Let me be the first to start a bitching thread about the flags

[suchmoon]

As to bitchpoint 2 I would love to see something like this implemented. It could easily save me and others hours of unnecessary work.

I also want to make one more thing clear, we can still use the old trust system to leave feedback in regards to marking scammy ICOs, correct?

Yes, and the guidelines have been relaxed in that you no longer need to strongly believe the user is a scammer, merely that trading with user is high-risk. I think both red trust and yellow box would fit most ICO scams.

[Lafu]

So i can still use the neg. feedback for some kind of users like the Fake ANN Gang right ?

I have readed theymos post again and again and i guess we can us it !

[Quickseller]

If someone hasn’t actually scammed anyone, someone doing their own research should investigate if the person is safe to trade with or not. The point is that the person reaches their own conclusions. The opinion of a very small number of people don’t get to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

[suchmoon]

If someone hasn’t actually scammed anyone, someone doing their own research should investigate if the person is safe to trade with or not. The point is that the person reaches their own conclusions. The opinion of a very small number of people don’t get to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

I agree therefore I'm suggesting to make the links to the research materials easier to see. I'm a big fan of informed decisions.

So i can still use the neg. feedback for some kind of users like the Fake ANN Gang right ?

I have readed theymos post again and again and i guess we can us it !

Red trust - yes. Yellow box flag - probably. Red box flag - probably not, until they actually steal money and victims complain.

[Lauda]

As to bitchpoint 2 I would love to see something like this implemented. It could easily save me and others hours of unnecessary work.

I also want to make one more thing clear, we can still use the old trust system to leave feedback in regards to marking scammy ICOs, correct?

Yes, and the guidelines have been relaxed in that you no longer need to strongly believe the user is a scammer, merely that trading with user is high-risk. I think both red trust and yellow box would fit most ICO scams.

This is not entirely correct. The guideline has been further relaxed to the point that you're allowed to leave negative ratings for a single instance of lying (at least on a flag). It is probably relaxed to the point that you can leave negatives for anything (as they are more or less irrelevant) This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile. This also confirmed my very early statement that the requirement for scamming is gone.
On the plus side: All non-scam related negative ratings are fully within guidelines now. Thule and cryptohunter can't be complaining any more.

[omer-jamal]

https://i.ibb.co/sqhKyP0/image.png

[Lafu]

You have to write it like this ! I quote you so we can see it all

Code:

[img]https://i.ibb.co/sqhKyP0/image.png[/img]

[suchmoon]

https://i.ibb.co/sqhKyP0/image.png

I like it. It wouldn't be "trade with extreme caution" perhaps but a softer warning. Let's hope theymos considers it.

This is not entirely correct. The guideline has been further relaxed to the point that you're allowed to leave negative ratings for a single instance of lying (at least on a flag). It is probably relaxed to the point that you can leave negatives for anything (as they are more or less irrelevant) This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile.

Ouch 

[omer-jamal]

You have to write it like this ! I quote you so we can see it all

yes, I know that but I do not want distract the discussions For non-interested ( you can edit height~150 will be More suitable )

I like it. It wouldn't be "trade with extreme caution" perhaps but a softer warning. Let's hope theymos considers it.

I agree with you  It wouldn't be "trade with extreme caution" Maybe something else appropriate

or just red color It should be enough like:

     +0 / =0 / -10     ( Hover the number to show warning)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
🚸 +0 / =0 / -21     ( Hover the ico to show warning)

[Quickseller]

As to bitchpoint 2 I would love to see something like this implemented. It could easily save me and others hours of unnecessary work.

I also want to make one more thing clear, we can still use the old trust system to leave feedback in regards to marking scammy ICOs, correct?

Yes, and the guidelines have been relaxed in that you no longer need to strongly believe the user is a scammer, merely that trading with user is high-risk. I think both red trust and yellow box would fit most ICO scams.

This is not entirely correct. The guideline has been further relaxed to the point that you're allowed to leave negative ratings for a single instance of lying (at least on a flag). It is probably relaxed to the point that you can leave negatives for anything (as they are more or less irrelevant) This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile. This also confirmed my very early statement that the requirement for scamming is gone.
On the plus side: All non-scam related negative ratings are fully within guidelines now. Thule and cryptohunter can't be complaining any more.

This is nonsense. See the description of the most broad flag:

   
Due to the factors mentioned in the above topic, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on any mere disagreements I may have with the user.

The threshold is that:
*you believe *anyone* trading with the person had a *high risk* of loosing money
*The conclusion is based on a set of circumstances that *any* knowledgeable and reasonable forum member would agree with
*The flag is not based on a disagreement with the person.    

[Lauda]

This is not entirely correct. The guideline has been further relaxed to the point that you're allowed to leave negative ratings for a single instance of lying (at least on a flag). It is probably relaxed to the point that you can leave negatives for anything (as they are more or less irrelevant) This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile.

Ouch  

I welcome this; I had to restrain myself a countless number of times due to the idiotic guideline that we had. The users that are involved in the discussions are nowhere near realizing the full extent and impact of these changes. Red trust is more of a "post-it" now (as someone mentioned privately) than anything else. There is no requirement of anything when leaving red-trust now: No risked amount, no scamming, heck probably not even outright lying[1]. A clown world we live in now.

This is nonsense. See the description of the most broad flag:

I am not talking about flags; stop doing drugs.
[1] For those that ever need proof of the now removed rating: https://i.imgur.com/P5ESdmB.png. That picture can be taken as proof of the invalidity of any previous guidelines.

[suchmoon]

~

Can you please leave? You're just picking fights and not even trying to stay on topic.

[tmfp]

This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile.

Lied in a flag affirmation.

Lol, reads like a bitter obituary.
So, for "false flagging" (great phrase, might catch on) Theymos leaves red trust, as well as

will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP

As he only has to "seek" as far as his keyboard for that to happen, I wonder how many reds before you're out?

[Lauda]

This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile.

Lied in a flag affirmation.

Lol, reads like a bitter obituary.
So, for "false flagging" (great phrase, might catch on) Theymos leaves red trust, as well as

will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP

As he only has to "seek" as far as his keyboard for that to happen, I wonder how many reds before you're out?

I'm waiting for this nonsense to go down already; however I've already successfully planted several flags on desired targets. Negs are useless, I'm not in DT1 this month anyways. So what difference does it make? He can play his centralizing card for sure. At least I established this:

There is no requirement of anything when leaving red-trust now: No risked amount, no scamming, heck probably not even outright lying.

That would be quite the DT-farewell play.

[Quickseller]

If someone hasn’t actually scammed anyone, someone doing their own research should investigate if the person is safe to trade with or not. The point is that the person reaches their own conclusions. The opinion of a very small number of people don’t get to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

I agree therefore I'm suggesting to make the links to the research materials easier to see. I'm a big fan of informed decisions.

Part of doing your own research is understanding how the system works. If you make the indicator too “large” you are moving into the range of telling someone not to trade with the person, and imposing your opinions on others.

[tmfp]

This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile.

Lied in a flag affirmation.

Lol, reads like a bitter obituary.
So, for "false flagging" (great phrase, might catch on) Theymos leaves red trust, as well as

will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP

As he only has to "seek" as far as his keyboard for that to happen, I wonder how many reds before you're out?

I won't edit that, rather up date it separately with the info that I (as a member of DT1) have just received a PM which ends

I recommend that you remove him from your trust list if you have him there, and distrust him by adding ~Lauda to your trust list.

and it didn't come from CryptoHunter....

[Lauda]

I recommend that you remove him from your trust list if you have him there, and distrust him by adding ~Lauda to your trust list.

and it didn't come from CryptoHunter....

The PM leaked a minute after it was sent, that's how much they trust him. If he blacklists, he centralizes. That is the right way. I wonder what would happen if sufficient people refused this (which I would not advise for).

[Quickseller]

I recommend that you remove him from your trust list if you have him there, and distrust him by adding ~Lauda to your trust list.

and it didn't come from CryptoHunter....

The PM leaked a minute after it was sent, that's how much they trust him. If he blacklists, he centralizes. That is the right way. I wonder what would happen if sufficient people refused this (which I would not advise for).

they clearly trust him enough to use his forum.

IMO, the message leaked because of the power they stand to lose.

[Lauda]

they clearly trust him enough to use his forum.

No; there is no competitive alternative.

IMO, the message leaked because of the power they stand to lose.

I have no power, nor is anyone obliged to share any PM with me nor would I be able to know/prove that they got it. Weak-play; but he got beaten at his own game-theory. The small wins matter for the greater good.

There is no requirement of anything when leaving red-trust now: No risked amount, no scamming, heck probably not even outright lying.

[tmfp]

The PM leaked a minute after it was sent, that's how much they trust him...

they clearly trust him enough to use his forum.

IMO, the message leaked because of the power they stand to lose.

I have to ask... who the fuck are "they"?