Request Support (or Opposition) for Flags here!

[suchmoon]

ETA again:  That worked, but something odd still happend.  I used the link to my post as the reference link, but  the flag trimmed the link to point to the topic it'self.  

Yes, it does that. I think the idea is that the accuser should always create a dedicated thread for a flag and make it non-self-mod-unlocked so that the... uhm... defendant could respond.

Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that [...]

[1715210462]

1715210462

[1715210462]

1715210462

[1715210462]

1715210462

[1715210462]

1715210462

[LoyceV]

I think the idea is that the accuser should always create a dedicated thread for a flag and make it non-self-mod-unlocked so that the... uhm... defendant could respond.

That was my understanding too, but many Flags link to threads created by someone else. Maybe it shouldn't be possible at all to create a Flag based on a thread that someone else created.

[suchmoon]

I think the idea is that the accuser should always create a dedicated thread for a flag and make it non-self-mod-unlocked so that the... uhm... defendant could respond.

That was my understanding too, but many Flags link to threads created by someone else. Maybe it shouldn't be possible at all to create a Flag based on a thread that someone else created.

That might be an overkill. What if someone creates a thread researching a scam and then a victim wants to create a red box for it.

I think we should just use common sense and use reliable links (preferably not the scam threads themselves as the perp could then edit/remove it), and archive them just in case. That was the preferred MO in the "old" system too.

[DireWolfM14]

I think the idea is that the accuser should always create a dedicated thread for a flag and make it non-self-mod-unlocked so that the... uhm... defendant could respond.

That actually makes perfect sense.  Imagine the kvetching that would ensue if the perp couldn't respond to his accusation. 

[Blacknavy]

[FLAG] Mindrust [DT1] member gave me redtrust without reason

He obsessed with me because we had couple arguments in past.

Here's his slander

I've never encouraged merit farming/trading in my life. I use this forum properly and never cross the general rules.

He became a DT member just a 2-3 weeks ago and appearently he doesn't even know how to use his power.

Ortada hiçbir kanıt yok çünkü seçime katılan hiçbir üye o bahsettiğin grupta değil.

There is no evidence because none of the members in the election is in 'that merit trading group'

This was fully what i wrote. I do not know what to say because Mindrust is obviously crossing my words and trying to change the meaning.

I believe that DT members will oppose this. It's not fair someone to crop only one part of my sentences and giving me red trust. I hope someone will fix this.

FLAG #295

[vlom]

ty
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=894070

[LFC_Bitcoin]

How has game-protect not got a newb/guest type 1 flag yet?
User profile - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=874254


He ponces around the forum pretending to be able to help people who have been scammed by casinos etc.

I mean look at this shit -

Game Protect was recently approached by an UK lawyer who is expert for Bitcoin enforcement and we likely can enforce the crypto currencies scam artist Dean Nolan has scammed!

He’s been doing it for years. Look at his post history - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=874254;sa=showPosts

I was tempted to create an alt & try to see if he charges for his bull shit service by contacting him, pretending to be an aggrieved gambler.

I’m pretty sure this guy has potential to be a scammer but I have no solid evidence. I feel a flag to warn noobs/guests COULD be beneficial. What do you think guys?


Edit - I’ve created a flag. Please support it -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=372

This guy has so many negative trust feedbacks. I simply do not tryst the fact that he is qualified to or has any means of legally enforcing lawsuits/cases against gambling companies.
He is getting people to contact him privately which I believe could be for financial gain with absolutely no guarantee or promise to ever get peoples money back.

It you look at the post history it seems he’s getting desperate in recent days bumping lots of threads with the same C&P’d posts touting his likely faux business.   

Please help & support my flag.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=372

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Bump to seek support for my flag in the post above

[suchmoon]

Bump to seek support for my flag in the post above

I would like to support it but your reference link is not good. You should have pointed it to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1535816 (game-protect thread) or create a new thread with what you posted above...

Keep in mind that flag reference links get truncated to the top of the thread so it doesn't work well if you're trying to link to a post somewhere deep in a thread.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Bump to seek support for my flag in the post above

I would like to support it but your reference link is not good. You should have pointed it to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1535816 (game-protect thread) or create a new thread with what you posted above...

Keep in mind that flag reference links get truncated to the top of the thread so it doesn't work well if you're trying to link to a post somewhere deep in a thread.

It seems I can’t create a new flag with the link you provided (a better link) for another 180 days as I’ve already done one. Somebody else will have to do it or hopefully others support the current one.

 

[marlboroza]

How has game-protect not got a newb/guest type 1 flag yet?

It wasn't necessary to flag them as they had big red box on top of their thread because of old trust system.

I can only say that there isn't any proof that their service helped anyone, however, there is no proof that they didn't but many things in their thread, site and behavior raised many red flags and I personally would not trust them.

I mean look at this shit -

Game Protect was recently approached by an UK lawyer who is expert for Bitcoin enforcement and we likely can enforce the crypto currencies scam artist Dean Nolan has scammed!

And there is no proof that lawyer did or didn't approached them and knowing GP they won't say anything except this.

It seems I can’t create a new flag with the link you provided (a better link) for another 180 days as I’ve already done one. Somebody else will have to do it or hopefully others support the current one.

I would not suggest anyone to support this flag because it will be abuse of system - as suchmoon said, link is not good. Give me a few minutes, I will create new one.

Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=435

[morvillz7z]

If anyone wants to support a flag type 1 against ICOHolder, here's your chance:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=437

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1206615

They have a long and very bad reputation of verifying incorrect information about team members for various ICO projects thus misleading potential investors. They would verify stock images, cartoons and whatnot as long as they are being paid.

[game-protect]

A flag to show that Game Protect is not a scammer is a good idea.

[AB de Royse777]

A flag to show that Game Protect is not a scammer is a good idea.

Flags always mean there is something wrong so you will always get the negative impression from it unfortunately. The only positive impression you may get is from a positive feedback or neutral feedback with positive statement in it.

By the way, this is not looking good I am afraid - 🔴🔴🔴SCAM🔴🔴🔴GAME-PROTECT.COM🔴🔴🔴SCAM🔴🔴🔴

[game-protect]

A flag to show that Game Protect is not a scammer is a good idea.

Flags always mean there is something wrong so you will always get the negative impression from it unfortunately. The only positive impression you may get is from a positive feedback or neutral feedback with positive statement in it.

This is not true!

Believing means not knowing that Game Protect is a scammer!

Not knowing that Game Protect is a scammer confirms that Game Protect is not a scammer.

The more users believe = confirm that I am not a scammer, the higher is the trust rating and I have the best trust rating you can get on bitcointalk

The correct versions are:

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they believe that the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk trustworthy.

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they know / have proof that the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk.

[TECSHARE]

A flag to show that Game Protect is not a scammer is a good idea.

Flags always mean there is something wrong so you will always get the negative impression from it unfortunately. The only positive impression you may get is from a positive feedback or neutral feedback with positive statement in it.

This is not true!

Believing means not knowing that Game Protect is a scammer!

Not knowing that Game Protect is a scammer confirms that Game Protect is not a scammer.

The more users believe = confirm that I am not a scammer, the higher is the trust rating and I have the best trust rating you can get on bitcointalk

The correct versions are:

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they believe that the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk trustworthy.

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they know / have proof that the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk.

The trust system was created to help prevent fraud and abuse, not so that racketeers can use it as a veneer of endorsement of the forum to cover up for their lack of credibility.

[actmyname]

-snip-

I am ⁿot a ^sc^amm^er aⁿd I ^hav^e the best t^rust ra^ting you can g^et on bitcoⁱn^talk :)


If I don't know you're a scammer, then yes... in my reality, you're not a scammer.
But we do.

[bones261]

Please support my flag against user BTCGamblePro. He is promoting a web application that claims to give a foolproof way of winning. When I decided to take him up on his offer for a free 1 week trial, I discovered the terms of service that I had to agree to is non-existent as well as the privacy policy. The yellow flag may be redundant since he already has red banner displayed due to previous negative trust feedback. However, I found the hyperlinks for "terms of service" and "privacy policy" that lead to nowhere particularly irritating.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=447

[LoyceV]

Flag created https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=448
Check evidence and support if you agree with me so newbies wont get scammed.

If you expect support for your flag, it's much more helpful if you create a thread in Scam Accusations, instead of linking to a sales thread filled with insubstantial posts. Collect evidence, use the proper reporting format, and make it easy for users to understand what it's all about. Here's an example of a format that received a lot of Flag-support.

~snip~

Please don't do this in my topic:

Code:

[size=90pt][color=red]WARNING!!!! THIS USER SCAMPER !!!![/color] [/size]

I've deleted your post. Feel free to try again without the screaming font.

Hey scammer,
~snip~

I've updated the OP, and deleted your post. This is not the place to fight your battles:

No spam
Self moderated to stop spam.
Don't go off-topic.
Don't challenge the accused in this topic, do that in your Scam Accusation.

[dragonvslinux]

trade-sa-to-shi: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=444 (details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=902367)
1xBit.com: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=446 (details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=910922)
bitcoiin2gen: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=443