Trust flags

[jokers10]

So far, yes. There's $17k remaining.

Is anyone wondering what is going to happen with all that leftover money if we don't hear anything from ww owners in near future? Maybe bonus money for manager and everyone else who participated?  

I can't imagine any scammer with half brain would leave all that money without explanation, it looks like obvious loss for them from every possible angle you look.

This is still not our money, I don't think it would be correct to manage other people's money even if these people are scammers. Moreover there could be uncovered other victims and if there will be no funds to resolve their problem because we will decide to take them for bonuses, how would it look like? I don't like the idea.

[hugeblack]

Is anyone wondering what is going to happen with all that leftover money if we don't hear anything from ww owners in near future? Maybe bonus money for manager and everyone else who participated?  

In most escrow contracts, 1%-10% of the value of money is deducted annually, with the full amount confiscated after 20 years. I do not know what escrow conditions are in the case of WWM, but it is better for everyone who received compensation not to spend it.

This reminds us of ‎1.30807482^[1] chipmixer escrow , I think we need a separate topic.

I can't imagine any scammer with half brain would leave all that money without explanation, it looks like obvious loss for them from every possible angle you look.

The case may be related Tornado Cash


[1] https://mempool.space/address/1ChipWGhJtEWCeSq3cra4HmKhvYqe8Tvty

[suchmoon]

Here is a different scenario - how would you deal with this:

Service loses money (hack, lost keys, whatever). No worries (for the customers), there is escrow. Service says "we fucked up, escrow please refund our customers". Escrow runs away with the funds and doesn't refund. Whom do you flag and why? Service? Escrow? Both?

That would be seriously fucked up. In this scenario, the escrow deserves a type 3 Flag for sure, to be created by the service. After that, I'd say the service should still refund the customers, or they can create a type 3 Flag against the service. Unless the customers agreed to only rely on the escrow before they paid the service, but that wouldn't make sense.

So it sounds as if we would be flagging the service in this hypothetical scenario even though it didn't scam (in theory; assuming there is no collusion, lying, etc), and some argue that in the WWM scenario the service should not be flagged even though they (presumably) scammed or at least got hit by a bus and had no communication contingency.

There needs to be consistency in how we interpret these implied contracts. I think in both cases the service that took the money and didn't pay back needs to be flagged with one of the contract flags, regardless of what any escrow may or may not do. If you steal something it's a crime regardless if the victim gets an insurance payout. I don't think a new type of flag or even a change in wording is needed, but I'm not a lawyer, just occasionally pretend to be one.

[LoyceV]

If you steal something it's a crime regardless if the victim gets an insurance payout.

Agreed. But "normally", insurance payouts come from all other insured people who pay their premium. In WWM's case, it comes from their own "jar".

[LoyceV]

I have a question about the Type 3 Flag:

Code:

This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages.

What if a service makes contradicting claims on their website, and only one of those claims would mean a written contract was violated, while the other claim supports what they did? Would that still qualify as breaking a written contract?
For context, see this post.

[apogio]

I have a question about the Type 3 Flag:

Code:

This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages.

What if a service makes contradicting claims on their website, and only one of those claims would mean a written contract was violated, while the other claim supports what they did? Would that still qualify as breaking a written contract?
For context, see this post.

Thanks LoyceV for asking this question. I will wait for the answer to make sure I will create the proper flag type. For the time being, I added a negative trust feedback.

[DYING_S0UL]

- Globally, per year you can only create 1 flag per activity point you have, but at least 1/year.

Can anybody explain me this rule a bit further, maybe in simple words with examples? I'm a little confused! Or maybe my English isn't as good as everyone else for me to understand this statement! Anyway, why use the term globally and 1 flag per activity point means? The point that every user has? Use my account to make example if needed!

I am making a translation, and I need to have clear understanding of this rule before I can proceed.  

[LoyceV]

Can anybody explain me this rule a bit further, maybe in simple words with examples?

It's to prevent Newbies from creating spam-Flags. To take your account as an example: you can "only" create 658 Flags per year. I think the "globally" means all different Flags added together.

[DYING_S0UL]

Can anybody explain me this rule a bit further, maybe in simple words with examples?

It's to prevent Newbies from creating spam-Flags. To take your account as an example: you can "only" create 658 Flags per year. I think the "globally" means all different Flags added together.

But I won't matter unless 3 users supports it right? I mean even if a newbie tried to spam flags it won't be active/visible, not until the right conditions are met! 

[JeromeTash]

But I won't matter unless 3 users supports it right? I mean even if a newbie tried to spam flags it won't be active/visible, not until the right conditions are met! 

Yes, they wouldn't be visible, but also profiles having so many inactive fake flags due to spam doesn't look good. Imagine if someone created accounts just to create fake flags against different profiles. The preventive measure is actually well thought and good.

[theymos]

I have a question about the Type 3 Flag:

Code:

This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages.

What if a service makes contradicting claims on their website, and only one of those claims would mean a written contract was violated, while the other claim supports what they did? Would that still qualify as breaking a written contract?
For context, see this post.

Voters should read the flag allegation-statement and decide (with the same mindset as a judge in a legal case) whether it's true or false. Especially when it comes down to edge cases like that, people can validly have different opinions as to the truth.

My personal opinion: I lean toward thinking that a type-2 is more appropriate because advertising which contradicts the ToS is in my eyes more of an informal/implied agreement than a contract. But I wouldn't say that a type-3 would be egregiously wrong or anything.

[apogio]

Voters should read the flag allegation-statement and decide (with the same mindset as a judge in a legal case) whether it's true or false. Especially when it comes down to edge cases like that, people can validly have different opinions as to the truth.

My personal opinion: I lean toward thinking that a type-2 is more appropriate because advertising which contradicts the ToS is in my eyes more of an informal/implied agreement than a contract. But I wouldn't say that a type-3 would be egregiously wrong or anything.

I guess that's always the case, meaning that opinions are definitely subjective for any subject.
The reason why I 've not created a flag so far is that, despite my loss, which was a big one, I am still trying to figure out the truth in their website and I can't.
Anyway, thanks for the answer, I will probably go with type-2 when I finish my research.

[LoyceV]

Just a thought after I received a scam-PM from lotfiuser: how about showing Flags on top of each PM? Ideally, the Newbie warning Flag should be visible for everyone in this case, so a quick warning can be added for all other PM-receivers.

[apogio]

Just a thought after I received a scam-PM from lotfiuser: how about showing Flags on top of each PM? Ideally, the Newbie warning Flag should be visible for everyone in this case, so a quick warning can be added for all other PM-receivers.

Yeah I received it as well. The user isn't a Newbie though, so how can the system know to add the warning? Perhaps it can "see" the number of negative feedback?

[LoyceV]

The user isn't a Newbie though, so how can the system know to add the warning? Perhaps it can "see" the number of negative feedback?

If Newbie Flags would be shown above all PMs, I could have added that Flag when I posted here.
Based on PM limits, this user could send up to 120 PMs per hour, 1200 PMs per day, with 30 recipients per PM. That's a lot of spam until he gets banned.

[Quickseller]

Use-cases 2 and 3 will be handled by a new system of flags. You can create a flag using a link on a person's trust page.

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.

For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created. This is the only thing which causes the "Warning: trade with extreme caution" warning to return. It also triggers a banner similar to the newbie-warning banner which is visible to all users. A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.

A new scammer flag should be created for each separate alleged incident. In the spirit of forgiveness/redemption, scammer flags expire 3 years after the incident if the contract was casual/implied, and 10 years after the incident if the contract was written. These expiration times might be administratively changed in specific cases.

I couldn't find this after looking at the first several pages of this thread...

Does the newbie flag ever expire? I am aware of a few that have not expired after 6 years. 

[LoyceV]

Does the newbie flag ever expire?

As far as I know: no.
Type 1 doesn't have a date and doesn't expire.
Type 2 has a date and expires after 3 years.
Type 3 has a date and expires after 10 years.

[JeromeTash]

I couldn't find this after looking at the first several pages of this thread...

Does the newbie flag ever expire? I am aware of a few that have not expired after 6 years. 

Newbie flags are designed not expire at all. Trust flags that involve contractual violations (type 2 and Type 3) are the only ones that are designed to expire "in the spirit of forgiveness" as stated by the admin

[Vod]

Trust flags that involve contractual violations (type 2 and Type 3) are the only ones that are designed to expire "in the spirit of forgiveness" as stated by the admin

Ouch.  Knowing what I know now about online fraud prosecution, this is a cringe.   Hypothetical scenario - a scammer could have a flag expire and scam another person.  That person could sue Theymos for recovery, since Theymos took it upon himself to pardon the offence.     I don't think flags should expire.

[LoyceV]

Hypothetical scenario - a scammer could have a flag expire and scam another person.

I'll add my own hypothetical scenario: a scammer is released from prison and scams another person. In fact, that's not only hypothetical, it's common practice. Nobody involved in releasing the scammer will be liable for his future scams.