about Trust Flags - suggestions

[bitmover]

I know it was implemented today and there are still many things to work out on the new system.

But I would like to express my opinion about 2 problems I just noticed.

1 - I tried to flag a user (just for experimental purposes, as I am not DT), and it required me to create a new thread, because the reference is locked. Then I looked at the reputation board I just found many other new "duplicated" threads about old discussions. Like this new one about bill gator. Do we really need more threads about already solved discussions? (I am not discussing this case specifically, it´s just an example).

2 - The flag system should be a warn to newbies.

2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.

However, I just noticed that a user such as One-Above-All, with just negative trust, have an orange color flag. This is very ambiguous in my opinion, specially for newbies and guests. As orange really looks like something neutral.

image credits to mosprognoz

My suggestions: Remove the need (or incentive) to create new threads about already dead horse topics.
Flag should be in bold red.

[suchmoon]

However, I just noticed that a user such as One-Above-All, with just negative trust, have a yellow/orange flag. This is very ambiguous in my opinion, specially for newbies and guests.

That's not a flag. That's just the number of "old-style" negative trust ratings. I agree it should be red though. I'm not a big fan of the rainbow of colors - black-green-red-orange-yellow - too many.

[The-One-Above-All]

I know it was implemented today and there are still many things to work out on the new system.

But I would like to express my opinion about 2 problems I just noticed.

1 - I tried to flag a user (just for experimental purposes, as I am not DT), and it required me to create a new thread, because the reference is locked. Then I looked at the reputation board I just found many other new "duplicated" threads about old discussions. Like this new one about bill gator. Do we really need more threads about already solved discussions? (I am not discussing this case specifically, it´s just an example).

2 - The flag system should be a warn to newbies.

2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.

However, I just noticed that a user such as One-Above-All, with just negative trust, have an orange color flag. This is very ambiguous in my opinion, specially for newbies and guests. As orange really looks like something neutral.

image credits to mosprognoz

My suggestions: Remove the need (or incentive) to create new threads about already dead horse topics.
Flag should be in bold red.

Yes indeed this orange should be removed.

Present some evidence of scamming or make it green.

Examples of flagrant trust abuse like what happened to our account is an example of the NEED for a new fair and transparent sytem.

Thanks for raising our particular issue.  This should be green not orange.  

Our service of presenting observable instances of scamming and lying by DT members at the risk of our own account is more than the rest of the weasel board attempted. (except a handful)

Unless you can provide some example of scamming you want to present here.

I know you are likely thick a shit. But can you bring some specific examples and your explanation why we should confuse new users with red when the actions of presenting observable instances of wrong doing by dt members should be GREEN.

Bring your argument here fool so we can tear it apart.

We would like to know

1. How presenting observable instances of wrong doing by DT members makes us high risk
2. How deleting accusations about forum treasures after the 3rd time the same accusation is made without presentation of evidence.

I can see no other valid reasons or links there.

I mean i see a few lashings out from Laudas Feltching CLown  crying that we correctly presented many times his admission he is scared of THEM and will do what they say so he can have an easy time here.

I mean I can not see 1 valid tag there. I see lots of LIES and corrupt bullshit like you are trying to proliferate.

Who are you anyway shit stain? what have you achieved here ever? just look like some ass feltching alt  trolling the board with observably incorrect garbage.

We await your explanation.

[morvillz7z]

Red is so much more appropriate and aesthetically pleasing. One can only hope though...

[bitmover]

Who are you anyway shit stain? what have you achieved here ever? just look like some ass feltching alt  trolling the board with observably incorrect garbage.

We await your explanation.

Well, this discussion is not about you, and I never tagged you. I am not even DT. I jsut said that users with negative trust, such as you, should be in bold red, not orange. If you can change your feedbacks, you should be green ofc.

BUt as you are so rude, childish and delusional (attacking me without any reason) I decided to leave you a negative feedback. One more for your collection. Congrats.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

By now, we should all know yellow color is always associated with been cautions and that's what that part of the trust system is saying. Right now it doesn't imply the users having the yellow negative number are scammers but anybody wanting to trade with them should be cautious

Not a fan of the account in question but we all know many other highly red tagged users didn't actually carryout a trade per say & tried scamming other forum members they were just emotional tags which theymos is trying to prevent by introducing this new system. Therefore turning the yellow to red will just defeat that idea. If any account is worth red painting then we make use of the flag option.

[Joel_Jantsen]

BUt as you are so rude, childish and delusional (attacking me without any reason) I decided to leave you a negative feedback. One more for your collection. Congrats.

Welp, that escalated quickly!

Like theymos said,

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.

Your case somehow fits in the "Case-1" of the above quote and you shouldn't be leaving negative feedback for general opinions. Use flags instead maybe? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[The-One-Above-All]

Who are you anyway shit stain? what have you achieved here ever? just look like some ass feltching alt  trolling the board with observably incorrect garbage.

We await your explanation.

Well, this discussion is not about you, and I never tagged you. I am not even DT. I jsut said that users with negative trust, such as you, should be in bold red, not orange. If you can change your feedbacks, you should be green ofc.

BUt as you are so rude, childish and delusional (attacking me without any reason) I decided to leave you a negative feedback. One more for your collection. Congrats.

WAS NOT ABOUT ME? the fucking picture is our account?

So you failed to present any scamming or anything even related to scamming but decided our account should glow red to newbies to alert them I am financially a danger and will scam them??

attacking you without reason??

Thanks now they mean nothing (as they always did because any idiot like you can make false claims and not even need to substantiate them for their own ends) it just demonstrates it is fantastic that the new system MAKES PEOPLE PRESENT EVIDENCE OF SCAMMING before applying a scam tag. Not just say oh this person should be glowing red and a danger to scam people with ZERO EVIDENCE.

Yeah listen to JJ so you get black listed for adding scam flags to someone you have not been able to demonstrate was a scammer.

[rhomelmabini]

WAS NOT ABOUT ME? the fucking picture is our account?

It's not really about to ALL (our?) of you in a sense, @bitmover just indicated you as a sample with an orange trust, maybe the first thing he sees once he opened the forum is you as you're all over the place where hot topic is.


By the way if it exceeds to "-5", I guess it should be painted in red.

[The-One-Above-All]

WAS NOT ABOUT ME? the fucking picture is our account?

It's not really about to ALL (our?) of you in a sense, @bitmover just indicated you as a sample with an orange trust, maybe the first thing he sees once he opened the forum is you as you're all over the place where hot topic is.


By the way if it exceeds to "-5", I guess it should be painted in red.

-10000000000 if you read them all and red tags given for whistle blowing should be RED why is that? surely it should be green?

what is a score if the numbers are meaningless?

how is a whistle blower  presenting observable instances a danger to people more than any person with a neutral score exactly?

You present observable instances that a DT member has scammed and for that you get a lot of DTs give you a negative score? that makes you a danger financially to members ? what is this logic?

That would be pretty confusing to newbies really i mean... people who warn others about scammers are a danger and are glowing red? so now red is kind of confusing isn't it?

Why we just dont go with the flags and call the rest subjective feedback that has no scoring weight and just you read it to see if the person called you an asshole once, or said your breath smells, or presented observable instances of scamming.

[logfiles]

My concern is the color schemes used.
I think we should have
- Dark green for all Positive ratings
- Black for neutral
- Then Red for all Negative
Just like the old times. The new orange color is a little uncomfortable for me. Imagine I am using a blue light screen filter and the orange color looks awkward.

Also, remember that there are color blind people out there using the forum. So using clearly distinct colors for each rating type should really be considered rather than use so many colors that are closely similar.

[suchmoon]

- Dark green for all Positive ratings
- Black for neutral
- Then Red for all Negative

That's what I tried to suggest too:

+2 / =1 / -10

instead of

+2 / =1 / -10

[bones261]

Also, remember that there are color blind people out there using the forum. So using clearly distinct colors for each rating type should really be considered rather than use so many colors that are closely similar.

    Unfortunately, most people who are color blind cannot distinguish green from red. I'm not sure what such people actually see, though, since I'm not color blind.

[The-One-Above-All]

My concern is the color schemes used.
I think we should have
- Dark green for all Positive ratings
- Black for neutral
- Then Red for all Negative
Just like the old times. The new orange color is a little uncomfortable for me. Imagine I am using a blue light screen filter and the orange color looks awkward.

Also, remember that there are color blind people out there using the forum. So using clearly distinct colors for each rating type should really be considered rather than use so many colors that are closely similar.

Your concern as previous explained on suchmoons thread in detail are invalid.

THE ENTIRE REASON to sideline the old trash feedback as simply FEEDBACK that people need to read and research is done for a reason.
There is no point making the score neutral if you are going to still make it glow red.

What part of IF THEY ARE A CONFIRMED SCAMMER THEY WILL GET A RED WARNING are you missing.

Do the people here even understand how it will work before voicing concerns.

Making it glow red defeats the purpose of having the flags system.

Right now it is simple

RED = SCAMMER

you are wanting

RED = SCAMMER  AND RED = NON SCAMMER WHO PRESENTED OBSERVABLE INSTANCES OF OTHER PEOPLE SCAMMING.

this is counter productive and makes the entire thing more confusing and  ALMOST pointless.

Now voice your rebuttal OR accept your concerns are invalid.

Perhaps a notice saying READ THE FEEDBACK so people can read it and research it themselves rather than seeing red = scammer for a NON SCAMMER.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Unfortunately, most people who are color blind cannot distinguish green from red. I'm not sure what such people actually see, though, since I'm not color blind.

Using the light green over the dark green and orange over the red are generally poor choices for color blind people too - in both deuteranopia and protanopia lighter reds and greens can approach white depending on the severity of the condition, and be completely unreadable. Darker reds and greens, whilst impossible to differentiate for sufferers, are at least readable.

Red and blue are commonly used as contrasting colors which are differentiable for both deuteranopia and protanopia, although the former will see the red as a dark/dirty yellow and the latter will see it as a brown. Tritanopia sufferers generally have no problems distinguishing red and green, although the green will appear blue to them.

The best solution from this point of view would be changing the colors back to the dark green and red, and having a checkbox somewhere in your profile settings to switch to dark blue and red if you desired.

[tmfp]

Also, remember that there are color blind people out there using the forum. So using clearly distinct colors for each rating type should really be considered rather than use so many colors that are closely similar.

    Unfortunately, most people who are color blind cannot distinguish green from red. I'm not sure what such people actually see, though, since I'm not color blind.

I can see colors (I'm not achromatopsiac) and can see a difference between them, but can't identify them by name.
E.g.
I can see these numbers are different colors, but they could be anything from yellow to brown to green to me.
I can see the black alright. Unless it's dark blue 

+2 / =1 / -10
+2 / =1 / -10

[examplens]

- Dark green for all Positive ratings
- Black for neutral
- Then Red for all Negative

That's what I tried to suggest too:

+2 / =1 / -10

instead of

+2 / =1 / -10

Or maybe it's better if the user has more positive than negative, then is dark green positive ratings, and orange negative:

+10 / =1 / -6

but if the user has more negative than positive, then positive is green, and neg. red colour:

+2 / =1 / -10

[logfiles]

Unfortunately, most people who are color blind cannot distinguish green from red. I'm not sure what such people actually see, though, since I'm not color blind.

I think it also depends on the shade of green or red used. Dark green is a good choice over light green to me


By the way Incase you are wondering how a red-green color-blind individual sees these colors, the picture below has a good simulation of it

Images source: https://enchroma.com/pages/types-of-color-blindness

[suchmoon]

Or maybe it's better if the user has more positive than negative, then is dark green positive ratings, and orange negative:

+10 / =1 / -6

but if the user has more negative than positive, then positive is green, and neg. red colour:

+2 / =1 / -10

Looks good. I still dislike the multitude of colors but that's an acceptable use case I think.

[examplens]

Or maybe it's better if the user has more positive than negative, then is dark green positive ratings, and orange negative:

+10 / =1 / -6

but if the user has more negative than positive, then positive is green, and neg. red colour:

+2 / =1 / -10

Looks good. I still dislike the multitude of colors but that's an acceptable use case I think.

Yes, I agree with you, there will be more colours, but I believe all campaign managers will support this idea. that would help them a lot when selecting participants.