theymosisms on Trust Flags

[hd49728]

theymos adjusted the Trust System, by separating it into two parts:
- An adjusted Trust System;
- A Flag System.

1. I collected theymos' opinion and clarifications on those two so far (I will keep the topic updating and reformat it) because it will be hardly to catch all posts of theymos in the thread: Trust Flags, that will definitely become a huge thread.
Official Annoucement

I think that several of the problems with Trust were because three different goals were being jammed into one system:
 1. Getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location, sort of like reviews on sites like EBay.
 2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.
 3. Deterring scams by creating a cost to scamming (ie. you'll "lose" a veteran account).
 
To improve this, I've split up these use-cases:

Use-case #1 is the old trust system, but I made the descriptions on the rating types a bit more general and removed the concept of a trust score. The numbers are now "distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters". You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.

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.

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.

Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.

Also, a few miscellaneous changes:
 - All of the sections on users' trust pages are now paginated, so the page doesn't expand to massive size anymore.
 - The ordering of sent feedback is now consistent with the other sections.
 - "Risked BTC" is removed.

PM me if you find bugs.

It's the end of Trust Tags Relate to Opinion Conflicts

You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.

Abuse on Flags should be avoided

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.

Flags can not be deleted

I am wondering will users be able to remove a scammer flag early in the spirit of forgiveness. Do users in your trust network automatically support flags or do they need to take action?

The original accuser can withdraw their support, but they can't delete the flag. So other users could take it up even if they withdraw.

Flags need to be actively supported.

Here's a user with a flag that you could support/oppose:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=157669
And if you log out or use a newbie account, you can see the banner on their topic:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2690003.0

Can we use a community thread for flagging potential scammers? I ask because it says you can create 1 thread if you tag flag many users, or can this be a simple thread that states I flag people for these reasons and leave it at that.

Yes, but make sure that if someone goes there, it's clear what the flag is about.

Scammer flags should usually each have distinct topics.

Existing ratings are not automatically converted into Flags

How are the existing ratings converted into the new flags?

They're not. I decided that too many negative ratings aren't flag-worthy, and there's no way to automatically determine it. If you believe that a past negative rating is flag-worthy, you'll need to create a flag.

Everyone can create flag, but there are limitations

Can everyone create a flag? I have seen add flag option in users profile. Does this have any affect by DT member? Or everyone can create flag and if get support, it will be active.

Anyone can create them, but support/opposition is only counted from people in your trust network. So if a newbie creates one, probably it will not be active from anyone's perspective, and it will thus have no effect unless it gets additional support from others.

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.

A case study on Active and Inactive Flag

Here someone created a contract-violation flag:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=9
Since that's clearly a test account, feel free to support it or oppose it as a test.

Note that right now it's only linked in a small note on the target user's trust page:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817
And listed on their inactive-flags page:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817;page=iflags
And shown as an entry in the sender's sent ratings:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626816;page=sent

If it gets enough support, it will no longer be listed in "inactive flags", and will instead move to "active flags".

So if I understand this correctly, when I create a contract violation flag I'm counted as the first supporter and I'll need two more if I want someone to have "trade with extreme caution".

Correct.

You can create both a newbie-warning and contract-violation flag if you want.

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

Correct.

The first Active Scammer Flag

SafeDice has the honor of being the first to get an active scammer flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=396610

How is support/opposition to a flag displayed? Are those who are in my trust network always shown in larger font and first, and those outside of my trust network in smaller font and second, and then sorted by UID after determining if a person is in/out of my trust network?

Right, except that they're sorted by activity.

The first DT member removed
Lauda: PM from admin demanding to exclude a certain user

Don't over-create Flag

Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io violated a contract, but BetKing Support, dean nolan and PocketRocketsCasino are his alt-accounts.

Yes, one of the victims can.

I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented.

Correct.

Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?

It's probably best if one of the victims makes a flag and the rest support it.

Changes in display of Trust in Profile page (Separate trust scores for negative, neutral, and positive)


Two types of flag:
What is difference between newsilike (Yellow Flag Box) and SafeDice (Red Flag Box). They both get active flags, but one is in yellow flag, and another one is in red flag.


Answer:
- Yellow Flag Box: Newbie-Warning Flag
- Red Flag Box: Scammer Flag

A yellow box is used if someone creates a newbie-warning flag, which on the "Add flag" page reads as follows: Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)

A red box is used if someone creates a scammer warning flag, which on the "Add flag" page reads as follows: This user violated a casual or implied agreement with me, resulting in damages. or This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages.

Your trust ratings are irrelevant to the displaying or coloring of the flags.
 .....
If someone has an active yellow colored newbie warning flag, they will display a # next to their trust scores and a warning box to all guests and newly registered (under 7 days logged in time) users.
If someone has an active red colored scammer warning flag, they will display a !!! next to their trust scores and a warning box to all users.

Newbie-warning flag

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 example:
Active Newbie-warning Flag



Scammer Flag

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.

For example:
Active Scammer Flag




Text Format inside Flag Box

Need confirmations from theymos.

Guide:

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.)

2. Questions and  one bug (found by @isasenko, I already tested it myself).
Meaning of smaller font size, italic font style, and grey color of supporters?

Someone said it relates to DT member or not DT member supports, but when I flagged myself (here), my name in Support list normally displayed, not in smaller fontsize, italic fontstyle, or in grey color.

Potential explanations (need confirmations from theymos):

Normal font is displayed for users who are on your own personal trust list. Small, italic, grey font is for users who are not on your own personal trust list. If you do not have a personal trust list, then default trust is used. You will always appear as normal to yourself.

Bug
User can flag his or herself, that's weird, and should be disabled.

I can put a flag on my own account. This should be disabled as before.

I tested it myself and can actually do it.

3. Community suggestions
1.

I think the code of trust score should be Bolded on the profile to be more effective

2. Let me be the first to start a bitching thread about the flags
There are suggestions on design of Warning Icons, that should have same colors as of Flag Box:
- Yellow Icons for Newbie-Warning Flag.
- Red Icons for Scammer Flag.

3. @theymos [Suggestion] New Flags Section

[1713530080]

1713530080

[Quickseller]

So long as theymos keeps his word, the trust drama should be removed:

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.

[hd49728]

At least, opinion conflicts will no longer result in Trust Drama

It's the end of Trust Tags Relate to Opinion Conflicts

You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.

[hd49728]

Reserved

[hd49728]

Reserved

[o_e_l_e_o]

In my guess:

• Yellow is for active flags.
• Red: is for trust.

So, if someone got both red trust and active flag, their flag boxes will be displayed in Red.

This is incorrect.

A yellow box is used if someone creates a newbie-warning flag, which on the "Add flag" page reads as follows: Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)

A red box is used if someone creates a scammer warning flag, which on the "Add flag" page reads as follows: This user violated a casual or implied agreement with me, resulting in damages. or This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages.

Your trust ratings are irrelevant to the displaying or coloring of the flags.

Furthermore, Trust Warning is prioritised than flag:
If someone only get active flag: profile page will be shown with #, like newsilike.
But if someone get both red trust, and active flag: profile page will be shown with Trust Warning, there is no #, like SafeDice.

Again, not correct.

If someone has an active yellow colored newbie warning flag, they will display a # next to their trust scores and a warning box to all guests and newly registered (under 7 days logged in time) users.
If someone has an active red colored scammer warning flag, they will display a !!! next to their trust scores and a warning box to all users.

Someone said it relates to DT member or not DT member supports, but when I flagged myself (here), my name in Support list normally displayed, not in smaller fontsize, italic fontstyle, or in grey color.

Normal font is displayed for users who are on your own personal trust list. Small, italic, grey font is for users who are not on your own personal trust list. If you do not have a personal trust list, then default trust is used. You will always appear as normal to yourself.

[Lauda]

There will be even more drama than before.

[TECSHARE]

There will be even more drama than before.

I am sure you will see to that.

[Quickseller]

There will be even more drama than before.

I think this will mostly consist of you wining and bitching about your loss of power. It should make it more clear that you never cared about protecting others, but wanted power and money/business for yourself.

[Lauda]

There will be even more drama than before.

I think this will mostly consist of you wining and bitching about your loss of power. It should make it more clear that you never cared about protecting others, but wanted power and money/business for yourself.

I literally do not conduct any business here any more, and have not been doing that for a long time. Excluding my CET thread (which was not even my idea), where are my services? You, as a lying scammer will not get away in the new system. I'll make sure of it, don't worry.

[dogie]

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

Showing what is essentially a scammer flag to people with account ages only less than 7 days essentially just opened the door to 10,000's of scammers. There are so many accounts that I've previously tagged that I no longer can, because it doesn't fit into the narrow definitions.

For example, the guy with 20-30 accounts who is permabanned off the site but who keeps creating more... I can't 2. or 3. tag him, and 1. will do next to nothing...

[The Sceptical Chymist]

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

It was.  I misread the title as "Welcome Fags" and woke up too late in the day to get in early with the start of this thing, and now I'm excluded by Lauda and have otherwise been thrown into a part of this shit I'd rather not be in.  And hey, I'm a relatively pro-rainbow type of guy....but all of this is extremely different and it's very hard to understand the basics when I have to weed through all the garbage--which I'm now adding to with this post.

Should have stayed in bed today.  Is it too early to start drinking on the east coast?

[Lauda]

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

It was.  I misread the title as "Welcome Fags" and woke up too late in the day to get in early with the start of this thing, and now I'm excluded by Lauda and have otherwise been thrown into a part of this shit I'd rather not be in.  And hey, I'm a relatively pro-rainbow type of guy....but all of this is extremely different and it's very hard to understand the basics when I have to weed through all the garbage--which I'm now adding to with this post.

Theymos is excluded by Lauda too. Theymos is asking for a DT-wide exclusion of Lauda for flagging a known scammer. What a time to be alive.

Should have stayed in bed today.  Is it too early to start drinking on the east coast?

Not much of a fan of drinking, but I guess it's never too early.

[malevolent]

Showing what is essentially a scammer flag to people with account ages only less than 7 days essentially just opened the door to 10,000's of scammers. There are so many accounts that I've previously tagged that I no longer can, because it doesn't fit into the narrow definitions.

It's 7 days of logged-in time, not 7-day-old accounts, and guests will also keep seeing this flag. Everyone else knows they should check a user's Trust page before sending them any money.

[The-One-Above-All]

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

It was.  I misread the title as "Welcome Fags" and woke up too late in the day to get in early with the start of this thing, and now I'm excluded by Lauda and have otherwise been thrown into a part of this shit I'd rather not be in.  And hey, I'm a relatively pro-rainbow type of guy....but all of this is extremely different and it's very hard to understand the basics when I have to weed through all the garbage--which I'm now adding to with this post.

Theymos is excluded by Lauda too. Theymos is asking for a DT-wide exclusion of Lauda for flagging a known scammer. What a time to be alive.

Should have stayed in bed today.  Is it too early to start drinking on the east coast?

Not much of a fan of drinking, but I guess it's never too early.

Well it could have something to do you with you being a proven scammer yourself? or a probable extortionist or a shady escrow? or using red trust to silence whistle blowing??  or saying fuck off you will not work within the new fair and transparent rules that ensure everyone is protected from scamming trash like you?

Pharmacist has been distancing himself from your abuse for a while.

[hd49728]

I updated OP, please check and correct me if I wrote something incorrectly.

Two types of flag:
What is difference between newsilike (Yellow Flag Box) and SafeDice (Red Flag Box). They both get active flags, but one is in yellow flag, and another one is in red flag.


Answer:
- Yellow Flag Box: Newbie-Warning Flag
- Red Flag Box: Scammer Flag

A yellow box is used if someone creates a newbie-warning flag, which on the "Add flag" page reads as follows: Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)

A red box is used if someone creates a scammer warning flag, which on the "Add flag" page reads as follows: This user violated a casual or implied agreement with me, resulting in damages. or This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages.

Your trust ratings are irrelevant to the displaying or coloring of the flags.
 .....
If someone has an active yellow colored newbie warning flag, they will display a # next to their trust scores and a warning box to all guests and newly registered (under 7 days logged in time) users.
If someone has an active red colored scammer warning flag, they will display a !!! next to their trust scores and a warning box to all users.

Newbie-warning flag

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 example:
Active Newbie-warning Flag



Scammer Flag

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.

For example:
Active Scammer Flag




Text Format inside Flag Box

Need confirmations from theymos.

Guide:

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.)

2. Questions and  one bug (found by @isasenko, I already tested it myself).
Meaning of smaller font size, italic font style, and grey color of supporters?

Someone said it relates to DT member or not DT member supports, but when I flagged myself (here), my name in Support list normally displayed, not in smaller fontsize, italic fontstyle, or in grey color.

Potential explanations (need confirmations from theymos):

Normal font is displayed for users who are on your own personal trust list. Small, italic, grey font is for users who are not on your own personal trust list. If you do not have a personal trust list, then default trust is used. You will always appear as normal to yourself.

Bug
User can flag his or herself, that's weird, and should be disabled.

I can put a flag on my own account. This should be disabled as before.

I tested it myself and can actually do it.

3. Community suggestions
1.

I think the code of trust score should be Bolded on the profile to be more effective

2. Let me be the first to start a bitching thread about the flags
There are suggestions on design of Warning Icons, that should have same colors as of Flag Box:
- Yellow Icons for Newbie-Warning Flag.
- Red Icons for Scammer Flag.

3. @theymos [Suggestion] New Flags Section

[hd49728]

Update (I will try read it thoroughly and edit OP later)

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 added "These warning banners will disappear when you have 7 days of login time. You should familiarize yourself with the trust system before then." to the newbie warning banner. Note BTW that it usually takes months for someone to get 7 days of login time: among all 4096 users with 6.5 to 7.5 days login time, the account age (lastLogin-dateRegistered) is: maximum 3216 days, minimum 7.5, median 677, average 936.
 - The pages you see after clicking "next" are now bigger.
 

Some people are acting as though these changes are "letting scammers off the hook", but I don't really think so. Let's assume for a moment that flag types 2 & 3 are too restrictive and will therefore never be used. Even then, you can still give scammers negative feedback, which will display next to their posts in orange, and the threshold for giving negative feedback has been loosened. You can also give newbie-warning flags very easily, and the warning which this creates is shown to more people than any previous warning.

The only thing that scammers got is that they don't have red trust scores or a "trade with extreme caution" warning. But when you consider the measures in the previous paragraph, who is actually going to be scammed due to the absence of this? I think few if any. IMO the main point of these things was to punish/deter scamming, which is what was causing a lot of drama. And by making the threshold for this specific thing higher, it became reasonable to lower the threshold and widen the effect for the other warnings.

I think that scamming will be net-reduced due to these changes.

This system actually incentivizes one-account-one-scam

If someone creates a newbie account and tries to scam with it, they have roughly the same ability as before. The only thing they might be missing is a tiny piece of screen real estate shown only to logged-in users with a trust score and "Trade with extreme caution!" The more effective warnings are the banners, which have been expanded.

If someone does a long con, they have more to lose, since the scam flags create a banner for all users, and it's more exclusive and therefore meaningful. This can give you a bit more confidence in veteran members.

So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?

Newbie-warning flag.

Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?

Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?

And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?

That's all misuse of the system.

@Theymos, I have opened a scam accusation here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153498.0

People have lost money/had to recover their funds because of this user and I have included several clear fact-statements in my topic. Would it be against the rules for me to (attempt to) add a scammer flag since I personally haven't dealt with the user in question?

If you have not been scammed by him, then you should not create a scam flag. A newbie-warning flag and/or trust rating would be OK.

On agreement types:

A written contract is a piece of text taking the rough form of "I will do this, and then you will do this in return," where both sides clearly agreed to it. It needn't be super formal, but there definitely shouldn't be any case of someone not realizing that they were agreeing to something. "I'll send you 1 BTC for the coin" -> "OK" is enough of a written contract.

Exactly what falls into an "implied agreement" may be somewhat grey-area, and certain very obvious torts may also count. Let's see how the culture around this develops.

I wish the "#" would be more prominent though, and the less-than-3-supporters contract violation flags had some sort of indicator too. Not red and scary, just more visible.

There are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. Newbie-warning flags are only for warning newbies, not for warning experienced members who should know better, or for harming the target. The "#" symbol is supposed to be inconspicuous, since it's not supposed to be a warning or a "mark of shame".

(I won't rule out adding a per-post warning for newbies if people evade the per-topic warnings, though.)

Innocent until proven guilty, sure. But with this one it is unflagged until victim proves scammer guilty. If no victim acts on the flag, then nothing is done. You are not allowed to flag without first being scammed.

No, you are just not allowed to use the high-power scam flags -- intended mainly for punishing people, not really for preemptively warning about scams -- without first being scammed. You can still use the newbie-warning flags and negative ratings, which have plenty of warning power.

Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=60
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?

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.

The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.

[xolxol]

theymos is actually using his power to remove abusive people,great update for the trust network these abusive DT members cannot destroy someone elses account by using the red tags,they will require great evidences to create a scammer tag or else they will be outcast from their beloved powerful positions.

[actmyname]

they will require great evidences to create a scammer tag or else they will be outcast from their beloved powerful positions.

Wasn't that always the case?

[eddie13]

they will require great evidences to create a scammer tag or else they will be outcast from their beloved powerful positions.

Wasn't that always the case?

Well now you have to be the victim yourself and have hard facts to place the hard hitting negs, and have 2 other DT2 or DT1 supporters for your claim, so it's a bit of a step up as far as requirements I'd say..

You have to attest that this is true..
"This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages."

And make sure this turns out as a factually correct statement by correctly filling out some boxes..
"eddie13 alleges: bigvern violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. bigvern did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around January 2016. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=84

And if you screw that up then..

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.

Cuban necktie for you, or whoever..