Request Support (or Opposition) for Flags here!

[JollyGood]

The thread mentioned in the Flag seems to have been  removed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5200699.0

That instantly invalidates the Flag.
I'm running an update now, when it's done, see http://loyce.club/archive/topics/520/52000699.html to see what the topic was all about.

Now we're on the subject: there are a few Active Flags (some with many supporters), while the Reference topic has been removed. See http://loyce.club/trust/flags/personal/ReferenceTopicDoesNotExist.html for the list.

#344 against mosprognoz is one of those dead linked flags. It was created by korner who has now been permanently banned.

Those types of flags should be removed, I hope theymos is taking a look at this otherwise anybody can create a flag then delete the thread associated with it.

Also if anybody is banned should their flags be automatically deleted too? What are your views?

[nutildah]

The thread mentioned in the Flag seems to have been  removed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5200699.0

That instantly invalidates the Flag.
I'm running an update now, when it's done, see http://loyce.club/archive/topics/520/52000699.html to see what the topic was all about.

Now we're on the subject: there are a few Active Flags (some with many supporters), while the Reference topic has been removed. See http://loyce.club/trust/flags/personal/ReferenceTopicDoesNotExist.html for the list.

#344 against mosprognoz is one of those dead linked flags. It was created by korner who has now been permanently banned.

Those types of flags should be removed, I hope theymos is taking a look at this otherwise anybody can create a flag hen delete the thread associated with it.

Also if anybody is banned should their flags be automatically deleted too? What are your views?

If possible, I think a flag made by a banned user linked to a missing thread should be auto-deleted, but being invalidated is just as good. They are far more useless than untrusted ratings.

[mosprognoz]

#344 against mosprognoz is one of those dead linked flags. It was created by korner who has now been permanently banned.

Those types of flags should be removed, I hope theymos is taking a look at this otherwise anybody can create a flag then delete the thread associated with it.

Also if anybody is banned should their flags be automatically deleted too? What are your views?

Is it possible to delete a thread created by yourself ? I was thinking only mods have that option.

[examplens]

..
If possible, I think a flag made by a banned user linked to a missing thread should be auto-deleted, but being invalidated is just as good. They are far more useless than untrusted ratings.

There are several options here.
User can be banned because of old plagiarism. This ban does not mean anything if he creates a flag with real proof and has enough support to be active. It can only be towards inactive flags created by a banned user. Also, I find a few flags where flag creator has not associated thread opener and they haven't control to keep live thread.

[JollyGood]

..
If possible, I think a flag made by a banned user linked to a missing thread should be auto-deleted, but being invalidated is just as good. They are far more useless than untrusted ratings.

There are several options here.
User can be banned because of old plagiarism. This ban does not mean anything if he creates a flag with real proof and has enough support to be active. It can only be towards inactive flags created by a banned user. Also, I find a few flags where flag creator has not associated thread opener and they haven't control to keep live thread.

Surely if a flag exists for a thread that no longer exists it means the alleged evidence the flag was created on is not available therefore the flag should not exist either.

I wonder what the community consensus is on this.

[LoyceV]

Now we're on the subject: there are a few Active Flags (some with many supporters), while the Reference topic has been removed. See http://loyce.club/trust/flags/personal/ReferenceTopicDoesNotExist.html for the list.

That's the mod's problem. Why are they removing topics that are flagged ? Any solution ?

See this one for example:

The thread mentioned in the Flag seems to have been  removed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5200699.0

That instantly invalidates the Flag.
See http://loyce.club/archive/topics/520/5200699.html to see what the topic was all about.

I think it was deleted because the topic is "insubstantial". The solution is not to rely on other people's topics when you create a Flag. Don't link to for instance the scammer's own topic.

Those types of flags should be removed, I hope theymos is taking a look at this otherwise anybody can create a flag then delete the thread associated with it.

So far, only 5 Flags have been removed. I don't think theymos wants to spend too much time on it, it's up to the community to Oppose invalid Flags.

Also if anybody is banned should their flags be automatically deleted too? What are your views?

No. They can still be valid, just like feedback doesn't get wiped when someone is banned.

Is it possible to delete a thread created by yourself ? I was thinking only mods have that option.

Users can only move their thread to Archival. Mods can move it to "the trashcan". But a user can just create a worthless thread, use it as Reference, and then wait for a Mod to clean up his thread.
Or a user could simply be Nuked, that removes all topics opened by said user.

Surely if a flag exists for a thread that no longer exists it means the alleged evidence the flag was created on is not available therefore the flag should not exist either.

I wonder what the community consensus is on this.

I don't think this community will ever reach consensus on anything

My opinion: if an Active Flag doesn't have a valid Reference topic anymore, someone should create one, create a new Flag, and the current Flag supporters should stop supporting the old Flag and start supporting the new Flag.
I think that's the proper way to use the Flag system, but it's a lot of work.

[suchmoon]

Surely if a flag exists for a thread that no longer exists it means the alleged evidence the flag was created on is not available therefore the flag should not exist either.

I wonder what the community consensus is on this.

I dislike the whole idea of forcing a reference to point to a thread (can't point to a specific post or to an archive) and requiring it to not be self-modded etc but then it still allows the thread to be deleted, locked, or the contents to be completely replaced etc. If anything it should require an immutable archive link, or better yet - don't impose any specific requirements that can't be enforced anyway.

But as it stands now, we shouldn't invalidate flags if the reference is removed. A scammer might trick moderators into deleting a thread and apparently moderators can't or won't check if it's used for a flag.

[DireWolfM14]

But as it stands now, we shouldn't invalidate flags if the reference is removed. A scammer might trick moderators into deleting a thread and apparently moderators can't or won't check if it's used for a flag.

I don't like the idea of a flag that doesn't have a reference thread, maybe theymos can implement a little indicator near the "delete" button that informs moderators if the thread has been used as reference for a flag.  That would at least warn a moderator if the person reporting the thread is the subject of the flag, there may be an effort to manipulate the system.

I don't think anyone is missing those reference threads started by korner, but why did they all get deleted?  Was it due to being banned?  I thought that only happened if the account was nuked, but he still has many posts.

[JollyGood]

Surely if a flag exists for a thread that no longer exists it means the alleged evidence the flag was created on is not available therefore the flag should not exist either.

I wonder what the community consensus is on this.

I dislike the whole idea of forcing a reference to point to a thread (can't point to a specific post or to an archive) and requiring it to not be self-modded etc but then it still allows the thread to be deleted, locked, or the contents to be completely replaced etc. If anything it should require an immutable archive link, or better yet - don't impose any specific requirements that can't be enforced anyway.

But as it stands now, we shouldn't invalidate flags if the reference is removed. A scammer might trick moderators into deleting a thread and apparently moderators can't or won't check if it's used for a flag.

You have a point but in your opinion what is the best or most appropriate manner to handle the issue?

What if the flag reference is the thread OP and both the flag and thread were created by the same person?

Flags are an important part of the forum set up but scammers can and definitely have abused it.

[suchmoon]

I don't think anyone is missing those reference threads started by korner, but why did they all get deleted?  Was it due to being banned?  I thought that only happened if the account was nuked, but he still has many posts.

Some threads were created by alts that got nuked, some were just zero-value garbage. I think I reported the last one that was on the Off Topic board and it said "flag 123". Literally that's all it had in it - the number of the flag.

You have a point but in your opinion what is the best or most appropriate manner to handle the issue?

What if the flag reference is the thread OP and both the flag and thread were created by the same person?

Flags are an important part of the forum set up but scammers can and definitely have abused it.

Legit flag creators should do the same thing we used to do with red trust references before flags came along - archive all valuable evidence.

Flag abusers will get their flags opposed anyway so there is no big difference if their references are valid or not. I wouldn't go overboard with any special rules on this. The flag system is convoluted enough.

[JollyGood]

You have a point but in your opinion what is the best or most appropriate manner to handle the issue?

What if the flag reference is the thread OP and both the flag and thread were created by the same person?

Flags are an important part of the forum set up but scammers can and definitely have abused it.

Legit flag creators should do the same thing we used to do with red trust references before flags came along - archive all valuable evidence.

Flag abusers will get their flags opposed anyway so there is no big difference if their references are valid or not. I wouldn't go overboard with any special rules on this. The flag system is convoluted enough.

My post was alluding more so towards Flag abusers. I guess you are right, if they abuse the system with Flags they will get opposed but it still does not stop it being a nuisance.

Maybe trying to modify the Flag system at this time is not ideal but some of those factors that were taken in to consideration at time of its release might be considered if it is overhauled in future.

[Rikafip]

Hi, i am asking  support for this flag https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=976

TradePlus used  stock photos for their team members. Their explanation of the issue is interesting, despite using those photos on their website and in the whitepaper.

photos had to be taken from free stock photos, stock photography uses the same models we never said ever this our team phots buddy get your facts right

[The Cryptovator]

PayPal scammer with locked thread, please support/oppose red flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=938

Here is the scam accusation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5197475.0

Evidence is quite reasonable to me.

[nutildah]

Please take a look at this flag and tell me whether or not you believe it is correct:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1002

(Now I'm only one flag behind Veleor for Most Inactive Flags.)

BTW, our perfect-trading quant shop / hedge fund boy wonder is costing his "customers" (not sure if he actually has any) more money than they are making after his advertised fees.

OP still never admitted to lying about having a bankroll of 800 BTC, but that's for another flag, this one, to be exact:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=752

[mosprognoz]

Please take a look at this flag and tell me whether or not you believe it is correct:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1002

Opposed and tagged the creator.

(Now I'm only one flag behind Veleor for Most Inactive Flags.)

Unfortunately I am the record holder of bitcointalk in most inactive flags.  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1094569;page=iflags

[Timelord2067]

I'm going to plant my previous Flags here if that's OK?

• [FLAG] COINMAN1 [Link]
• [FLAG] novaexchange [Link]
• [FLAG] Nova Exchange [Link]
• [FLAG] name u=999999999 [Link]

...will update with others later.

[LoyceV]

I'm going to plant my previous Flags here if that's OK?

Of course See Personal Trust Flag viewer for Timelord2067 for all of them.

[Timelord2067]

I'm going to plant my previous Flags here if that's OK?

Of course See Personal Trust Flag viewer for Timelord2067 for all of them.

*Sweet* Thanks for the list! (am redoing my signature)

[suchmoon]

Please oppose this frivolous "written contract" flag raised against mosprognoz by the Bitcoin SV troll:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1085

Edit - another one against Lauda:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1086

[nutildah]

Please oppose this frivolous "written contract" flag raised against mosprognoz by the Bitcoin SV troll:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1085

Edit - another one against Lauda:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1086

This korner guy has his banned hand in a lot of pies. I know this isn't the right thread for this subject, but we need to see what we can do to get his flood of new alts banned for ban evasion (the ones impersonating people commenting in the SV thread -- you have one now too, named "suchpool"). Banning the Bitcoin SV account would also be nice.