PM from admin demanding to exclude a certain user

[Lauda]

Just because staff members may be coincidentally involved, doesn't mean Theymos is funneling orders down and forcing DT staff or otherwise to obey.

I didn't mean it like that; I meant that it happens on all levels. I should have clarified.

Because Theymos is distant and there is no impending hammer, it is not selective enforcement by staff or otherwise.

You're looking at it from the opposite perspective. I'm not saying that theymos is causing selective enforcement, I'm saying that he's ignoring it (it happens exactly due to the lack of "impending hammer").

Fine, Is Quickseller on DT? Why isn't Theymos dropping the hammer as well on legendary members that have false claims against people? I suppose it really is unfair.

My point was that you got the attention of Theymos because you are in the position to get it. Any other member on DT doing the same thing would have also gotten the same PM sent.

Are you saying Quickseller is not in any position to get it? Are you saying that people are not harmed by his fake accusations just because there is no contract violation? Oh right, I'm not allowed to tag flag him even though I'm a victim. I can remove myself from DT, not that it matters at all any more. This will not solve selective-enforcement nor solve the opening of the gates to every scammer that ever touched this place (Quickseller included).
I must add: Both Bcash and BSV are no-brainer examples of how this system is broken (ignore user-dispute-related ratings). User: I bought BSV thinking it was Bitcoin, i.e. got scammed? Forum: Sorry, we can't tag this as you had no contract.

See, more lies. Where's the tag theymos?

Clown-car.

[1714107153]

1714107153

[1714107153]

1714107153

[1714107153]

1714107153

[SaltySpitoon]

You're looking at it from the opposite perspective. I'm not saying that theymos is causing selective enforcement, I'm saying that he's ignoring it (it happen exactly due to the lack of "impending hammer").

I'm not following. Who is doing the selective enforcement if not Theymos? Why is it qualified to be selective if not from a position of implied authority?

Are you saying Quickseller is not in any position to get it? Are you saying that people are not harmed by his fake accusations just because there is no contract violation? Oh right, I'm not allowed to tag flag him even though I'm a victim. I can remove myself from DT, not that it matters at all any more. This will not solve selective-enforcement nor solve the opening of the gates to every scammer that ever touched this place (Quickseller included).

I'm saying that as Quickseller is not on DT. As far as feedback goes, Quickseller who is not on DT has the same weight as anyone else not on DT. You are on DT, so your feedback matters more, therefor it was more pressing a matter to point out whatever you did rather than whatever Quickseller did in the case that you both did the exact same thing at the exact same time.

As far as you being allowed to flag him, if I'm understanding, the problem is that you used are improperly using the new flag system. Feedback is for people who haven't contractually scammed you, people that are untrustworthy ie, liars, account farmers, people who like lemons. Flags are for people who have stolen money from you put simply.

Does Theymos get involved in scam accusations? No. Does Theymos get involved in Scam accusations towards staff members? Probably. >>> Same situation


As pointed out earlier, Inaba doesn't have a flag yet. Is that because they don't deserve it? No, its because people prioritize when they make actions and which to take first.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=8198

[Lauda]

I'm not following. Who is doing the selective enforcement if not Theymos? Why is it qualified to be selective if not from a position of implied authority?

The, now withdrawn, rating was selective enforcement. EFS has been long-term abusing his position. I'm not familiar with theymos selectively enforcing staff-related things himself, but this was a case of selective trust-enforcement. It happens on all levels as demonstrated (trust/staff/non-staff doesn't matter).

You are on DT, so your feedback matters more, therefor it was more pressing a matter to point out whatever you did rather than whatever Quickseller did in the case that you both did the exact same thing at the exact same time.

Leaving me negative rating does what about my flag? Nothing. Right.

As pointed out earlier, Inaba doesn't have a flag yet. Is that because they don't deserve it? No, its because people prioritize when they make actions and which to take first.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=8198

I'm not a direct victim of Inaba, so Inaba is not a scammer and I can't flag him. Lovely system, priorities indeed.
You actually need even more people than ever before to get scammed in order to have a sufficient sub set of victims that are able to- and willing to come forward with credible "contract violations" before you can fully establish that the introduced system is garbage. Not enough contract violations = not enough victims able to speak out = silent scamming can and will continue. Incentivizes scamming, de-incentivizes flagging and flag-support. I'll leave you to process that.
Tl;dr: I welcome the idea of separation, but I am disgusted by this implementation which is really just scam-enabling. Have fun.

[The-One-Above-All]

Wrong EVERYONE is satisfied

You can't possibly think so, I am not satisfied with the new changes, you can see to yourself, look at the rating i left for scammers, they are now almost invisible.

 Not saying i 100% agree with the previous settings, for example non of the feedback on CH profile for example are valid, they are misues/abuse call it how you like it , but you don't make a system that releases a 1000 scammer from their cage only to be fair to 10 innocent members whom have been abused/mistreated by DT members.

there were other  simple solutions to that problem, but Theymos picked the long path that might never see the light.

No it is simply a reset. It is sadly required to start a NEW path that can not be corrupted.

This is a NEW shift to create an environment where all persons now and in the future are treated fairly and equally.

Don't blame theymos. BLAME EVERY DT WEAK ASS PIECE OF CORRUPT SHIT that did not reverse these abuses when they could have done but rather doubled down on this abuse. Theymos tried to create previously something fair. He gave WARNING AFTER WARNING AFTER WARNIGN AFTER WARNING  RED TRUST IS FOR FUCKING SCAMMERS , you all ignored this. You either all abused the trust system or supported those that did. If you are not going to reverse peoples abuse you are allowing them to do it. Would you stand there and allow an adult to abuse a child in front of you?? saying well I don't support it but you know....I'm not interested in what that adult is doing really, not my business.

How many times must theymos ask, tell, beg and scream red trust should be used only for scammers???

These changes are here because DT's made them essential.

We see you as one of the more fairer and better ones mikey. You will see the new system is going to be WAY WAY WAY  better long term.

Stop worrying so much about saying the MOST GREEDY and MOST STUPID from themselves. Start worrying about pushing forward the adoption of this decentralized trustless end to end arena we want to see built here for the future.

People need to see the bigger picture here. You guys playing whack a mole with 1000 small time scumbags is equal to about a 10th of one huge ICO scam that you can never stop because none of you have the tech chops to demonstrate the white paper is bunk and even if you could demonstrate it is not going to solve all btc's issues you would not stop the MOST GREEDY and MOST STUPID wanting to invest in it.

Free speech and educating people what this forum is about not stopping people getting robbed by themselves. People must learn you don't get a 500 bucks gift card for 20 bucks from a new person on the internets for this new magic money that does not come back once you send it.

Get flagging all that you can and the rest will get busted along the way. However, there is now a procedure to complete, this is for the long term good of the board.

Don't be short sighted here. THEYMOS has perhaps realized you need to build things on STRONG FOUNDATIONS. You need scammers to be REAL SCAMMERS to give them a scam tag else the entire thing become meaningless and people start abusing more and more until the tool to stop scammers becomes a tool for scammers to silence whistle blowers.

Your 1000 2 bit scammers will take about 0.001% of what gox did or any big ICO that raised 100's millions that will fade away to page 20 cmc and never be heard of again but those devs will be back on page one with a new ico under a new name. Only a handful of people here have the tech chops to recognize them or stop them. Even then the most greedy would still insist on investing

Stop believing average joes with a dt badge are making such a big difference in the grand scale. You are only fooling yourselves. To believe that is worth crushing free speech is madness.

REMEMBER ALL DT members are responsible for these changes should have taken heed of the abuse and put a stop to it.. I am sure theymos did not want the extra fucking hassle of coding it all out for the fun of it.  

Theymos was being KIND to lauda here. He has given lauda enough fucking warnings about trust abuse. Lauda has started saying he is the master and theymos is the student. He will NOT obey these rules... etc etc. Theymos should just have bitch slapped that scammer out of DT rather than trying to give him an exit of dignity just getting excluded out.

Suchmoon trying to spin it as some devious and sneaky move has revealed herself now. She will do ANYTHING to retain lauda in DT adding to the very possible explanation that lauda is suchmoon.  Either that or she has demonstrated some MAJOR double standards here.

[SaltySpitoon]

The selective enforcement part is confusing the hell out of me because you seem to be supporting Tecshare's claim from that thread from years ago linked earlier, yet you don't support the argument he made. I don't know much about what you are talking about with EFS, so unless its very relevant to your point, I'll skip it. If its important, I'll look up some threads about it.

You can leave negative feedback just as you've always done. You can't flag him though. Flag = Help! I've been scammed! Negative feedback = Watch out, this guy is shady! I'm not sure why you are under the impression that you have no recourse against scammers now just because there is now a distinct warning and alarm system. If you haven't been scammed, you post a warning. If you have been scammed, you signal the alarm.

This is a step towards the system that I've been preaching all along while somewhat (and I emphasize somewhat) defending your past feedback. Leaving feedback is a good thing. There are a lot of considerations people may or may not care about when deciding to trade with someone. All Theymos did was separate more severe scam accusations to flags, and freed up the space for people to put more subjective things as regular feedback. Subjective feedback isn't necessarily bad as long as you don't misrepresent it. If you want to tag Quickseller for being a liar, some percentage of the forum might agree with that feedback and decide to take your claim to heart. Others wont, and thats perfect, users forming their own opinions by reading and weighing feedback is the most fair system in my opinion. The flags are for "I"ve been scammed!" and misrepresenting your feedback is the only thing that counts as trust abuse in my eyes anyway.

That is sort of where we are at. If Quickseller didn't take your money, then they deserve feedback not a flag.

[Lauda]

The selective enforcement part is confusing the hell out of me because you seem to be supporting Tecshare's claim from that thread from years ago linked earlier, yet you don't support the argument he made. I don't know much about what you are talking about with EFS, so unless its very relevant to your point, I'll skip it. If its important, I'll look up some threads about it.

I support his claim that there is selective enforcement, not his particular instance. I haven't gone in depth into that thread to be able to support the particular claim. Meriting =/= support.

You can leave negative feedback just as you've always done. You can't flag him though. Flag = Help! I've been scammed! Negative feedback = Watch out, this guy is shady! I'm not sure why you are under the impression that you have no recourse against scammers now just because there is now a distinct warning and alarm system. If you haven't been scammed, you post a warning. If you have been scammed, you signal the alarm.

This is completely wrong. You forget that:
1) There is no trust score.
2) There is no bold red - it is now orange. Orange is not a colour of danger nor warning.
3) There is no warning written on someone with negative ratings.

Every single scammer ever has been let loose. You seem to actively fight this fact (cognitive dissonance makes accepting this hard, which in return further strengthens the scammers' positions).

The flags are for "I"ve been scammed!" and misrepresenting your feedback is the only thing that counts as trust abuse in my eyes anyway.

Fun. I suggest we add QS next to DT1. Maybe his pal TF too. Where's the contract violation? Clown-forum.
You can stop responding to me and discuss it with others. Claiming that we have a warning system when there is actually no warning written after someone received a negative tag is just factually wrong. The rest you can debate ad-naseum; re: who is right/wrong. I am no longer interested in this particular discussion.

[The-One-Above-All]

The selective enforcement part is confusing the hell out of me because you seem to be supporting Tecshare's claim from that thread from years ago linked earlier, yet you don't support the argument he made. I don't know much about what you are talking about with EFS, so unless its very relevant to your point, I'll skip it. If its important, I'll look up some threads about it.

I support his claim that there is selective enforcement, not his particular instance. I haven't gone in depth into that thread to be able to support the particular claim. Meriting =/= support.

You can leave negative feedback just as you've always done. You can't flag him though. Flag = Help! I've been scammed! Negative feedback = Watch out, this guy is shady! I'm not sure why you are under the impression that you have no recourse against scammers now just because there is now a distinct warning and alarm system. If you haven't been scammed, you post a warning. If you have been scammed, you signal the alarm.

This is completely wrong. You forget that:
1) There is no trust score.
2) There is no bold red - it is now orange. Orange is not a colour of danger nor warning.
3) There is no warning written on someone with negative ratings.

Every single scammer ever has been let loose. You seem to actively fight this fact (cognitive dissonance makes accepting this hard, which in return further strengthens the scammers' positions).

The flags are for "I"ve been scammed!" and misrepresenting your feedback is the only thing that counts as trust abuse in my eyes anyway.

Fun. I suggest we add QS next to DT1. Maybe his pal TF too. Where's the contract violation? Clown-forum.
You can stop responding to me and discuss with others about it. Claiming that we have a warning system when there is actually no warning written after someone received a negative tag is just factually wrong. The rest you can debate ad-naseum; re: who is right/wrong. I am no longer interested in this particular discussion.

Let us remember lauda that you are a scammer? so those you brand scammers are likely NOT scammers are they? I mean who trusts the word of a proven scammer and liar??

[Quickseller]

lauda is upset he can no longer unilaterally tag people without anyone else's support -- he is upset he can no longer use the threat of negative trust as a weapon to silence his critics

[SaltySpitoon]

This is completely wrong. You forget that:
1) There is no trust score.
2) There is no bold red - it is now orange. Orange is not a colour of danger nor warning.
3) There is no warning written on someone with negative ratings.

Every single scammer ever has been let loose. You seem to actively fight this fact (cognitive dissonance makes accepting this hard, which in return further strengthens the scammers' positions).

Great, the score was meaningless before anyway. How does one rate how trustworthy someone is on a scale from -999 to 400ish? I don't know what the upper positive trust scale was. I don't think you should get a number for being an alleged liar or successfully trading 1000BTC. I think whoever is going to trade with you should decide the validity of the claim themselves and how much they are willing to trust you with.

The color doesn't matter either, why should green, red, or heliotrope tell you who is trustworthy. Just read a person's feedback and you'll get all of the info you want. I'm against the go ahead and trade recklessly if you see green, or avoid at all costs if you see red mentality that seems to have accidentally been cultivated here. I've traded with actual scammers in the past. You just use escrow. I've requested escrow be used with deep green trusted members. Numbers, scores, and reassuring colors just numb your gut feeling.

Sure, lets add QS to DT1, maybe then you'll feel better when they get a PM sent about them from Theymos for misusing the new system. I have really come to loath the use of the word factual or its derivatives on Bitcointalk. We have a difference of opinion on the definition of what constitutes a warning. if I cared or you cared, we could discuss this further, but you are right we aren't going to come to an agreement and there is no point in wasting our time continuing.

lauda is upset he can no longer unilaterally tag people without anyone else's support -- he is upset he can no longer use the threat of negative trust as a weapon to silence his critics

This is what I don't get. No, the new system DOES unilaterally allow people to tag whoever they want for whatever they want. There is just now a distinction between Flag, this person scammed me, and feedback, this is a warning I think this person is a scammer and here is why. I'm now free to leave people positive or negative feedback for lemons. I've been dangerously close to leaving CryptoHunter lemon feedback to prove a point, but didn't do so because of some people's fixation on feedback as a unified structure of infallible information.

[suchmoon]

we're going to get factions of forum users constantly fighting each other, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop. I'm sick and tired of big escalations and never-ending feuds over highly-subjective and/or relatively minor things.

I don't see how telling a large group of users to exclude a certain person can resolve any feuds. This brings the drama level up a notch. Based on some conversations I had, it seems to have just added more anxiety on top of whatever other shit was going on.

But thank you for clarifying the intent. I sympathize with it, if not the execution.

[The-One-Above-All]

This is completely wrong. You forget that:
1) There is no trust score.
2) There is no bold red - it is now orange. Orange is not a colour of danger nor warning.
3) There is no warning written on someone with negative ratings.

Every single scammer ever has been let loose. You seem to actively fight this fact (cognitive dissonance makes accepting this hard, which in return further strengthens the scammers' positions).

Great, the score was meaningless before anyway. How does one rate how trustworthy someone is on a scale from -999 to 400ish? I don't know what the upper positive trust scale was. I don't think you should get a number for being an alleged liar or successfully trading 1000BTC. I think whoever is going to trade with you should decide the validity of the claim themselves and how much they are willing to trust you with.

The color doesn't matter either, why should green, red, or heliotrope tell you who is trustworthy. Just read a person's feedback and you'll get all of the info you want. I'm against the go ahead and trade recklessly if you see green, or avoid at all costs if you see red mentality that seems to have accidentally been cultivated here. I've traded with actual scammers in the past. You just use escrow. I've requested escrow be used with deep green trusted members. Numbers, scores, and reassuring colors just numb your gut feeling.

Sure, lets add QS to DT1, maybe then you'll feel better when they get a PM sent about them from Theymos for misusing the new system. I have really come to loath the use of the word factual or its derivatives on Bitcointalk. We have a difference of opinion on the definition of what constitutes a warning. if I cared or you cared, we could discuss this further, but you are right we aren't going to come to an agreement and there is no point in wasting our time continuing.

lauda is upset he can no longer unilaterally tag people without anyone else's support -- he is upset he can no longer use the threat of negative trust as a weapon to silence his critics

This is what I don't get. No, the new system DOES unilaterally allow people to tag whoever they want for whatever they want. There is just now a distinction between Flag, this person scammed me, and feedback, this is a warning I think this person is a scammer and here is why. I'm now free to leave people positive or negative feedback for lemons. I've been dangerously close to leaving CryptoHunter lemon feedback to prove a point, but didn't do so because of some people's fixation on feedback as a unified structure of infallible information.

Tags are now relegated to the meaningless lemons garbage they were allowed to degrade to. So people looking at the score didn't know if the person ate lemons or steals bitcoins without scanning a ton of weird strange personal nonsense unrelated to scamming.
Flags are the real deal. I mean we already have a nice new shiny flag let's see if this is allowed to stand or these scum bags get black listed. We are not too bothered because it is still a huge move in the right direction and they will not get away with this on everyone only very very unpopular persons like us where the board is willing to allow scammers and their miscreant pals to give a flag to a person that they have ZERO chance of demonstrating has scammed or tried to scam ANYONE  out of money. The change was never just about us or our fav true legend, it was about gaining free speech for the entire board free of the threat of your sig being zapped away if you said something a gang of scammers, liars and their supporters didn't want you to say.

Theymos seems to be getting bullied around by some very ANGRY dt scammers and their gang right now. Let's hope theymos has some REAL supporters who want to see fair and transparent rules applied equally to all members.

Nice to see the DT scammers and their excellent member pals reveal themselves for who they really are now though. Nice to see suchmoon trying to spin this message theymos sent to 110 people as some sneaky stealth move he really wanted kept secret and now he is a bad guy. Rather than the real reason that is probably he felt sorry for lauda (fuck knows why) and didn't want to bitch slap him with a black listing so we could all gloat. But rather have his support eroded from beneath him with excludes.

Either way win win. People always show their true colors eventually. We believe suchmoon is lauda and have for quite some time. This certainly adds weight to that possibility. Usually suchmoon can be found brown nosing theymos constantly why suddenly turn against him for lauda?? because how can it turn on it's self. I remember someone once saying somewhere oh suchmoon we didnt know you could speak croatian > it started saying oh no it was " then some excuses" like moron bozo taught me a few words or some such explanation. That could be smoke with no fire but then again it could be a furnace below the surface.

[actmyname]

Theymos seems to be getting bullied around by some very ANGRY dt scammers and their gang right now. Let's hope theymos has some REAL supporters who want to see fair and transparent rules applied equally to all members.

I have two problems with the reputation + flag system.

One: we have to go back and find our flaggable tags. Although you'll have the negative reputation points, one thing that is missing is the newbie flag. They are still likely to fall prey to a scammer.

Two: flags can only be created by victims. This means that when a flag is created, the scammer will have most likely already gotten what they wanted.

[The-One-Above-All]

Theymos seems to be getting bullied around by some very ANGRY dt scammers and their gang right now. Let's hope theymos has some REAL supporters who want to see fair and transparent rules applied equally to all members.

I have two problems with the reputation + flag system.

One: we have to go back and find our flaggable tags. Although you'll have the negative reputation points, one thing that is missing is the newbie flag. They are still likely to fall prey to a scammer.

Two: flags can only be created by victims. This means that when a flag is created, the scammer will have most likely already gotten what they wanted.

Sometimes in life to start building on strong foundations the old building must be destroyed. A total reset where we ENSURE only REAL scammers get a scam tag it seems sadly it is the only way to start again. You may have made all legitimate red tags. I believe in your case it is plausible. However the same can NOT be said for other DT members. Therefore a general rule must sadly accommodate the worst cases of trust abuse. We must not blame the creator of the systems for giving too much credit to those that abused the systems or failed to stand against the abuse. The creator this time is taking no risks with over estimating the system controllers integrity.

Long term point 1 will be a non issue.  We must look long term hence the need for strong foundations.

Point2 - there will always be a trade off for guessing or speculating or having faith that a person will scam against innocent members being flagged as scammers. That is just the thin end of the wedge or the start of the rot as they say. This FAITH that someone will scam can be gradually reduced down to eating lemons if left unchecked. That has obvious implications for free speech which is the corner stone of such a progressive movement as this.  It is more important to ensure all members are treated equally and fairly than it is perhaps to protect some of the most greedy risk takers. It is my belief only a handful of people here have the tech chops to stop the largest and most damaging scams and even with their valid warning you will see a lot of greedy and foolish people screaming take my money.

Let's never allow free speech to be crushed to save people from themselves.

To bring this back to the intial post though. We are pleased this thread was started. We and most sensible people can see it is an attempt to shed negative light on theymos who is trying his best to rid this forum of the cancer of scammers that seek to use the trust system to facilitate their own scamming and silence whilstle blowers. We hardly think sending the REQUEST not demand (if it was a demand then I am sure it would be happening by now) to 110 people is the sign of someone trying to do any back room manipulation. We stick to the belief it was an attempt to allow lauda to be removed from a position where it can bring more damage without making him look like he just got the boot from the forum owner in public. Theymos tried to be nice and look what happens they turn it on him trying to suggest he was being sneaky. Disgusting behavior by excellent member suchmoon. As we say it adds weight to our suspicion that suchmoon is lauda.

[JaredKaragen]

Theymos seems to be getting bullied around by some very ANGRY dt scammers and their gang right now. Let's hope theymos has some REAL supporters who want to see fair and transparent rules applied equally to all members.

I have two problems with the reputation + flag system.

One: we have to go back and find our flaggable tags. Although you'll have the negative reputation points, one thing that is missing is the newbie flag. They are still likely to fall prey to a scammer.

Two: flags can only be created by victims. This means that when a flag is created, the scammer will have most likely already gotten what they wanted.

I think this is why one option is for heavy scam potential;  vs. an actual accusation of a scam that happened....

Innocent until proven guilty must still hold; or everything falls apart quickly...

[actmyname]

I think this is why one option is for heavy scam potential;  vs. an actual accusation of a scam that happened....

Innocent until proven guilty must still hold; or everything falls apart quickly...

One option is in relation to reputation. I have no problem with this, at all. I think this is a good addition save for the fact that it has a lessened effect on all the previous genuine negative feedback.

Flags are inherently flawed in the fact that the victim of a scam must flag the user.

Innocent until proven guilty, sure. But with this one it is unflagged until victim proves scammer guilty. If no victim acts on the flag, then nothing is done. You are not allowed to flag without first being scammed.

[The-One-Above-All]

I think this is why one option is for heavy scam potential;  vs. an actual accusation of a scam that happened....

Innocent until proven guilty must still hold; or everything falls apart quickly...

One option is in relation to reputation. I have no problem with this, at all. I think this is a good addition save for the fact that it has a lessened effect on all the previous genuine negative feedback.

Flags are inherently flawed in the fact that the victim of a scam must flag the user.

Innocent until proven guilty, sure. But with this one it is unflagged until victim proves scammer guilty. If no victim acts on the flag, then nothing is done. You are not allowed to flag without first being scammed.

Our trust now shows a flag and those people have not proven we have scammed anyone because that would be impossible. So this may not be the case.

[actmyname]

Our trust now shows a flag and those people have not proven we have scammed anyone because that would be impossible. So this may not be the case.

I don't mean the guest/newbie flags. I mean the type-2 and type-3 flags, which are reserved for victims of scams.

[theymos]

Innocent until proven guilty, sure. But with this one it is unflagged until victim proves scammer guilty. If no victim acts on the flag, then nothing is done. You are not allowed to flag without first being scammed.

No, you are just not allowed to use the high-power scam flags -- intended mainly for punishing people, not really for preemptively warning about scams -- without first being scammed. You can still use the newbie-warning flags and negative ratings, which have plenty of warning power.

[Quickseller]

lauda is upset he can no longer unilaterally tag people without anyone else's support -- he is upset he can no longer use the threat of negative trust as a weapon to silence his critics

This is what I don't get. No, the new system DOES unilaterally allow people to tag whoever they want for whatever they want. There is just now a distinction between Flag, this person scammed me, and feedback, this is a warning I think this person is a scammer and here is why.

Previously, leaving a negative rating would effectively cripple a person's ability to conduct business, as it created the bight red warning to "trade with extreme caution", regardless of what the comment said. Now, if you were to leave negative trust for "liking lemons" there will be no bright red warning, and anyone reading this comment will promptly ignore the rating -- in other words, the negative rating no longer cripples a person's ability to conduct business.

What the above means is Lauda can no longer use the threat of him sending a negative rating as a means to get what he wants out of people, others will no longer be afraid of criticizing him (Lauda has given many people negative trust for criticizing him, recently explicitly for doing this, and previously, the comment was for other, bogus reasons, but was done immidiately after they criticized him. if lauda wants to open a flag against someone, they need to create a thread in which the person in question can be defended by himself or others -- lauda had said today that "no discussion is necessary" for flags he opened today.

[actmyname]

No, you are just not allowed to use the high-power scam flags -- intended mainly for punishing people, not really for preemptively warning about scams -- without first being scammed. You can still use the newbie-warning flags and negative ratings, which have plenty of warning power.

I suppose we did want differing degrees of severity in regards to negative feedback. I'll have to give this some more thought and form a more substantiated opinion as discussion develops.Is there any message indicator for when a user PMs a flagged user? I know that some users have tried to sneak their way into scamming others in sections that hide trust ratings (and now flag markers).