Trust flags

[bob123]

I believe the elements of a contract were met, including acceptance of said contract  [...]  and there was clearly financial damages. This meets the criteria for supporting the flag.

No, it doesn't.

The financial damage has to occur because of breaking an agreement.

This is clearly not the case.

What is the agreement in your eyes? Please enlighten me.


Additionally, sharing publicly available information (usernames) is no financial damage. And that's all i did.

[1713556976]

1713556976

[1713556976]

1713556976

[bones261]

Account selling isn't against the forum rules but it is discouraged. If it is discouraged, you can fight them in unethical ways.

I'm not even sure why the "account selling isn't against forum rules." is even brought up. Technically, most scamming isn't against the forum rules. You can get a loan for 1 BTC, with the intention of never paying it back, and your account will not even be temporarily banned. You can keep posting away. The only scamming that is against forum rules is to provide links to phishing or malware, which will get your account nuked, ASAP.

[SaltySpitoon]

Except what Bob did wasn't scamming. It was just unethical.

Doing unethical stuff doesn't need to be flagged.

Account selling isn't against the forum rules but it is discouraged. If it is discouraged, you can fight them in unethical ways.

If bob hadn't revealed his identity, we wouldn't even be discussing this. You would be desperately tagging a newb account now.

Nobody would care and everybody except the hacker would be happy.

We are at a very different place fundamentally. Doing unethical stuff means getting tagged. What Bob did was unethical but it directly and intentionally caused SeW financial damage. Deception was used to financially harm another person, how is that not a scam?

I am strongly disagreeing with the ends justify the means mentality. If you rob a drug dealer, you still get arrested for stealing. Certain actions have lines drawn in the sand, if we start making exceptions, rule of law goes away. If someone can get away with scamming someone because they are doing something you don't like, what prevents me from justifying scamming you for something I don't like? Scamming is scamming plain and simple, there is no hearsay and no party is in disagreement of the events that happened, just their interpretation of them.

Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam

 

[bob123]

So, SaltySpitoon..

you left a negative trust rating to "pikacha15" for "attempting to sell fake items".


Selling fake items is not illegal. And you did financial damage to him by interfering into his business.

Based on your logic, you are a scammer and should deserve a flag.

Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam

[SaltySpitoon]

So, SaltySpitoon..

you left a negative trust rating to "pikacha15" for "attempting to sell fake items".


Selling fake items is not illegal. And you did financial damage to him by interfering into his business.

Based on your logic, you are a scammer and should deserve a flag.

Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam

Funny enough, selling fake gold falls under US Anti Money Countefeiting laws, and its not uncommon to receive life sentences for intentionally marking something with .999, "fine" or "pure" if it isn't. You are welcome to keep grasping at straws, but out of sympathy I'll just say that trying to defend counterfeit gold sellers probably isn't the direction you want to go with your argument.

Also, selling fake items is called Fraud.

this bitcoin in 24 carat gold
Weight of the piece: 29grammes

0.99 ??

[sandy-is-fine]

Can a clown like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2634096 be FLAGGED per our new rules even though he has not scammed  me or anyone else (yet), probably really has nothing to sell but what he SAYS he is selling is a TROJAN (not that anyone here is going to pay 150BTC anyway).  It's just so low. Thread:  http://archive.fo/AIwKa.  This is what he claims to be selling:  https://www.symantec.com/security-center/writeup/2018-061412-5158-99  I did neg him but that is pretty useless these days.

[mindrust]

Can a clown like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2634096 be FLAGGED per our new rules even though he has not scammed  me or anyone else (yet), probably really has nothing to sell but what he SAYS he is selling is a TROJAN (not that anyone here is going to pay 150BTC anyway).  It's just so low. Thread:  http://archive.fo/AIwKa.  This is what he claims to be selling:  https://www.symantec.com/security-center/writeup/2018-061412-5158-99  I did neg him but that is pretty useless these days.

You can still create the #1 flag which will be visible to the guests and newbies.

[marlboroza]

Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam

The same question I have asked tecsare:

Can you list all accounts which SeW900 was selling?

After you are done, show me proof where SeW900 proved that they own these accounts, WHICH WAS PART OF AGREEMENT!

Person A can't start red flag type 2/3 because person B caused damage to person C!

While I wholeheartedly support an investigation on SeW900 and the hacked account matter, they are two unrelated instances.

And flag you supported are 3 unrelated instances. Just because bob placed them all in one thread doesn't make them the same. They are 3 separated cases.

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag

No one abused anything you scumbag.

[SaltySpitoon]

Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam

The same question I have asked tecsare:

Can you list all accounts which SeW900 was selling?

After you are done, show me proof where SeW900 proved that they own these accounts, WHICH WAS PART OF AGREEMENT!

Person A can't start red flag type 2/3 because person B caused damage to person C!

Yes I can. Please note the "Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller"

1)
The accounts provided by 'SeW900'  (or better: @TrustedAccSeller on telegram) were:

• cicizhang  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=935809)
• TanClan98 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1045919)
• zackie (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=99997) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• Zedster (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=78317) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• Ntrain2k https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• nonnakip https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=69046
• narousberg https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=61971 [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• pant-79 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=203430

Why are you so hung up me providing proof that SeW thoroughly proved to Bob that they owned the accounts, it is not in question whether they own the accounts the "Buyer" acknowledges right there that SeW has provided adequate proof. I don't need to find where SeW proved it, because its not a point of contention.

This is all really clear abuse, you found a target that you perceived as a second class forum user, so you managed to convince yourself that the basic definitions of financially harming someone doesn't apply because you don't like them. Thats not how things work, and it speaks very poorly to all of your characters. It feels like I'm in the flat earth thread. I post "did someone lose money as a result of another person's action" and the response is, PROVE THIS PERSON IS ROUND IF THE SUN IS 1000 MILES AWAY.

We aren't getting anywhere, everyone make up your own opinions.

[marlboroza]

~

As I have already told you, I am not interested to listen to your assumptions neither I will respond to them.

Here you go, chat history https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157334.0:

Screenshots of the chat history:

    1) with SeW900 ('Walter' on telegram): https://i.imgur.com/7lTjZxs.jpg
        with @TrustedAccSeller (telegram):
            part 1
            part 2
    2) with Rueduciel ('Mara Mae' on telegram): https://i.imgur.com/dt4l4KX.jpg

Can you post accounts which SeW900 tried to sell and can you quote exact agreement?

Can you list all accounts which SeW900 was selling?

Yes I can. Please note the "Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller"

1)
The accounts provided by 'SeW900'  (or better: @TrustedAccSeller on telegram) were:

• cicizhang  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=935809)
• TanClan98 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1045919)
• zackie (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=99997) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• Zedster (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=78317) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• Ntrain2k https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• nonnakip https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=69046
• narousberg https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=61971 [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• pant-79 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=203430

These are not accounts Sew900 tried to sell! He tried to sell 2 accounts.

Read read read:

I noticed that I can't open it and so I referred him to trustedseller account which he made another negotiation and after saying he will buy it if he proves ownership after sending a message this happened (according to trustedseller)

trustedseller =/= SeW900 according to SeW900

This user violated a casual or implied agreement with me, resulting in damages.
This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages.

Again, what was part of agreement between SeW900 and Bob123?


Seems you didn't do research properly before placing that support.

[eddie13]

Seems you didn't do research properly before placing that support.

Do you think that he did anything wrong or just that it doesn't perfectly fit the definition of the flag?
Would you consider it untrustworthy behavior regardless of any technical flag language?

[Quickseller]

Seems you didn't do research properly before placing that support.

Do you think that he did anything wrong or just that it doesn't perfectly fit the definition of the flag?
Would you consider it untrustworthy behavior regardless of any technical flag language?

He is trying to bring up information that does not affect his argument as a means to distract and discredit his argument. 

[SaltySpitoon]

I'm not making any assumptions, I'm reading directly from Bob's post. Bob's post is more important than the information SeW put forward because Bob was only able to operate with the information they had at the time. They claimed they were all the same person, not me. I'm not searching for additional details unless the story doesn't mesh between the buyer and seller. If Bob was mistaken and SeW and TrustedSeller are two different people, then SeW is an agent of the sale and is therefore still involved. Just like when you go to a car dealership, the salesman is involved even though they don't actually personally own the car they are selling you. There are lots of real estate agents popping up in the goods section, I guess they are free game to scam because the people they are selling houses for aren't members of the forums!

This is realllllllly simple. Bob's intentional action cost SeW money in a way that was expected. You can still be responsible for accidents, but things get a lot clearer when it isn't an accident such as in this case. This isn't a who's at fault for the sign falling off of a building onto a passerby tort. Its someone who damaged another person's property decreasing its sale value intentionally. There are strikingly similar court cases regarding social media influencer account sales where a party intentionally dropped the value of the account. This hasn't been a gray area since rulings on secondlife disputes came to exist.

If only the first two accounts were SeW's personally owned accounts, then they lost less money than if they are all SeW's accounts. If SeW and TrustedSeller are not the same person, than as TrustedSeller's agent, they lost less money than had they owned the accounts. I'm far less interested in the little technicalities of the deal that may exclude a flag from being placed based on who's lawyer reads the details of the description, and far more interested in the fact that an obvious scam is trying to be covered up. Whether it was SeW who was scammed or TrustedSeller that was scammed, the damage occurred and all parties were involved. Its absolutely ridiculous to claim innocence because another party was perhaps a greater victim than the OP.



*Edit*

Actually something good did come out of arguing with people of a mindset that I don't understand. I came to the realization, that if I (for the sake of example) sent someone malware and stole their Bitcoins off of their computer, they could not flag me. You don't enter into a contract to be one sidedly stolen from or financially damaged. There are currently loopholes for realistic scenarios that we should sure up.

[Khaos77]

Actually something good did come out of arguing with people of a mindset that I don't understand. I came to the realization, that if I (for the sake of example) sent someone malware and stole their Bitcoins off of their computer, they could not flag me. You don't enter into a contract to be one sidedly stolen from or financially damaged. There are currently loopholes for realistic scenarios that we should sure up.

Use the following to red flag someone that malwared you.
This user violated a casual or implied agreement with me, resulting in damages.

It is an implied agreement between decent people not to steal from one another, so you can use the above.  IMO.  
(You do need to be able to prove the theft occurred and the other party was responsible. )

[bones261]

Actually something good did come out of arguing with people of a mindset that I don't understand. I came to the realization, that if I (for the sake of example) sent someone malware and stole their Bitcoins off of their computer, they could not flag me. You don't enter into a contract to be one sidedly stolen from or financially damaged. There are currently loopholes for realistic scenarios that we should sure up.

If you sent someone a link to malware via PM or a message on the open forum, you will be permabanned if the victim reports it to staff. Issuing a flag to a permabanned account is a bit redundant.

Also, issuing a red flag is rather punitive. Theymos set the bar high to issue this flag since it is very harsh. Please see the following thread for the full impact of a red flag. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5104698 We must ask ourselves if the infraction merits an account being subjected to the red flag for 3 years for level 2 and 7 years for level 1. Sometimes a yellow flag and/or a negative trust comment is more appropriate.

[what1005]

Hi Admin. you should change
distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters
become
distinct positive raters by Dt1 member / distinct positive raters by member / distinct negative raters by Dt1 member

because dt1 member only who leave positive is unfair with other member.newbie see mark from distinct positive raters by member and review this member trusted or not.

distinct positive raters from Dt1 member are inexactly.

[DdmrDdmr]

<…>

The number of positive/neutral/negative rating you see are based on your Trust network. If you do not create your own (which is what the vast majority do), you will see the number of DT ratings with regards to the depth level you have established.
If you create your own Trust network, then the ratings will be based on those you trust, and not DT.

In any case, regardless of the numbers you see in the positive/neutral/negative rating counts, it is always wise to look deeper into the profile and read both the Trusted Feedback, and the Untrusted feedback (which in your case is abundant).

What I figure is your point is that, in your particular case, you’ve got tons of untrusted feedback which does not reflect on your scores. That’s how the system works, and that is why individuals should read through both the trusted and untrusted feedback to get a general composition of the profile’s trustworthiness, and how he gained it specifically.

[what1005]

<…>

The number of positive/neutral/negative rating you see are based on your Trust network. If you do not create your own (which is what the vast majority do), you will see the number of DT ratings with regards to the depth level you have established.
If you create your own Trust network, then the ratings will be based on those you trust, and not DT.

In any case, regardless of the numbers you see in the positive/neutral/negative rating counts, it is always wise to look deeper into the profile and read both the Trusted Feedback, and the Untrusted feedback (which in your case is abundant).

What I figure is your point is that, in your particular case, you’ve got tons of untrusted feedback which does not reflect on your scores. That’s how the system works, and that is why individuals should read through both the trusted and untrusted feedback to get a general composition of the profile’s trustworthiness, and how he gained it specifically.

positive/neutral/negative from DT member
positive/neutral/negative from Member ,Full Member , Sr. Member ,Hero ... ( no Newbie , Jr. Membe , person got negative from DT )

+0/ =0 / -0 from DT
+0/ =0 / -0 from member

you see shorena leave negative for Lauda and Lauda get back negative for shorena

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=181801

Decide from DT member is exact 100% ?

There check quickly from all member on forum , not DT member.The most general review to check account.Sure 100%,individuals should read through both the trusted and untrusted feedback to get a general composition of the profile’s trustworthiness

[Veleor]

Suggestion: Automatically delete flags which don't have any Support. For example: 37, 38, 85, 251.

Some flags can be created as a result of mistake or a test, therefore it should be possible to remove them from users' profiles.

[malevolent]

Suggestion: Automatically delete flags which don't have any Support. For example: 37, 38, 85, 251.

Some flags can be created as a result of mistake or a test, therefore it should be possible to remove them from users' profiles.

I think it's like that by design:

I am wondering will users be able to remove a scammer flag early in the spirit of forgiveness. Do users in your trust network automatically support flags or do they need to take action?

The original accuser can withdraw their support, but they can't delete the flag. So other users could take it up even if they withdraw.

I can envision a scenario where the accuser is bribed, threatened or extorted to remove their feedback/flag before someone supports it. Or users supporting a flag may face pressure or fiduciary encouragements to withdraw their support of a flag. If original flag posters can only withdraw their support for a flag on a scammer's profile, but without being able to remove the flag themselves, there's still always a trace left on the scammers profile to keep eyes open/lurk moar about the person one would be dealing with.