Trust flags

[Steamtyme]

~snip~ "Anyone" is not the same as "everyone". For example "everyone please give me $10" and "anyone please give me $10".
It does sound ambiguous in that context though, I agree with that. It should be clarified.

Thanks for the example for Alts.
When I read the wording I take it as "someone" could get scammed, and may not have worded the interpretation I had seen correctly. It does however show that the wording is not defined well enough. Even in your example of "anyone" and "everyone" - Anyone please is still all encompassing in the opportunity being presented or available. Either way just wanted to see how others were seeing this. Fun with Words 

~snip~

Thanks for finding the quote and the example.

Suspected alts NO.
ACTUAL alts yes...
Were I to flags such alts, the one that scammed me would get the Red Flag and the actual proven alts would get either an implied contract flag or more likely I would give them a Cautionary Flag.

Well I try not to jump the gun on accusations, and don't actively track or hunt Alts. I do like this way of doing it as well, especially in the future if the scammed party is no longer active. The cautionary flag could be used by anyone  on a proven alt.

[1715070407]

1715070407

[1715070407]

1715070407

[1715070407]

1715070407

[1715070407]

1715070407

[LoyceV]

What if someone tries to scam, but the victim notices it on time and doesn't get scammed? That happened here.
The (potential) victim created a type 2 flag, but that flag says violating an agreement resulted in damages. There are no damages here, but it doesn't feel right that the flag can only be created after someone else falls victim to the same scam.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I think it was a violation of textual contract. They both came to this agreement that send the collateral and take the loan. But the collateral sending never happened so contact was broken.

In another angle, This is a clear scam attempt. There will be no excuse. So, in my opinion the flag was right.

[malevolent]

The important question is should a wasted business opportunity (0.003 BTC to be made if the collateral had been sent) be construed as having faced 'damages'?

If yes, type 2 flag is correct. Otherwise type 1 flag is more fitting IMHO, at least for the time being with how the flags work.

[Steamtyme]

That situation looks like negative feedback for the attempted scam, and a newbie warning flag for yhe same reason.

The losses based on the business opportunity don't actually exist because it's a scam attempt, meaning there never was the potential to earn the fee.

[xtraelv]

That situation looks like negative feedback for the attempted scam, and a newbie warning flag for yhe same reason.

The losses based on the business opportunity don't actually exist because it's a scam attempt, meaning there never was the potential to earn the fee.

That is flawed logic.

If someone makes an agreement and the other party is going to gain from that agreement and then breaks that agreement (without a valid legal reason)  and does not compensate for the loss of profit - then there is a loss.

It is irrelevant that the person who made the agreement had no intention of completing it. It is reasonable to assume that the customer will proceed with the contractual terms when a contract is made. The seller had no control over the customers decision to scam.

As I mentioned in the flags topic, there are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. For scammer flags, the point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. This is a very serious action which should have a very high bar. Because it's so serious, I only want actual agreements considered here. In legal systems, there's additionally such a thing as tort law and statutory law, but the forum is very far from having the kind of cohesive legal system which could handle such things in a halfway-reasonable way. The only thing that approaches clear-cut scamming is violation of an agreement. If non-contractual offenses are allowed in the scammer-flag space, then we're going to get factions of forum users constantly fighting each other, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop. I'm sick and tired of big escalations and never-ending feuds over highly-subjective and/or relatively minor things.

For non-agreement issues, use a newbie-warning flag and give them a negative trust rating. These actions are in the different scopes of warning newbies or informing other users of your opinions, which have less severe consequences and therefore lower bars.

I hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH, which were created with deception in mind, are technologically bankrupt, and are run by huge assholes, but you can't say that their supporters broke a contract with you when they didn't. Give them a newbie-warning flag if you want, but not a contract-violation flag unless they actually broke a contract with you. (Note that you might have a case for breach of implied contract if you were actually tricked into buying one of these coins instead of BTC.)

For scammer flags, the point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. and I only want actual agreements considered here. and The only thing that approaches clear-cut scamming is violation of an agreement.

I think Theymos reasoning for the criteria is met. In my opinion there is no doubt that the user attempted to defraud the creator of the flag. A type2 warning is justified.

[TECSHARE]

That situation looks like negative feedback for the attempted scam, and a newbie warning flag for yhe same reason.

The losses based on the business opportunity don't actually exist because it's a scam attempt, meaning there never was the potential to earn the fee.

That is flawed logic.

If someone makes an agreement and the other party is going to gain from that agreement and then breaks that agreement (without a valid legal reason)  and does not compensate for the loss of profit - then there is a loss.

It is irrelevant that the person who made the agreement had no intention of completing it. It is reasonable to assume that the customer will proceed with the contractual terms when a contract is made. The seller had no control over the customers decision to scam.

As I mentioned in the flags topic, there are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. For scammer flags, the point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. This is a very serious action which should have a very high bar. Because it's so serious, I only want actual agreements considered here. In legal systems, there's additionally such a thing as tort law and statutory law, but the forum is very far from having the kind of cohesive legal system which could handle such things in a halfway-reasonable way. The only thing that approaches clear-cut scamming is violation of an agreement. If non-contractual offenses are allowed in the scammer-flag space, then we're going to get factions of forum users constantly fighting each other, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop. I'm sick and tired of big escalations and never-ending feuds over highly-subjective and/or relatively minor things.

For non-agreement issues, use a newbie-warning flag and give them a negative trust rating. These actions are in the different scopes of warning newbies or informing other users of your opinions, which have less severe consequences and therefore lower bars.

I hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH, which were created with deception in mind, are technologically bankrupt, and are run by huge assholes, but you can't say that their supporters broke a contract with you when they didn't. Give them a newbie-warning flag if you want, but not a contract-violation flag unless they actually broke a contract with you. (Note that you might have a case for breach of implied contract if you were actually tricked into buying one of these coins instead of BTC.)

For scammer flags, the point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. and I only want actual agreements considered here. and The only thing that approaches clear-cut scamming is violation of an agreement.

I think Theymos reasoning for the criteria is met. In my opinion there is no doubt that the user attempted to defraud the creator of the flag. A type2 warning is justified.

As you and I have been over ad nauseam in the Bob123 fiasco, a contract becomes activated upon the first exchange of consideration. In this case an agreement was made but not activated. The person in question probably is some kind of scammer, and he definitely did waste the other user's time, but this is not grounds for a flag, this is just the standard of suspicion with another step. This shouldn't be a flagging matter.

Leave them a negative rating and call it a day.

[Steamtyme]

That is flawed logic.

If someone makes an agreement and the other party is going to gain from that agreement and then breaks that agreement (without a valid legal reason)  and does not compensate for the loss of profit - then there is a loss.

It is irrelevant that the person who made the agreement had no intention of completing it. It is reasonable to assume that the customer will proceed with the contractual terms when a contract is made. The seller had no control over the customers decision to scam.

I could say the same about your logic, as we have a difference of opinion. I'm not; I just don't agree that performing the normal tasks to run a safe and secure business count as damages. Shasan runs a lending service and has taken this responsibility upon themself to protect their investment while earning from this. Part of that is thwarting scam attempts, so all this person really did was test Shasans security and provide experience.

You can't really claim wasted time when on the clock for your business. So again with no damages this deserves feedback and a newbie warning flag.

[LoyceV]

These limits are in place:
 - Per 180 days, you can only give 1 flag of each type to a given user. So you can't give someone multiple written-contract-violation flags in 180 days, for example.
 - Globally, per year you can only create 1 flag per activity point you have, but at least 1/year.

Should the bold part be adjusted? Currently, many users can do this:

Forum dickhead Hatch Support has been busy making flags:

Considering only ~800 Flags have been created in 4 months, I don't think it's necessary to give any single user the ability to create 1 flag per activity point. 1 in 50 would work too, and it would could prevented cases like the one above, in which a low-ranking user creates many Flags.

[xtraelv]

These limits are in place:
 - Per 180 days, you can only give 1 flag of each type to a given user. So you can't give someone multiple written-contract-violation flags in 180 days, for example.
 - Globally, per year you can only create 1 flag per activity point you have, but at least 1/year.

Should the bold part be adjusted? Currently, many users can do this:

Forum dickhead Hatch Support has been busy making flags:

Considering only ~800 Flags have been created in 4 months, I don't think it's necessary to give any single user the ability to create 1 flag per activity point. 1 in 50 would work too, and it would could prevented cases like the one above, in which a low-ranking user creates many Flags.

Currently I am aware of only (EDITED) two three users that have actively abused the flag system by creating a mass of flags. (flag spam abuse)

Korner (banned)
Hatch Support
(EDITED) Alex LZ Saver

Considering that Theymos made it clear that creating or supporting a false flag is "crystal clear abuse" I don't expect too many to take that path.

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.

But it might be better for the creation of flags to be tied to merit rather than activity. Or have some limiting mechanism that if previous flags are unsupported or heavily opposed that no further flags can be created by that user.

But spammers and scammers will always find new ways. It is easier to detect and counter flags made by one account than from hundreds of sockpuppet accounts.
Without DT support those flags don't show anyway.
Blatantly false feedback or false flags given by scammers are like a medal or award to a scambuster.

[suchmoon]

But it might be better for the creation of flags to be tied to merit rather than activity.

No. Newbies get scammed too, perhaps even at a higher rate than more experienced members, and need to be able to create flags.

[xtraelv]

It is kind of ironic that the most trust flags are held by people that fight scams. Fortunately they are all inactive. (so that part works as designed)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1016855;page=iflags
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1177936;page=iflags

[Steamtyme]

But it might be better for the creation of flags to be tied to merit rather than activity.

No. Newbies get scammed too, perhaps even at a higher rate than more experienced members, and need to be able to create flags.

I'd say it's a given they get scammed at a much higher rate, it's the nature of inexperience. The system checks itself by requiring support so I definitely agree everyone should be able to create a flag.

It is kind of ironic that the most trust flags are held by people that fight scams. Fortunately they are all inactive. (so that part works as designed)

No that makes perfect sense. Flags are easy to create so everyone and their alts can spam that system thinking it serves a purpose. They don't realize it's less effective than spamming false Negative feedback, because they are unsupported.

[nutildah]

It is kind of ironic that the most trust flags are held by people that fight scams. Fortunately they are all inactive. (so that part works as designed)

No that makes perfect sense. Flags are easy to create so everyone and their alts can spam that system thinking it serves a purpose. They don't realize it's less effective than spamming false Negative feedback, because they are unsupported.

I think what he's saying is its ironic that scambusters have more flags than the scammers.

But of course one active flag is worth a hundred inactive flags.

My motto on the matter is if you don't have at least one trivial flag against you, it means you aren't doing anything really interesting. Its kind of like a badge of honor.

[LoyceV]

But it might be better for the creation of flags to be tied to merit rather than activity.

No. Newbies get scammed too, perhaps even at a higher rate than more experienced members, and need to be able to create flags.

There could be a minimum number of Flags (say 1 or 2) that can be created without further requirements to circumvent that.

Fortunately they are all inactive. (so that part works as designed)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1016855;page=iflags
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1177936;page=iflags

Shouldn't inactive Flags lose their color? They now look almost as real as Active Flags, especially if someone posts a direct link. The bold "Insufficient support." is much less noticeable than the big red color (and most people don't read everything).

[suchmoon]

Shouldn't inactive Flags lose their color? They now look almost as real as Active Flags, especially if someone posts a direct link. The bold "Insufficient support." is much less noticeable than the big red color (and most people don't read everything).

I think the color is important for the not-yet-active flags that are waiting for support so that potential supporters/opponents could see exactly how the flag would look like if active.

[nutildah]

Finally someone opened a flag against theymos, I was wondering how long that was gonna take:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=866

 

He also left a slew of erroneous flag against other users.

Edit: and he's now been banned.

[George Alex]

I have Confusion with this Trust Flags
Current I have negative 2 in yellow what is this mean 
I didn't do any transaction on in this forum  for someone to give such feedback

[shasan]

I have Confusion with this Trust Flags
Current I have negative 2 in yellow what is this mean 
I didn't do any transaction on in this forum  for someone to give such feedback

Read the comment and reference link for the reason for the feedback.

[Timelord2067]

[quote author=shasan link=topic=5153344.msg53829293#msg53829293 date=1581588658]
[quote author=George Alex link=topic=5153344.msg53829276#msg53829276 date=1581588519]
I have Confusion with this Trust Flags
Current I have negative 2 in yellow what is this mean 
I didn't do any transaction on in this forum  for someone to give such feedback
[/quote]
Read the comment and reference link for the reason for the feedback.
[img width=250]https://image.prntscr.com/image/AvqNUlMLQe6lUDK_KrFYmw.png[/img]
[/quote]

Not sure why @shasan seems to be trying to link the two items together, however you have two negative feedback trusts from people on the DT1/2




The fact they have also created a flag and supported it (in yellow above) isn't always connected to the trust feedback (in red text).



Were they given to you now it is quite likely they are in breach of theymos' latest edit concerning trust feedback being for transactions.


The fact that you don't seem to be mentioned in the thread's OP for the Flag could well mean they have engaged in creating a false flag - one of dozens, if not hundreds flooding this forum.

*edit* was searching for your name - like a lot of others they've very sloppily given just your user profile number.  Very sloppy work.