Trust flags

[xtraelv]

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

It appears that you are supporting a flag created by someone that appears to have violated the specific conditions of the alleged agreement. (i.e. trying to sell a hacked account)

The agreement is not alleged, the screenshots posted by bob (who is the accused) document him agreeing to purchase the forum accounts in question upon receipt of a PM, which he received. Bob has confirmed that he had no intention of completing the purchase despite his promise to do so. The account that is "hacked" has not proven to be hacked, nor was it part of the specific agreement bob violated.

In that case show me the specific accounts that he bought and show the proof. Because if you read the thread I quoted I showed why I believe there was no agreement and that one of the accounts the seller tried to sell is hacked.

[Timelord2067]

...

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.

...

PM me if you find bugs.

Eleven out of thirteen Flags ~ 85% of Lauda's Flags are inaccurate when you look right into it:  Lauda creating flags against random people linked to threads not related. [Archive]


korner has created dozens of flags that link to locked threads with no proof offered.


Feel free to PM me if you'd like clarification.

[Archive]

[Quickseller]

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

It appears that you are supporting a flag created by someone that appears to have violated the specific conditions of the alleged agreement. (i.e. trying to sell a hacked account)

The agreement is not alleged, the screenshots posted by bob (who is the accused) document him agreeing to purchase the forum accounts in question upon receipt of a PM, which he received. Bob has confirmed that he had no intention of completing the purchase despite his promise to do so. The account that is "hacked" has not proven to be hacked, nor was it part of the specific agreement bob violated.

In that case show me the specific accounts that he bought and show the proof. Because if you read the thread I quoted I showed why I believe there was no agreement and that one of the accounts the seller tried to sell is hacked.

First, if you are not familiar with the thread and situation, I don't see how it would possibly be appropriate to have a stance on the flag one way or another.

The evidence is in this post.


I have copied a portion of the screenshot linked in the above referenced post. If you review the screenshot, you will see that bob123 said he will buy [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659] Ntrain2k upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see in the below image that bob123 received a PM from ntrain2k:

You can see above the copied portion of the conversation that bob123 was offered a "green hero" for $550, and also that bob123 asked for PMs to be sent to "alice321" which they were.

Further, you can see this portion of the conversation posted by bob123:

Above you can see that bob123 agreed to purchase a legendary account for $600 upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see from the above screenshot of PMs posted by bob123 that a PM was sent from narousberg, which is a legendary account.

Further, you can see based on bob123's actions that he did not have any intention of actually buying the accounts up for sale, despite making the representation that he wishes to do so, which is a breach of an implied agreement.

I would have to scrutinize the details further to find additional agreements that bob123 broke, however the above more than demonstrates a breach of agreement(s), and as such proves the flag is valid. 

[Steamtyme]

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.
~snip~

I've been thinking on this flag a bit the last couple weeks. The wording "I believe that anyone dealing with [---] is at a high risk of losing money" seem to be a roadblock for Flag 1 warnings; and could be replaced by something less universal. This currently gets read as absolutely everyone would need to be at risk of being scammed walking into this situation. Where something like "Users dealing with [---] may be at a high risk of losing money" is less encompassing. It gives the desired effect of warning naive users without having to tick the box of an experienced user falling for the same trap.

The situation that got me thinking about this has been resolved and was clarified shortly after a flag had been created but the questions lingered with me.

On a similar line of thought regarding warning flags (Type 1). If we believe that in the future someone will redeem themselves, but you currently view them as a risk. Should you create a flag, or limit yourself to using the feedback system?

[marlboroza]

I am trying to have some nice ad hominem conversation with timelord here and he said "yes, yes, you are wrong, I am right" and then I said "no no no, you are wrong and I am right" and timelord said someone should contact theymos to look thread and I don't think this system will work if we will call theymos for every single flag so I am using this opportunity to invite other valuable members to join discussion and share opinions about flags

Punctuation marks soon.

[Timelord2067]

[Archive]

I am trying to have some nice ad hominem conversation with timelord here and he said "yes, yes, you are wrong, I am right" and then I said "no no no, you are wrong and I am right" and timelord said someone should contact theymos to look thread and I don't think this system will work if we will call theymos for every single flag so I am using this opportunity to invite other valuable members to join discussion and share opinions about flags

Punctuation marks soon.

User timelord https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=62044 hasn't been online in seven years and four days...


marlboroza's attacks aside: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43685.0 [Archive] creepy how he's stalking me from one thread to the next to try to bully me into changing my opposition to his duplicate Flag ... [Archive]

[marlboroza]

creepy how he's stalking me from one thread to the next

Have you followed me here to say that I am stalking you?

Somebody feel free to PM @theymos to come have a look at this thread

timelord said someone should contact theymos to look thread and I don't think this system will work if we will call theymos for every single flag so I am using this opportunity to invite other valuable members to join discussion and share opinions about flags

So you don't want to hear other opinions? I do.

his duplicate Flag

It is not my fault that you don't want to accept reasonable explanation why this flag is valid, the same way you don't want to except why QS's flag is valid. Perhaps you need more than 2 confirmation that flag is not duplicate?

[Timelord2067]

creepy how he's stalking me from one thread to the next

Have you followed me here to say that I am stalking you?

No, moron. I posted three posts prior to you.

[SaltySpitoon]

Forgot to follow up on this

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.

I was more trying to propose the idea that theft is not something that you can leave someone a flag for. Lets change it up a little bit to avoid the issue of forum bans. If I send malware to someone over Skype and steal all of their Bitcoins, you cannot leave me a flag and I don't have to worry about being banned. I know that Theymos is trying to sure up the language surrounding flags with the "breach of contract" portion, but not everything is a contract.

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. )

This actually is my point, rational thinking people would agree with you. To interact with society, there is an unspoken rule that you don't steal from others. But, I've already seen cases where people have tried to weasel their way out of guilt by sticking firmly to the, "there was no contract" defense.


TLDR: There is currently a hole in the flag system that does not allow you to report one sided damage done such as theft. Another example, if I just throw a metaphorical baseball through your metaphorical window, there is nothing you can do about it because I onesidedly damaged you, there was no contract to breach, so you can't flag me.

[marlboroza]

TLDR: There is currently a hole in the flag system that does not allow you to report one sided damage done such as theft. Another example, if I just throw a metaphorical baseball through your metaphorical window, there is nothing you can do about it because I onesidedly damaged you, there was no contract to breach, so you can't flag me.

That is correct.

On my honor, I affirm the following:
1) This user violated a written contract/(a casual/implied agreement - flag type 2), resulting in damages;
2) I have not been made whole by the user;
3) no existing flag covers this same incident;
4) this incident is accurately and completely described in the above topic;
5) the incident occurred roughly in the month given above.

If only 1 of these 5 things is not valid user can't create flag type 2 or 3. Not only that, user can't create flag type 2 or 3 on the behalf of another user. Case we were arguing about, user "A" created red flag against bob123 and then account which user A's friend tried to sell created flag against user "A" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=322 That is all they can do, to create newbie/guest flag.

[LoyceV]

This post (in another topic) made me realize the description for Positive feedback change too:

That is not the purpose of the trust system. The purpose of giving a positive rating is to vouch that the person is unlikely to scam period, there are no 'ifs thans or buts'.

Old

   Positive - You trust this person or had a successful trade.
    Neutral - Comments. Your rating will not affect this person's trust score.
    Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

New

   Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.
    Neutral - Other comments.
    Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.

Until now, I only focused on the changed description for Negative feedback and didn't really notice how Positive changed. I used to use my non-DT1 account to leave feedback on successful deals, but under the current description, I can't do that anymore.

[Quickseller]

Until now, I only focused on the changed description for Negative feedback and didn't really notice how Positive changed. I used to use my non-DT1 account to leave feedback on successful deals, but under the current description, I can't do that anymore.

Someone making many trades without issue is usually an indication they will not scam, however additional information is needed to make this determination.

A neutral rating would probably be more appropriate for a single successful trade, and perhaps several successful trades (that appear to be mutually beneficial) would warrant consideration of giving a positive rating, and a person unexpectedly being able to scam you (due to your mistake), but doesn't is probably going to warrant a positive rating most of the time, but good judgement should still be used in these cases.

[Pffrt]

Until now, I only focused on the changed description for Negative feedback and didn't really notice how Positive changed. I used to use my non-DT1 account to leave feedback on successful deals, but under the current description, I can't do that anymore.

In that case, many positive feedback must be withdrawn which has been posted before the change. I have added a positive feedback on Royse777, because he had created two pool and donated some amounts into the pool pot. Is my positive feedback correct on that case?

[LoyceV]

In that case, many positive feedback must be withdrawn which has been posted before the change.

I'm not changing feedback that was correct according to the "rules" when I left it.

I have added a positive feedback on Royse777, because he had created two pool and donated some amounts into the pool pot. Is my positive feedback correct on that case?

I wouldn't worry about it too much. You're not on DT, and if you believe it was correct when you left it, you should still be able to stand behind your feedback now.
The accuracy of the feedback is like your "Trust business card". Based on this, other members can include (or exclude) you on their Trust list (see my Trust list viewer), which may or may not mean you'll end up on DT at some point.

[DooMAD]

Old

   Positive - You trust this person or had a successful trade.
    Neutral - Comments. Your rating will not affect this person's trust score.
    Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

New

   Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.
    Neutral - Other comments.
    Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.

Until now, I only focused on the changed description for Negative feedback and didn't really notice how Positive changed. I used to use my non-DT1 account to leave feedback on successful deals, but under the current description, I can't do that anymore.

I hadn't noticed it either, but it's a good change.  Common sense would suggest that one single trade isn't sufficient for positive trust.  A scammer could easily make one legitimate trade to gain trust before attempting to rip several people off, exploiting their new-found reputation.  It should take time to build up trust, making numerous trades without issue.  Neutral feedback is perfectly adequate for acknowledging individual successful trades.

[mosprognoz]

If newbies are opposing flag, will that count ? Anyone can oppose the flag ?

[bob123]

If newbies are opposing flag, will that count ? Anyone can oppose the flag ?

Anyone can support/oppose flags.

However, only the trusted votes count.
And trusted votes are defined by your trust settings.

If you didn't touch your trustlist (which you definitely should do), DT1 and DT2 votes count only (big bold font).

[mosprognoz]

Anyone can support/oppose flags.
However, only the trusted votes count.
And trusted votes are defined by your trust settings.
If you didn't touch your trustlist (which you definitely should do), DT1 and DT2 votes count only (big bold font).

I saw a scammy service in telegram, offering opposition for flags. $25 for 15 oppose notes from senior members and above. I just wanted to mention that scammers can use that service.

[AB de Royse777]

I saw a scammy service in telegram, offering opposition for flags. $25 for 15 oppose notes from senior members and above. I just wanted to mention that scammers can use that service.

LOL amazing service.

Honestly speaking, scammers will try to take very opportunity to earn money from scamming. It's us who need to understand how something works when we are intending to buy any service. We have seen the rumors of selling merits, trust feedback etc. So, let's put it this way - it's the continuation :-P

[AdolfinWolf]

Anyone can support/oppose flags.
However, only the trusted votes count.
And trusted votes are defined by your trust settings.
If you didn't touch your trustlist (which you definitely should do), DT1 and DT2 votes count only (big bold font).

I saw a scammy service in telegram, offering opposition for flags. $25 for 15 oppose notes from senior members and above. I just wanted to mention that scammers can use that service.

If that service is actually legit, which i highly doubt in the first place-- it's totally useless.
There's no way 15 DT members are actually going to sell their integrity for 1.7$ per vote. And to think they hacked 15 dt members is laughable.

Either their votes are from useless accounts, or the service is fake. it won't matter nor impact the system either way.