Trust flags

[tmfp]

Not sure why @shasan seems to be trying to link the two items together

He was just answering the question. The reason for the flag is the same as the reason for the feedback.

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

Not the way I read it.

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.

Did you get out of the wrong side of bed today, or what?

[1714850325]

1714850325

[1714850325]

1714850325

[marlboroza]

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

Don't be confused, you have tried to steal money on this forum, now you have newbie/guest warning on the top of topics you start which says "George has tried to sell scam tokens, don't feed thieves, buy pizza instead".

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

But profile is just above flag!



I don't think it would make any difference to write "George Alex" instead of "numbers", people still have to go trough links and read everything. That is accusation against "project" litecoindiamanod after all.

[DdmrDdmr]

I think I may have misunderstood something about how the yellow Trust Flags are visualized for guests. I took for reference the following :

<…> 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. <…>

I was browsing the forum as a guest, and came across a topic started by yellow flagged profile, but that did not display the yellow box at the top of the thread as I has expected (in Spanish):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5244852.msg54333527#msg54333527

It turns out that the OP, @_BidiPass_, has a yellow flag in place (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1844916) for creating a thread (now deleted, but retrievable here: http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5433/54333729.html) on what looks like a Ponzi scheme. The flag was created a few days ago by @tvplus006, but unfortunately uses as a reference the now deleted post. @_BidiPass_ has created a similar post in the Spanish board (with some changes from the deleted Russian version), and I expected to see the yellow flag as a guest, but it is not visible …

I though the yellow flag would be visible:
-   Due to @_BidiPass_ having a current active yellow flag in place.
-   Due to @_BidiPass_ creating a new topic (where I expected to see the yellow flag as a guest).

Should I (as a guest) be seeing a yellow flag on the Spanish referenced thread ?

Ta.

[suchmoon]

Should I (as a guest) be seeing a yellow flag on the Spanish referenced thread ?

I think the yellow banner appears only on boards that have trust ratings enabled (for logged in users only of course, but the flags probably follow the same rules for guests/newbies).

Examples:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147938 (Scam Accusations board, trust ratings shown for logged-in users, flag banner shown for guests/newbies)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5160092 (Politics & Society board, trust ratings not shown for logged-in users, flag banner not shown for guests/newbies)

[DdmrDdmr]

<…>

Ok, that makes sense (cheers)... The only weird tingle I get from the procedure, is the fact that local boards tend to have a main section (where Trust is not shown), and it is often the place chosen to place new threads (especially when they want to give the thread some kind of visibility and/or the OP does not know/care much for locating the correct childboard). The logical thing is to report it in order to get it removed/moved, but the default main trustless section still remains often enough as the place where posts are often first placed.

Being the above True, I just noticed that the OP I referenced was in the Spanish Trading and Reputation, which for some reason does not display Trust on the Spanish local board.

[Csmiami]

Being the above True, I just noticed that the OP I referenced was in the Spanish Trading and Reputation, which for some reason does not display Trust on the Spanish local board.

Most of our local sections have trust viewing disabled. It's not a really big concern, since we are kinda few users there, but if the local community were to grow, it could pose a problem. Why? Because it's disabled on many sections that rather require trust

• Economy main board
• • Trading board
  • Services board
• Hardware and mining
• Altcoins
• • Services
  • Tokens
  • Altcoin Mining

I'm okay with Off-topic and Beginners and help not showing trust; but marketplace boards should definately include it; be it bitcoin or altcoin. But since we are few people there, I don't consider it a priority and see no "real" need of changing it (yet)

[DdmrDdmr]

<...>

I think it should be more symmetry based across local boards than dependent on the number of active users at a given point in time. After all, the concept behind the Trust System is to help protect traders to some extent, and that should be irrespective of the number of users on a given board at a certain time.

[skarais]

Most of our local sections have trust viewing disabled. It's not a really big concern, since we are kinda few users there, but if the local community were to grow, it could pose a problem. Why? Because it's disabled on many sections that rather require trust
~~~

Regardless of whether or not there are many forum users on your local board, then I think if there are boards related to trading, trust will also be displayed. Other than boards related to trading and reputation, I dont think trust is displayed in local board.

Indonesia has 4 boards and trust is only displayed on the buying and selling board (trading), for the main board, altcoin and mining discussions are not displayed and so far I dont think there is an urgent need to trust viewing on other boards in our local. But the needs for other local boaard can also vary.

[Csmiami]

----
Regardless of whether or not there are many forum users on your local board, then I think if there are boards related to trading, trust will also be displayed. Other than boards related to trading and reputation, I dont think trust is displayed in local board.
----

The board that is actually "used" to trade goods (buying and selling) does show trust ratings; the other "Trading" board could be closer to Economics/Speculation than to an actual marketplace.

-----

We do agree on that; altough being it something low priority, I consider that we can do the vigilante work if the community is at the current numbers. Not sure I explained myself propperly there....

[Chlotide]

The board that is actually "used" to trade goods (buying and selling) does show trust ratings; the other "Trading" board could be closer to Economics/Speculation than to an actual marketplace.

The speculation section on the main board does not display trust ratings either. Not sure what to say if it's ok or not but does look consistent at least :p

[Halab]

Most of our local sections have trust viewing disabled. It's not a really big concern, since we are kinda few users there, but if the local community were to grow, it could pose a problem. Why? Because it's disabled on many sections that rather require trust

I don't know if this discussion will be seen by Theymos or Cyrus, the best to do is to ask your local mod to make the request in the Staff section.
There are already other such topics asking to display the Trust indicator in specific local sections.
For example (no need to click, these are links to the Staff section) :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018989.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1835775.0

[Yogee]

Case - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5261194.0
Flag - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2532772;page=iflags

Please excuse my limited knowledge of trust flags but I was wondering why a warning remains on topics created by flagged users even if the flag is already inactive? The reason Betnomi appealed because the negative trust and flag is affecting their business. If the huge warning remains, I think it will still have a negative effect on their reputation and business.

[jademaxsuy]

This is really useful especially in the near future where the forum will be fully utilized as a trade market or negotiolations for cryptocurrency though it had been function already. But there are more needs to improve in rhat area especially in doing such scam taking advantage of anonymity. But with thesw trust flags the it would be easy to give trust and not depending on the trust flags that will be an indicator for it.

For now this function is really good and hope to get more effective more in the future.

[LoyceV]

Case - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5261194.0
Flag - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2532772;page=iflags

Please excuse my limited knowledge of trust flags but I was wondering why a warning remains on topics created by flagged users even if the flag is already inactive?

I think it's a bug. You should PM theymos:

PM me if you find bugs.

Sorry, I stand corrected. It's not a bug, the warning is caused by old negative feedback:

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 forgot about this one)

[~DefaultTrust]

Just to confirm, you are not allowed to create a contract violation flag unless you were personally harmed, correct?

Correct.

If some user from DT1 has created a flag without understanding this topic correctly and other DT users supported this flag. Is there a way delete the flag?
Or the correct solution would be to remove these users from the DT list?
Or are there other solutions to this problem?

For example: if the user from DT1 was not personally harmed but he created a flag with reason like this: "This user can be misleading... This can lead anyone who listens to this liar to a financial loss". Is this correct flag reason?

[Vod]

If some user from DT1 has created a flag without understanding this topic correctly and other DT users supported this flag. Is there a way delete the flag?

I assume you are talking about this thread, with the OP not having lost money in the ponzi specifically?  And then I'll assume you worry it sets a precedence for OG's ponzi where I didn't lose money?   I'd love to flag the admitted scammer if I wasn't sure Theymos would remove it to protect his contractor.

[~DefaultTrust]

I assume you are talking about this thread, with the OP not having lost money in the ponzi specifically? 

No, I mean another case. However, it looks like this problem is common.

I'd love to flag the admitted scammer if I wasn't sure Theymos would remove it to protect his contractor.

But does this contradict the original goal? Will Theymos somehow react to this?

[Vod]

Will Theymos somehow react to this?

React to the one I linked to, and then the one I would leave?  Or react only to my accusation?

OG is gone from DT now, but he still needs power over ignorant newbies to scam.   So he silently became a merit source where he gives away 4 merits to newbies just for signing a message - no quality needed.  If the creator the system devalues merit in that way, what hope do non-scammers have?

[~DefaultTrust]

React to the one I linked to, and then the one I would leave?  Or react only to my accusation?

I do not know. I wonder what the words mean:

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.

Does this apply to users who create flags without being personally harmed?

[actmyname]

Does this apply to users who create flags without being personally harmed?

I believe this applies to type 2 and 3 flags, which require a contractual violation between the peers.

Highlight:

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