Request Support (or Opposition) for Flags here!

[nullius]

He just left 62 frivolous flags, most people got 3. They are flag #s 1137 - 1199. I opposed all of them.

Flag abusers are damaging their own credibility, so assuming the Trust system works how it should, they shouldn't ever reach DT.

This is just ridiculous, though.

Ridiculous, yes.  That’s the point:  Fit subject for ridicule.  Thus, “damaging their own credibility”.

’Tis the fool who loses his cool in a public dispute.

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

[1713529017]

1713529017

[1713529017]

1713529017

[JollyGood]

The user in question seems to be suffering from delusions of grandeur probably due to some form of serious psychological trauma. Tragic really.

I don't think so, I think he's looking for attention, and that's working out very well for him!

I know that in some circles it is widely agreed that any form of publicity is good for business but is he actually benefiting from this conduct outside the forum?

[LoyceV]

He just left 62 frivolous flags, most people got 3. They are flag #s 1137 - 1199. I opposed all of them.

I'll post a list after finishing my Flag viewer's update.

See:

So here's a complete list of all Flags created by Bitcoin SV:

2020-01-08 Wed 12.08h
source: loyce.club

1085 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged mosprognoz (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by Vod, gmaxwell, Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, examplens, nutildah, TMAN, TheUltraElite, psycodad, JollyGood, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, mosprognoz, Coolcryptovator, IconFirm, dragonvslinux, SockyMcSockFace.
1086 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Lauda (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by gmaxwell, Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, Patatas, examplens, nutildah, TheUltraElite, psycodad, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, mosprognoz, Timelord2067, IconFirm, dragonvslinux, SockyMcSockFace.
1087 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged mosprognoz (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by gmaxwell, Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, examplens, nutildah, stompix, psycodad, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, dragonvslinux, SockyMcSockFace.
1088 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged mosprognoz (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by gmaxwell, Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, examplens, nutildah, stompix, psycodad, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, dragonvslinux, SockyMcSockFace.
1089 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Lauda (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by gmaxwell, Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, Patatas, examplens, nutildah, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1090 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Lauda (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by gmaxwell, Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, Patatas, examplens, nutildah, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1091 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged yogg (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by gmaxwell, Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, examplens, nutildah, psycodad, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1092 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged yogg (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by gmaxwell, Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, examplens, nutildah, psycodad, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1093 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged yogg (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by gmaxwell, Foxpup, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, examplens, nutildah, psycodad, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, SockyMcSockFace.
1104 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged suchmoon (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, DireWolfM14, SockyMcSockFace.
1105 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged suchmoon (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, DireWolfM14, SockyMcSockFace.
1106 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged suchmoon (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by LFC_Bitcoin, LoyceV, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, DireWolfM14, SockyMcSockFace.
1132 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged nutildah (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by psycodad, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, DireWolfM14, morvillz7z, JSRAW, dragonvslinux, nullius, SockyMcSockFace.
1133 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged nutildah (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by psycodad, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, DireWolfM14, morvillz7z, JSRAW, dragonvslinux, nullius, SockyMcSockFace.
1134 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged nutildah (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by TMAN, teeGUMES, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, DireWolfM14, morvillz7z, JSRAW, dragonvslinux, SockyMcSockFace.
1137 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged TMAN (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, TMAN, nullius, SockyMcSockFace.
1138 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged TMAN (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, TMAN, nullius, SockyMcSockFace.
1139 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged TMAN (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, TMAN, nullius, SockyMcSockFace.
1140 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged marlboroza (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1141 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged marlboroza (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1142 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged marlboroza (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1143 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Coolcryptovator (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, psycodad, JollyGood, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, SockyMcSockFace.
1144 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Coolcryptovator (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, TMAN, psycodad, JollyGood, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, SockyMcSockFace.
1145 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Coolcryptovator (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, TMAN, psycodad, JollyGood, o_e_l_e_o, Coolcryptovator, SockyMcSockFace.
1146 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged LFC_Bitcoin (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1147 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged LFC_Bitcoin (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1148 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged LFC_Bitcoin (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1149 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged mindrust (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1150 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged mindrust (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1151 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged mindrust (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
*** This is an automated comment: Flags 295 and 1151 are duplicates.
1152 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged DireWolfM14 (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1153 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged DireWolfM14 (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1154 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged DireWolfM14 (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
1155 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged franckuestein (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1156 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged franckuestein (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1157 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged franckuestein (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1158 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Hueristic (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1159 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Hueristic (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1160 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Hueristic (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1161 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged JSRAW (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, JSRAW, SockyMcSockFace.
1162 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged JSRAW (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, JSRAW, SockyMcSockFace.
1163 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged JSRAW (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, JSRAW, SockyMcSockFace.
1164 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Last of the V8s (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, JSRAW, SockyMcSockFace.
1165 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Last of the V8s (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, JSRAW, SockyMcSockFace.
1166 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Last of the V8s (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, JSRAW, SockyMcSockFace.
*** This is an automated comment: Flags 365 and 1166 are duplicates.
1167 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged gembitz (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, JSRAW, SockyMcSockFace.
1168 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged gembitz (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, JSRAW, SockyMcSockFace.
1169 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged gembitz (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, JSRAW, SockyMcSockFace.
*** This is an automated comment: Flags 108 and 1169 are duplicates.
1170 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged LBX (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, JSRAW, SockyMcSockFace.
1171 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged LBX (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, JSRAW, SockyMcSockFace.

[LoyceV]

1172 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged LBX (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1173 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged boltalka Banned! (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1174 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged boltalka Banned! (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1175 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged boltalka Banned! (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1176 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged shinohai (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1177 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged shinohai (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1178 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged shinohai (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1179 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged dragonvslinux (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1180 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged dragonvslinux (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1181 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged dragonvslinux (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1182 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged blurryeyed (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1183 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged blurryeyed (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1184 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged blurryeyed (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah[/size].
1185 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Timelord2067 (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, nullius, SockyMcSockFace.
1186 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Timelord2067 (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, nullius, SockyMcSockFace.
1187 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged Timelord2067 (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, nullius, SockyMcSockFace.
1188 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged IconFirm (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1189 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged IconFirm (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1190 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged IconFirm (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1191 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged MagicByt3 (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1192 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged MagicByt3 (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1193 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged MagicByt3 (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, SockyMcSockFace.
1194 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged nullius (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, TMAN, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
*** nullius commented: Thank you, BSV, for showing how scared you are to have your scam exposed. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215743.0
1195 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged nullius (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, TMAN, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
*** nullius commented: Thank you, BSV, for showing how scared you are to have your scam exposed. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215743.0
1196 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged nullius (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, TMAN, o_e_l_e_o, SockyMcSockFace.
*** nullius commented: Thank you, BSV, for showing how scared you are to have your scam exposed. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215743.0
1197 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged DooMAD (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, nullius, SockyMcSockFace.
1198 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged DooMAD (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, nullius, SockyMcSockFace.
1199 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged DooMAD (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nutildah, o_e_l_e_o, nullius.
1201 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged JollyGood (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nullius, SockyMcSockFace[/size].
1202 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged JollyGood (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nullius, SockyMcSockFace[/size].
1203 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged JollyGood (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nullius, SockyMcSockFace[/size].
1204 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged SockyMcSockFace (type 3, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nullius, SockyMcSockFace[/size].
1205 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged SockyMcSockFace (type 2, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by nullius, SockyMcSockFace[/size].
1206 Insufficient support. Bitcoin SV flagged SockyMcSockFace (type 1, see why). Supported by Bitcoin SV. Opposed by suchmoon, psycodad, nullius, SockyMcSockFace.

[psycodad]

* psycodad needs a script to auto-oppose, now that was quite a job.

I take my responsibility and right of supporting or opposing flags quite serious, but for Bitcoin SV I made an exception after the fifth or sixth flag he raised without any real evidence posted.

If this is not blatant abuse of the flag system, I'd be interested to hear what then defines abuse of the flag system.

I hope theymos or another mod takes proper action on him.

[JollyGood]

* psycodad needs a script to auto-oppose, now that was quite a job.

I take my responsibility and right of supporting or opposing flags quite serious, but for Bitcoin SV I made an exception after the fifth or sixth flag he raised without any real evidence posted.

If this is not blatant abuse of the flag system, I'd be interested to hear what then defines abuse of the flag system.

I hope theymos or another mod takes proper action on him.

Abuse of the flag system is rampant and has been going on far too long unfortunately, I hope some action is taken to put an end to stop those that misuse the system.

Look at that Bitcoin SV user, he is showing signs of someone suffering from a variety of mental issues. Seriously.

It is unbelievable the amount of flags he created and attached fake reasons for validity. Why is he so concerned about what users in this forum think about Bitcoin SV anyway?

[nullius]

Thanks, Loyce!  Useful.

* psycodad needs a script to auto-oppose, now that was quite a job.

I take my responsibility and right of supporting or opposing flags quite serious, but for Bitcoin SV I made an exception after the fifth or sixth flag he raised without any real evidence posted.

This raises two important points:

In my case, I only got through a fraction of the flags thus far.  If BSV raised an abusive flag against you, and I didn’t yet oppose it, it means nothing except that I could only do so much repetitive clicking in one bout.  Thanks to nutildah, psycodad, and SockyMcSockFace for having had the stamina to slog through the whole list!  I will continue opposing these a few at a time; and yes, I would in this rare case apply a script.

While I was opposing BSV flags, I saw many other inactive flags which are probably wrong, which occurred in my absence.  I say “probably wrong” because they are against people I’d be more or less inclined to trust, and/or were opposed by people I trust.  It was a distraction that I ultimately just ignored, because I would need to do at least a cursory investigation in each case to reach my independent conclusion.  I observe this to underscore what psycodad said, “I take my responsibility and right of supporting or opposing flags quite serious”.  If I just ignore an inactive flag against you, it means nothing about you.

I know that in some circles it is widely agreed that any form of publicity is good for business but is he actually benefiting from this conduct outside the forum?

Sshh.  Don’t give him the hint.  Far from wanting to ban him, I wish there were a way to force him to stay here if he tries to run away.

Here, we have a home advantage insofar as, other than noisy, stupid BSV shills, everybody here knows that he’s a liar.  I think the best strategy is containment and examination.  Yes, it seems like a waste of time to deal with that mess; but unfortunately, we will need to spend much more time counteracting BSV anyway, on and off this forum.  It’s best to start here.  Also, restating another way what gmaxwell recently pointed out in another thread, it is also a benefit when BSV supporters speak up.

The principle of freedom of speech is often explained in terms of shining a light in dark places.  I want to shine a light on BSV, in the manner of a police interrogation lamp.  He is losing his cool and lashing out wildly.  I want to encourage him to stay here for as long as BSV is a problem in places other than this forum, i.e. as long as the BSV scam exists.  This is a much bigger issue than some forum drama.

(I also note, we seem to have perpetual drama anyway; it’s better to have drama about an important issue, so we can coalesce and redirect that energy into a bigger effort.)

As for any publicity being good publicity, this was recently discussed implicitly in another thread.  I thought so, which was why I ignored BSV (the whole scam, not just the user account).  I realized that I was wrong, so I stopped ignoring it.  The community needs to organize, pay attention to BSV, and go on the offensive.  You are questioning whether or not his antics here are helping him in the bigger picture.  I am suggesting that we make sure his antics everywhere backfire, starting here.

Look at that Bitcoin SV user, he is showing signs of someone suffering from a variety of mental issues. Seriously.

PR protip:  “Any publicity is good publicity” reaches its limits when you just made everybody see you as crazy.

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

[LoyceV]

While I was opposing BSV flags, I saw many other inactive flags which are probably wrong, which occurred in my absence.  I say “probably wrong” because they are against people I’d be more or less inclined to trust, and/or were opposed by people I trust.

I wouldn't try to vote on all possible Flags. There's far too many of them, and ideally many different users should all check a few Flags once in a while to make voting more distributed.

I observe this to underscore what psycodad said, “I take my responsibility and right of supporting or opposing flags quite serious”.

In my Trust Flag viewer, I highlight the easy ones to Oppose: duplicate Flags and Flags without valid Reference link

[Lauda]

While I was opposing BSV flags, I saw many other inactive flags which are probably wrong, which occurred in my absence.  I say “probably wrong” because they are against people I’d be more or less inclined to trust, and/or were opposed by people I trust.

I wouldn't try to vote on all possible Flags. There's far too many of them, and ideally many different users should all check a few Flags once in a while to make voting more distributed.

You can semi-automate it, then it's much faster than the time it takes them to make them which is important. Were it the reverse, we'd have quite a problem on ours hands.

[nutildah]

Added a flag for "TrustUSD", which is a blatant ripoff of the "TrueUSD" stablecoin, except their token is neither stable nor backed by assets. They have a plagiarized white paper and their logo is almost an exact copy of the TrueUSD logo.

Flag here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1214

ANN:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5205460

Scam accusation thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213446

[Nandini_crypto]

I think this is the right topic discussion I am in.

There is a flag created against me for writing the topic Does this tread really deserve the attention it has got?

Flag--> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1213

I would request for justice. I do not find any mistake in the topic I started.

[LoyceV]

Flag--> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1213

Someone has created several new accounts just to Support the Flag. I've Opposed it, the Reference thread only shows you've hit a nerve.

[nullius]

Flag--> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1213

Someone has created several new accounts just to Support the Flag. I've Opposed it, the Reference thread only shows you've hit a nerve.

See here; the non-“Brand New” supporters are known alts.  Now, I see three new accounts.  I have archived their user pages to show that they are/were “Brand New” with 0 posts as of the time when I found them through their support of Flag 1213:

• #2744274 “Tomsss” (Brand New)
• #2744275 “Vundoo” (Brand New)
• #2744278 “Rafusss” (Brand New)

I will tag them, with reference to this post.  Should I flag them?  Should they be reported to moderators?  What is the forum’s policy on accounts created for the purpose of supporting/opposing flags?

[AB de Royse777]

What is the forum’s policy on accounts created for the purpose of supporting/opposing flags?

Supporting or opposing a flag from a non-DT account does not carry much weight. So we all should be fine with it. Talking about this flag from the user The-Devil seems very uninformed step. And it's not unexpected as per my opinion since that use is fairly new to the forum affairs.

I will be opposing this flag too.

[nullius]

Supporting or opposing a flag from a non-DT account does not carry much weight. So we all should be fine with it.

Note the word “attempted” in the subject.  I know full well that it carries no weight, but it’s obscenely abusive.  I am not “fine with it”.  It is a Sibyl attack, and it is spam of the trust system.  The theoretical futility of the act does not alter this.

Moreover, it did apparently scare the newbie who apparently does not know he’s in no danger.  Please see above.  If you dig way back on my trust page, you will see negative sent feedback explaining that I had previously intended to send it, but I was afraid to when I was a newbie—for exactly this reason.  Against a newbie, false flags or tags are an intimidation tactic (though the retaliatory flags against PrimeNumber7 and now Lauda (!) are just plain stupid).

I think it really boils down to the question of whether the forum’s administration wants to let such useless Sibyls lie dormant indefinitely, or clean them up as the trash they are.  As a practical matter, I don’t have a strong opinion on which way they should handle this; but the question is worth broaching.

I will be opposing this flag too.

Good idea:  You’re not “fine with it”.

[suchmoon]

I wouldn't try to vote on all possible Flags. There's far too many of them, and ideally many different users should all check a few Flags once in a while to make voting more distributed.

I would like to have a one-click "advanced" option to oppose obviously frivolous flags, like the ones create by korner sockpuppets. It doesn't have to be all flags by a certain user but at least an option to select multiple ones easily and and then oppose all selected. The troll flags are basically DOSing the trust system since the effort to create them is so much lower than the combined effort of multiple users trying to oppose them.

[AB de Royse777]

Note the word “attempted” in the subject.  

Noted. It's a great idea to edit the response title that suits the needs.

I know full well that it carries no weight

I too was wondering how it's not known by a user like you (seems to have good grasp than most of the members in the forum). Good thing is that I was not wrong.

but it’s obscenely abusive.  I am not “fine with it”.  It is a Sibyl attack, and it is spam of the trust system.

Absolutely and this is not the only user in the system. We have game-protect and many other users who do constant abuse of trust feedback system. And you already realized that I too is not fine with it.

The theoretical futility of the act does not alter this.

Fact.

the retaliatory flags against PrimeNumber7 and now Lauda (!) are just plain stupid

Yes and it seems the flags created by the user The-Devil are very wrong after all and according to your language, "I am not fine with it" in other words, I oppose the flags created against the users PrimeNumber7 and Lauda.

I think it really boils down to the question of whether the forum’s administration wants to let such useless Sibyls lie dormant indefinitely, or clean them up as the trash they are.  As a practical matter, I don’t have a strong opinion on which way they should handle this; but the question is worth broaching.

I too have not much strong opinion but if I someone asks me while I am drinking in the pub on a nice evening with an intend to start a conversation with me then I would say, yeah put some restrictions (possibly allow a minimum rank) for users before they are able to create flags and also to vote. This will eliminate the brand new fake accounts to abuse with false support or oppose in a flag.

[suchmoon]

I too have not much strong opinion but if I someone asks me while I am drinking in the pub on a nice evening with an intend to start a conversation with me then I would say, yeah put some restrictions (possibly allow a minimum rank) for users before they are able to create flags and also to vote. This will eliminate the brand new fake accounts to abuse with false support or oppose in a flag.

For voting - maybe. For creating a flag - no. Scammed newbies need to be able to create flags. It would be nice to have a limit on how many flags they can create but on the other hand Bitcoin SV and other "advanced" sockpuppets are able to farm merits fairly easily so that wouldn't be much of an impediment for them anyway.

[AB de Royse777]

For voting - maybe. For creating a flag - no. Scammed newbies need to be able to create flags. It would be nice to have a limit on how many flags they can create

When you (In this case it seems that the person is me) are drinking on a lazy day in the local pub and if you already have drunk a lot then slip of tongue (better to say fingers on the keys) like this (restricting to create flags) is acceptable. What I mean by this is that you have a valid point here and I have edited my last post after seeing your response :-)

but on the other hand Bitcoin SV and other "advanced" sockpuppets are able to farm merits fairly easily so that wouldn't be much of an impediment for them anyway.

True but as usual someone will spot it and will bring it to our attention.

[hacker1001101001]

True but as usual someone will spot it and will bring it to our attention.

If this happens on larger scale later in the future, I don't think it would be notified or handled always. Even opposing that number of abusive flags is not always handy. Only theymos could handle this at light speed and he should now.

_{Btw, the thread title changing trick make it more confusing, please stop.}