Trust flags

[~DefaultTrust]

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.

What users should to do with users that violated that rules (if the is are rules)? Report to moderator? Report to Reputation board? Something other?

[1713281743]

1713281743

[1713281743]

1713281743

[1713281743]

1713281743

[1713281743]

1713281743

[1713281743]

1713281743

[actmyname]

What users should to do with users that violated that rules (if the is are rules)? Report to moderator? Report to Reputation board? Something other?

I don't know what you're talking about so publicizing it would be a good start.

Write a thread directed at theymos. It's effectively a semi-centralized of the original DefaultTrust - he blacklists some users but doesn't pick and choose directly.

[~DefaultTrust]

What users should to do with users that violated that rules (if the is are rules)? Report to moderator? Report to Reputation board? Something other?

I don't know what you're talking about so publicizing it would be a good start.

Write a thread directed at theymos. It's effectively a semi-centralized of the original DefaultTrust - he blacklists some users but doesn't pick and choose directly.

OK. I have created a new topic for this.

[Bitcoinsummoner]

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.

What users should to do with users that violated that rules (if the is are rules)? Report to moderator? Report to Reputation board? Something other?

If any users violates terms at the time of trading or scam at the time of trading and or or default then victim should create a topic about the scam and create a flag by giving that as reference.

[~DefaultTrust]

So it seems that the flag creation algorithm have some vulnerabilities.
Despite of terms that flag-reference topic must not be self-moderated, users can make censored topic instead. That because OP just can close his topic and no one except OP can write there. Technically the topic will not self-moderated, but by-the-fact it is under censored.

[Bitcoinsummoner]

So it seems that the flag creation algorithm have some vulnerabilities.
Despite of terms that flag-reference topic must not be self-moderated, users can make censored topic instead. That because OP just can close his topic and no one except OP can write there. Technically the topic will not self-moderated, but by-the-fact it is under censored.

I don't think it has any vulnerabilities. It is working properly. The topic which will be created to create a flag will be used as reference. Someone will support or not by checking the reference. And in this way if anyone think the topic is not trustworthy then the person will not support the flag. As a result the topic will be valueless.

[~DefaultTrust]

So it seems that the flag creation algorithm have some vulnerabilities.
Despite of terms that flag-reference topic must not be self-moderated, users can make censored topic instead. That because OP just can close his topic and no one except OP can write there. Technically the topic will not self-moderated, but by-the-fact it is under censored.

I don't think it has any vulnerabilities. It is working properly. The topic which will be created to create a flag will be used as reference. Someone will support or not by checking the reference. And in this way if anyone think the topic is not trustworthy then the person will not support the flag. As a result the topic will be valueless.

What is the point, then, in a rule that user must to create a new topic for a reference?



Why is the topic needed? Why we can't just leave a link to a post?

[Upgrade00]

Why is the topic needed? Why we can't just leave a link to a post?

When creating a flag, this message pops up in one of the pages;

You must link to a topic documenting your specific concerns. Someone visiting your topic should get a clear idea of what this flag is about. The topic must not be self-moderated. If you flag many users, you can create a single flag-explanations topic.   

It's self explanatory why a topic is needed; if you're going to create a flag against a user, there should be intent, so you have to create a thread in which you would outline your concerns. If you just link to a post, it could be deleted by the OP, an archived link could solve that, but there would be no new arguments for users to follow and choose to support or not .

Take your time to read on the flag and trust system without bias to understand how it works.

[~DefaultTrust]

Why is the topic needed? Why we can't just leave a link to a post?

When creating a flag, this message pops up in one of the pages;

It's self explanatory why a topic is needed; if you're going to create a flag against a user, there should be intent, so you have to create a thread in which you would outline your concerns.

OK.
Why the topic must not be self-moderated?

[actmyname]

OK.
Why the topic must not be self-moderated?

One-sided threads are not something that would be good for evaluating truth, especially when it comes to supporting a flag which brands a user's account.

Threads also create a more streamlined setup than a singular post: authoring a new topic can allow for much better organization of the events as you can always add relevant details to the initial post as necessary. It allows for replies to the flag content itself rather than possibly being confined to a separate thread (where the flag details may be off-topic)

[~DefaultTrust]

OK.
Why the topic must not be self-moderated?

One-sided threads are not something that would be good for evaluating truth, especially when it comes to supporting a flag which brands a user's account.

This is your point of view

Another:

The topic which will be created to create a flag will be used as reference. Someone will support or not by checking the reference. And in this way if anyone think the topic is not trustworthy then the person will not support the flag. As a result the topic will be valueless.

Who is right?

Is new topic for reference only or must be free for discussion and may be for appeal too? May be theymos explain something here?

[LoyceV]

Is new topic for reference only or must be free for discussion and may be for appeal too? May be theymos explain something here?

I can't read that topic, so I can't comment on that case. But in general, it would depend on each case whether or not I'd support a Flag with a locked Reference topic. Locking the topic might be useful against spam or trolling, or just long after the Flag was created.
There's also not really a solution: topics sometimes get locked, either by the creator or by a Mod. That doesn't necessarily mean the Flag itself should be invalidated. Many Flags don't even have a Reference topic anymore.

[~DefaultTrust]

There's also not really a solution: topics sometimes get locked, either by the creator or by a Mod. That doesn't necessarily mean the Flag itself should be invalidated.

I don't see any logic in this.
Perhaps I don't know English well, but our textbooks say something like this:
must to - is saying when want to say "either you do as it is written or you will be shot". This is a binding order.
should - is a binding order too, but sometimes it is allowed to cheat without health consequences

If flag is must to be created with a topic then very strange when I see a flag without the topic   

[suchmoon]

If flag is must to be created with a topic then very strange when I see a flag without the topic   

Do you need counseling or will you be able to get through this horrible experience on your own?

Stop being (or pretending to be) an utter idiot FFS. Of course threads can be trashed for being shit or otherwise disappear. If you think the reference doesn't adequately support the flag, including but not limited due to being:

• Deleted
• Locked
• Empty
• Irrelevant
• Created by korner
• Written in Comic Sans

OPPOSE THE FUCKING FLAG AND MOVE ON.

[Bitcoinsummoner]

OK.
Why the topic must not be self-moderated?

The topic must not be self moderated because anyone may create a topic which is not true and replies of that post might be deleted by the post creator. So, the post should not be self moderated and the reply cant be deleted by the topic creator.

[~DefaultTrust]

[because anyone may create a topic which is not true and replies of that post might be deleted by the post creator. So, the post should not be self moderated and the reply cant be deleted by the topic creator.

What about if the topic is not true and is locked by creator? Can anyone reply to the locked topic? What is a difference when 'not true' post is locked for reply or is not locked but replays are deleted by creator?

[Bitcoinsummoner]

[because anyone may create a topic which is not true and replies of that post might be deleted by the post creator. So, the post should not be self moderated and the reply cant be deleted by the topic creator.

What about if the topic is not true and is locked by creator? Can anyone reply to the locked topic? What is a difference when 'not true' post is locked for reply or is not locked but replays are deleted by creator?

If the topic is locked after creating a topic then it might be almost same as self moderating topic. But anyone who will see the topic is locked will be able to know that there is no post which has been deleted. And support/oppose of the flag. But I think if topic is locked after the creation of the topic then we should avoid supporting the flag.

[Timelord2067]

Can somebody remind me again how I can default distrust someone who already has a tilda in their user profile name?  If you can post it with the code tag so that it doesn't get muddled in the copy and paste I'd appreciate it.

[LoyceV]

Can somebody remind me again how I can default distrust someone who already has a tilda in their user profile name?  If you can post it with the code tag so that it doesn't get muddled in the copy and paste I'd appreciate it.

Excluding this user works like any other username: add ~ in front of the username.

Only for including this user you need to do something different:

If you want to trust someone whose name begins with a tilde, prefix their name with a backslash.

[LoyceV]

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements.

If a website that has an ANN-thread on Bitcointalk scammed someone, it deserves a red scammer Flag. But if the ANN-thread was created by a user who is no longer active, and the site is represented by a different user, can the thread creator still be flagged? I can argue the thread creator is innocent, but that means the thread won't get a scam warning.

I'm asking because I found what looks like a loophole:

I'm in doubt: A casino closed a user's account, and took 399 mBTC without valid reason. The casino's main ANN-thread was created by user eGoldgg, who last posted 3 years ago. The thread is "maintained" by user Buff88.
I'd like to show a scam warning above the topic, which means user eGoldgg should have a Flag. I'm in doubt if this fits the Flag-rules, but if it doesn't fit the rules, it means there's a loophole to avoid a warning on a thread.

The scammed user created 2 Flags, both type 2:

2816 Insufficient support. (Support | Oppose) GekkeBelg flagged eGoldgg (type 2, see why). Supported by GekkeBelg. Opposed by nobody.
2815 Insufficient support. (Support | Oppose) GekkeBelg flagged Buff88 (type 2, see why). Supported by LoyceV, GekkeBelg. Opposed by nobody.
(source: loyce.club)

Update: user eGoldgg came back online and locked his thread. I'm not sure if that's an admission of guilt.