your termination from the campaign without payment or notice.
That's not relevant here.
Oh! You really do think so? Don't be ludicrous. This is going to have a ripple effects if you don't know and tweaking that campaign rule is one of such.
Ask bounty manager to do whatever they need. That's not a forum issue. Don't post this garbage here. It's a ongoing discussion thread, and it should be on topic.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
PLINKO    |7| SLOTS     (+) ROULETTE    ▼ BIT SPINBITVESTPLAY or INVEST ║ ✔ Rainbot  ✔ Happy Hours  ✔ Faucet
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1682


Practice Captcha look at Avatar, slct Fire Hydrant


View Profile WWW
June 13, 2019, 04:04:42 AM
 #227

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?

That's all misuse of the system.

Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?
The supporters are misusing the system....

The flag says:
Quote
[...]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.
The above statement is in no way true. I have continued trading after the incident in question with a small number of people, have had zero trade complaints, nor credible accusations of scamming by my trading partners or otherwise. For example:
Quote
DebitMe   2015-12-17      Lent me 3 btc on an loan with no collatoral. Was a pleasure to work with and willing to take the time to work with me when I didn't have access to a full computer. Would definately work with again.
Quote
sapta   2016-03-04      Loaned me some bits without collateral. Would do business again in the future!
Quote
xetsr   2015-10-16      sold him btc for cash in mail. I sent first. smooth deal.
Quote
J.Socal   2017-12-26      Helped @ getting my coins confirmed.thanks
^received payment in advance
Quote
jonald_fyookball   2017-04-22   Reference   lent me 200 ltc in a very professional manner.
Quote
iwantapony   2017-04-20      Another smooth trade, My bitcoin his moneygram, OgNasty as escrow !
Quote
AcoinL.L.C   2016-03-23      Provided a 10 BTC loan, great guy, easy to work with.
Quote
meatmeat   2015-12-07      My BTC for his cash...Monbux as escrow...trade was very smooth and easy
Quote
GrahamCrackers   2015-11-03   Reference   My first deal and it helped me. Thanks for being awesome and prompt.
Will deal with again.
Some others who did not leave trust feedback.

The-One-Above-All
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 12


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 04:11:20 AM
 #228

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?

That's all misuse of the system.

Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?
The supporters are misusing the system....

The flag says:
Quote
[...]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.
The above statement is in no way true. I have continued trading after the incident in question with a small number of people, have had zero trade complaints, nor credible accusations of scamming by my trading partners or otherwise. For example:
Quote
DebitMe   2015-12-17      Lent me 3 btc on an loan with no collatoral. Was a pleasure to work with and willing to take the time to work with me when I didn't have access to a full computer. Would definately work with again.
Quote
sapta   2016-03-04      Loaned me some bits without collateral. Would do business again in the future!
Quote
xetsr   2015-10-16      sold him btc for cash in mail. I sent first. smooth deal.
Quote
J.Socal   2017-12-26      Helped @ getting my coins confirmed.thanks
^received payment in advance
Quote
jonald_fyookball   2017-04-22   Reference   lent me 200 ltc in a very professional manner.
Quote
iwantapony   2017-04-20      Another smooth trade, My bitcoin his moneygram, OgNasty as escrow !
Quote
AcoinL.L.C   2016-03-23      Provided a 10 BTC loan, great guy, easy to work with.
Quote
meatmeat   2015-12-07      My BTC for his cash...Monbux as escrow...trade was very smooth and easy
Quote
GrahamCrackers   2015-11-03   Reference   My first deal and it helped me. Thanks for being awesome and prompt.
Will deal with again.
Some others who did not leave trust feedback.

When can we expect them to be blacklisted ? people abusing flags are to be blacklisted right ? let's get on with blacklisting ... what's the hold up. Boom get them off. Let show the abusers we mean business here. You will abide by the rules or you will get blacklisted. Simple.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3416
Merit: 5929


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 04:35:22 AM
 #229

Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=60
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?

Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe:
 - Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
 - Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.
 
Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.

The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
The-One-Above-All
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 12


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 04:57:33 AM
 #230

Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=60
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?

Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe:
 - Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
 - Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.
 
Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.

The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.

This leaves type 1 flags kind of open to the abuse the old system was open to? we have a type 1 flag don't we? or what kind of flag is it? we have not scammed any person, we have not tried to scam anyone and actually we don't deal in anything to do with peoples money or in anything where we could scam someone out of money?

We are still pleased this is a great step forward for free speech here anyway for old members, but if you can get a type 1 flag and no person can even produce some scenario where you could have taken some persons money in a scam, it seems strange to still have a warning saying this person is high risk of taking your money?

Anyway fine we are not going to start bitching too much since it is such an excellent move in the correct direction. Although people should not really face this kind of flag if they never attempted to trade, scam, or deal in scenarios where other peoples money was even involved. You know they are going to use this to still encroach on free speech to a degree. You present evidence they are a scammers boom type 1 flag you are now high risk with peoples money. It is a far lesser punishment on whistle blowers who don't require sigs, but if "the gangs  friends who are campaign managers still use the ANY FLAG will make you ineligible for a sig" then it will still encroach on free speech to some degree or almost the same degree for those that really want to have sig.

Better to keep flags for proven scammers or STRONG case or atleast SOME case they have scammed people or going to. Not let flags become another eating lemons makes you HIGH RISK /scammer. Especially when the people placing the tags are the same 4 people you have been arguing with the most on the same day they leave the flag. Seems bogus.
mosprognoz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 141


I wish my wallet came with free refills.


View Profile WWW
June 13, 2019, 05:01:44 AM
 #231

The system is not bad. Let us wait for a month or so, and we will see the actual results of this new implementation. I guess people are more concerned about the color of a negative trust score  Grin Just change it to red and everyone will be satisfied. I never saw a danger warning sign in orange color. Why are they orange Theymos ? Is it your favorite color ?

Everything I like is either illegal, immoral or fattening.
The-One-Above-All
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 12


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 05:06:08 AM
 #232

The system is not bad. Let us wait for a month or so, and we will see the actual results of the new implementation. I guess people are more concerned about the color of a negative trust score  Grin Just change it to red and everyone will be satisfied. I never saw a danger warning sign in orange color. Why are they orange Theymos ? Is it your favorite color ?

Why would anyone listen to someone that is already abusing the trust system?  can you present the instance where you see us scamming people out of money exactly or been remotely connected in anyway to dealing with other peoples money ever?

The orange means caution. That is because it is supposed to signify caution. Do you get it now. RED is for proven scammers really like your master lauda.

Can we get this idiot blacklisted if he can not present ANY instances of even dealing with another persons money here by us? same for the other 3 scum bags on that fake trust flag just because I have been destroying their arguments all day.

The same 4 persons I have spent most time arguing with out of a board of millions are the only 4 so far to have trust abused our account.
mosprognoz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 141


I wish my wallet came with free refills.


View Profile WWW
June 13, 2019, 05:10:15 AM
 #233

Can you present the instance where you see us scamming people out of money exactly or been remotely connected in anyway to dealing with other peoples money ever?

Instance ? Wait.. Uh... Whaaat ? Whaaat ? Is this your feedback page ? Jesus.. This must me a mistake... Grin

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2580400

Everything I like is either illegal, immoral or fattening.
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1682


Practice Captcha look at Avatar, slct Fire Hydrant


View Profile WWW
June 13, 2019, 05:10:43 AM
 #234

Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=60
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?

Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe[/u]:
 - Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
 - Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.
 
Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.

The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.
I am not sure it is accurate to say those statements are reasonably believed.

Perhaps Vod (who does not like OgNasty) could create a thread explaining that he believes OgNasty was overcharging for holding forum money (while ignoring the fact the amounts charged was agreed to by both parties) and open a Type 1 flag. Being that other people also do not like OgNasty on DT, they will support said flag, while not actually believing the above criteria, or at least not reasonably so.

Here is a good example of this in action, although the fact set is different.

The-One-Above-All
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 12


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 05:14:02 AM
Last edit: June 13, 2019, 05:29:25 AM by The-One-Above-All
 #235

Can you present the instance where you see us scamming people out of money exactly or been remotely connected in anyway to dealing with other peoples money ever?

Instance ? Wait.. Uh... Whaaat ? Whaaat ? Is this your feedback page ? Jesus.. This must me a mistake... Grin

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2580400

Yes now find the instance of us scamming people out of money, trying to scam people out of money or being remotely related to dealing with another members funds in anyway you fucking moronic feltching puppet.

That page of ABUSE is why we needed to change from that old system to this one.

I already challenged you today to present ANY instance of scamming people out of money that will stand up to scrutiny. Where is it?

PRESENT IT NOW.  That is a page of lies and bullshit from a bunch of scammers and their supporters like you.

Watch this idiot FAIL to present anything to do with scamming people out of money ever. LOL

Can we blacklist this goon already?
mosprognoz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 141


I wish my wallet came with free refills.


View Profile WWW
June 13, 2019, 05:27:06 AM
 #236

That is a page of lies and bullshit from a bunch of scammers and their supporters like you.

Yes all DT members that left that feedbacks are bunch of scammers. Sure... Listen, why don't you visit a doctor and tell him that seeing this page makes you nervous https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2580400  Grin

Schizophrenia causes many symptoms, including:

Delusions (believing things that aren’t true)

Hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that aren’t there)

 Grin

Everything I like is either illegal, immoral or fattening.
The-One-Above-All
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 12


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 05:34:37 AM
 #237

That is a page of lies and bullshit from a bunch of scammers and their supporters like you.

Yes all DT members that left that feedbacks are bunch of scammers. Sure... Listen, why don't you visit a doctor and tell him that seeing this page makes you nervous https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2580400  Grin

Schizophrenia causes many symptoms, including:

Delusions (believing things that aren’t true)

Hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that aren’t there)

 Grin

FAIL FAIL FAIL  - black list this piece of shit and the other 3 idiots please.

Now dummy try and listen and understand YOU are responsible for your support of that flag not the other members of DT YOU.

I repeat (and don't try to hide behind other DT members previous abuse...)

now find the instance of us scamming people out of money, trying to scam people out of money or being remotely related to dealing with another members funds in anyway

I will keep pushing for your blacklisting if you do not present even 1 instance of what I am requesting you present right now. The others will come after you now.  Cabalism13 that self confessed troll is going to be asked to present next.

Watch this fool vanish.

mosprognoz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 141


I wish my wallet came with free refills.


View Profile WWW
June 13, 2019, 05:44:02 AM
 #238

I will keep pushing for your blacklisting

Dude, believe me, for you it's very important to be calm. Because people with schizophrenia can sometimes act on suicidal thoughts impulsively. I'm very worried about you.

Everything I like is either illegal, immoral or fattening.
The-One-Above-All
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 12


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 05:53:24 AM
 #239

I will keep pushing for your blacklisting

Dude, believe me, for you it's very important to be calm. Because people with schizophrenia can sometimes act on suicidal thoughts impulsively. I'm very worried about you.

So you are admitting you can not present anything. Look at the state of these latest lauda feltchers. We miss suchslob at least she put up a reasonable fight before being crushed and destroyed in public.

These new goons have nothing? they just refuse to even put up a fight they just roll over and start out with other accusations that will fold under scrutiny.

The important thing with the new system is the enforcement. Come on theymos lets start off as we mean to go on.

Are you going to black list these 4 morons or is a type 1 flag going to be the Lemons flag now?

Should have blacklisted lauda the moment he said fuck off to the new rules and trust abused the new flags. All this work and it will all go down the lemons rabbit hole if it is not enforced.

Give us the blacklisting button if you will not use it. We will be using it immediately on lauda and these 3 other abusers. What is their excuse now? how many lives does this cat have?



fudster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 255


View Profile
June 13, 2019, 06:55:45 AM
 #240


We're use to seeing RED warning below the user profile in threads where they participated. Now we have to look into their trust to check if a user has the credibility before making transaction.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!