PM from admin demanding to exclude a certain user

[JaredKaragen]

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).

I agree with this;   having a scaled impact value vs.  a simple yes/no;  needs to be considered IMHO.  I have seen people with negative trust;  just because they were duped into advertising for a scam unknowingly.....

In the same regard; my Yobit banner could potentially have harmed me if yobit truly went south for the winter and started ripping everyone off blatantly (which i personally am surprised they haven't yet); because for me;  the sig was just a way to put a little coin in my pocket for doing the same thing I have always done;  help in the areas I can help in;  when I am physically/mentally able to do so.....  Never once did I advocate anyone use them or go out of my way to shill for them;  I would only suggest people go in and hit up the free coins when there was something worth nabbing (like the free .01 ETC every 24 hours), or when I was gung-ho on a [still in progress] "coin" that I believe the project has merit (as a DEX)....
Shit; I already have a negative distrust from some asshat on the old system for my yobit banner;  with literally no real reasoning for it other than I would rebut or continue the discussion with logical processes and analysis in my process of trying to help them through the issue they were having.    I think it might even be the guy whom sent an ETH smartcontract token set to his ETH wallet on yobit;  which they have never supported..... he was quite butthurt at my honest curt replies.

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.

 Yeah;  but here's the rub;  If you dont have evidence of a scam;  it's a blind accusation from you in the eyes of everyone else with an objective mind.....  so that's a double edged sword of a concept to try and modify that way.  Even if the people who trust you see it;  they have nothing on it past your say so;  that doesn't fly in the online world unless you are truly respected by even the people who havent conversed with you.   Very few people reach that status in any regard. (at the same time, I am baffled why people put so much stock into actors' opinions these days)

[1713870505]

1713870505

[1713870505]

1713870505

[1713870505]

1713870505

[TECSHARE]

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.

I don't think anyone is demanding infallibility, simply objective and publicly observable information on which to judge an accusation, I.E. not just beliefs and opinions. As I stated before, everyone can play pretend time and claim they think XYZ, but it is much more difficult to manufacture objective facts over and over.

[DdmrDdmr]

Well this has got messy pretty quickly, although I wouldn’t expect it any other way really, just perhaps not so soon. The positive side to it is that it brings up the flaws pretty quickly, which leaves a possibility to alter the system or guideline it better before the damage is structural.

I personally dislike receiving PMs encouraging supporting or disapproving mal use in one way or another, and they are related to the usual drama which I occasionally glimpse through, but have no desire to read on a permanent basis as if I was reading The Mirror reporting on how “Fun with Flags has hit Bitcointalk, and is being used to tell people to Flagoff”.

@Theymos’s PM states what seems like a fact: the red flag given to Quickseller did not (to my finding) have any solid supporting contractually proven evidence, and hence was uncalled for. @Lauda later amended as far as flags allow, by removing support to the flag.
The flag is therefore Inactive due to Insufficient support, but I find it still tarnishes one’s profile since it cannot be deleted. I would prefer for flags to be erasable by it’s creator, providing it does not have other people’s support. If the creator of a flag wants to delete a supported flag, he would need to convince the supporters on the arguments for it to happen, and if all retracted their support, it could be erased. 
 
Theoretically, the reading of the OP where @theymos verbalized the Trust flags introduction and subsequent changes indicates that “If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP”. That is what he has done by delegation, although when I read it I assumed it was going to be a direct act.
Whether the suggested call to action is harsh or not after barely a few hours of setting the new system in motion is subjective, and therefore we can decide whether to follow or ignore the suggestion enclosed in @theymo’s PM.

It does raise the question of whether every single flag (at least DTs) will be scrutinized from here on with the same cause of action. That seems like a hell of a job to do, and even more so considering that people come and go from the DT list be it due to votes or to capping the list to 100. I’m not even sure if DT2 counts towards flags the same way as DT1 does (I think it does). If so, this multiplies the number of flags to potentially supervise, which seems like an overly task (likely, only those brought to attention would need a revision).

[johhnyUA]

Since the "Lauda PM" is now public knowledge let me just state that this sort of thing - forum owner/admin sending a PM demanding "recommending" to exclude a certain user from my trust network - is deeply unwelcome. Theymos can blacklist anyone he wants, there is no need for him to coerce others into doing this.

Theymos tries to follow his own system. I think it's very good and trustworthy behavior. Of course, many 'justice warriors' that cries about how much they care about forum would turn it into Gulag.  (with corruption, of course)

Just reccomendation. no demand (as i understand). Blacklisting is shit, the shittiest shit and it's a little strange that people in Bitcoin forum who is on DT1 saying something like: "It would be better to blacklist @user, than asking to distrust him". Lol, it's pathetic

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.

Lol. Please look at this topic - CLICK. Many users, like yahoo62278 told to OP that "no victim - no scam". "If bestmixer would created this topic, we would tag Hharmpuz" states they. For me, i think it's right statement. Because you can't punish someone for things that he didn't done

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

I’m not even sure if DT2 counts towards flags the same way as DT1 does (I think it does).

Just to confirm, it does.

The good thing about this new trust flag is that, no one single handedly leave a red flag to anyone's account. This will reduce the trust misuse which we have seen from the last trust system.

[Anduck]

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.

Correct -- that's what Lauda has been saying too.

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.

Your subjective non-contributing view to the matter, which also contradicts what Lauda says about himherself.

[mikeywith]

: "It would be better to blacklist @user, than asking to distrust him". Lol, it's pathetic

That is not pathetic , i understand Theymos does not want to use his Admin's privileges in the trust system so he limited his actions to what is available for the average DT member, that is great and all, but really , why create all the mess?

 I can't see anything wrong with theymos directly controlling DT list and blacklisting whoever he thinks are not worthy of being a DT, after all he can very much adjust the rules to simply exclude every member whos name starts with L and get rid of Lauda forever, We know he is not going to do such a thing but still he is the one who created the system based on what he thinks right.

 therefore it is always better to get his hands dirty and manually fix what is broken, the only time this would be invalid is when forum members themselves chose how they want the system to be like, and since it is not the case then who ever has the power to create/alter/modify the system should use that power to fix what needs fixing.

[The Cryptovator]

To be honest, at first I thought admin (theymos) account has been hacked when I saw the message from him. But after visit meta I realized that message came from real admin. Seems Lauda has been removed/blacklisted from DT1 and asmin want to remove her from DT2 as well and that's the reason to ask distrust(~) her from trust list. My question is, why admin had not bothered to make public post with his opinion instead of send personal messages? Because sending messages to all DT's means it has become publicly. This kind of PM isn't appreciated to me from any users.

[mightyDTs]

Just to make it clear: I obviously don't mind theymos expressing his opinion, I appreciate it. I dislike the way it was done. He can blacklist users (and preferably explain the decision) if he wants to. Or post his opinion publicly and let everyone make their decisions.

And no, it's not the same as someone else (e.g. Lauda) campaigning for inclusions/exclusions. I could tell Lauda to fuck off and nothing would happen regardless of what the conspiracy theories would lead you to believe. I don't think many recipients of that PM would feel the same way about a request from admin. Perhaps my reading of the situation is flawed. Let's hope that's all there is.

Why all these drama surrounding a PM? Feel lucky that he (theymos) did not tell that he will ban/blacklist anyone who will not listen to him like Lauda's red trust for QS.

Degenerate scammer and the vilest of liars; use of sockpuppets, and constant shitposting (for and without sig. campaign). If you deal with this user you will get burned, and I will tag you as well.

Read:
and I will tag you as well.

https://i.imgur.com/QfxZ5Dk.png

Besides, you all did not have any problem when Lauda was asking HH not to respond in QS post, when Lauda asked LFC_Bitcoin to remove/distrust Bill^* and many other occasions where she was convincing/ordering uses in their PM to do that and this?

You guys are moaning for a barking bitch.

Just do this:
~Lauda

She has done this to herself. I do not see anyone here to be blamed. She was using the old trust system as her weapon to silent users. A strong example is the red trust left for me in this account LOL

^*

bill, I feel like a right ass hole but Lauda messaged me ... about you. She told me I should remove you from my trust list. I really didn’t want to do it because I do like you (a lot).

For my own comfort & to make my life easier I did it. I don’t want to get on the wrong side of them.

I am really sorry & I feel a dick for doing it. I had to tell you myself though before you see it yourself.

I hope you can forgive me.

LFC

Edit:
I am glad to see that The Pharmacist is improving. He now is trying his own voice. Try to sleep less LOL. It's the time zone.

[qwk]

I obviously don't mind theymos expressing his opinion, I appreciate it. I dislike the way it was done. He can [...] post his opinion publicly and let everyone make their decisions.

I'd like to take this argument a little further:
In sending a PM to all DT1 members, theymos set a precedent of using what I would call unsolicited mass email aka SPAM to get his message across.
We're on bitcointalk, a forum, goddammit.

Dear theymos, you want to get a message out to a lot of people?
Start a thread on "Meta"!

(Of course, the same would apply to Lauda, who sent a PM as well. But this might be forgiven, since it was obviously a reaction to theymos' PM).

[Last of the V8s]

Just a minor fact-check. I'm on DT1 this period. I didn't get the theymos pm. I ~excluded Lauda all along.

[cryptodevil]

I think the tl;dr goes something like this:

1. Quickseller is an untrustworthy account trading (the basis by which many scams have been perpetrated) forum member with a long history of extremely shady behaviour, including fraudulent misrepresentation (self-escrow).
2. By his own actions, Quickseller cannot be trusted within this community and gullible newbies especially should have the means to be readily alerted to this fact when reading his posts or interacting with him directly
3. The scammer flag forum mechanism is considerably more profound a marker of a forum member's reputation than trust ratings and should only be used by a victim to assert an actual fraud or crime has taken place
4. However, Lauda, and others, have used the flag mechanism to highlight forum members who are generally considered to be extremely shady in order to alert those who may be unaware

CjMapope alleged the following, but later withdrew it: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with YoBit is at 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 the user's opinions.
Support: Timelord2067
Opposition: (None) Active. Support | Oppose

5. Theymos is pissed that the flag system is not being used solely by victims of an actual fraudulent or criminal act
6. Lauda withdraws their flag for Quickseller
7. Theymos thinks Lauda should be considered as untrustworthy for having used the flag mechanism the wrong way


I'm going to take it as Lauda figured Quickseller deserved a large painted sign above his profile alerting all to the fact he is and has long been a shady fuck, but erroneously employed the scammer flag in order to do so. I don't think that warrants flinging their trust ratings out of the window quite yet.

I also think that Theymos seriously underestimates, or perhaps not, the weight of his authority when sending DM's to people 'recommending' an action be taken. While I do understand why he would be alarmed about the flag system being misused, it is likely that many of those who have done so took the action in the belief it was warranted in order to serve as a warning to others based on their prior knowledge of that forum member's past actions.

[qwk]

I hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH, which were created with deception in mind, are technologically bankrupt, and are run by huge assholes, but you can't say that their supporters broke a contract with you when they didn't. Give them a newbie-warning flag if you want, but not a contract-violation flag unless they actually broke a contract with you. (Note that you might have a case for breach of implied contract if you were actually tricked into buying one of these coins instead of BTC.)

Actually, given the title of this thread, this discussion is off-topic.
But since we're on meta, where every thread derails...

I strongly believe that I do indeed have a case of "breach of contract" by all Fork-Coiners.
We're all part of the Bitcoin project.
We do have a social contract based on best practices of the open source community.
One of the unwritten rules of this contract could be expressed as
"if you fork a project, rename it so that others are not led to believe you're the original".
This part of the open source community social contract has been breached at least by BCash.

So, yes, I do indeed reserve the right to say "BCash broke a contract with me".

(I wouldn't necessarily use bitcointalk's trust system to make this claim, though, since BCash seems highly irrelevant here.)

[hilariousetc]

I hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH, which were created with deception in mind, are technologically bankrupt, and are run by huge assholes, but you can't say that their supporters broke a contract with you when they didn't. Give them a newbie-warning flag if you want, but not a contract-violation flag unless they actually broke a contract with you. (Note that you might have a case for breach of implied contract if you were actually tricked into buying one of these coins instead of BTC.)

Actually, given the title of this thread, this discussion is off-topic.
But since we're on meta, where every thread derails...

I strongly believe that I do indeed have a case of "breach of contract" by all Fork-Coiners.
We're all part of the Bitcoin project.
We do have a social contract based on best practices of the open source community.
One of the unwritten rules of this contract could be expressed as
"if you fork a project, rename it so that others are not led to believe you're the original".
This part of the open source community social contract has been breached at least by BCash.

So, yes, I do indeed reserve the right to say "BCash broke a contract with me".

(I wouldn't necessarily use bitcointalk's trust system to make this claim, though, since BCash seems highly irrelevant here.)

But this is exactly the issue: "trust" and what people deem to be shady behaviour is completely subjective. One person can think anything with bitcoin in the name other than the original bitcoin is being shady and trying to mislead whereas others don't or don't care. I think people who try become escrow with no previous trade history are either pretty naive or are trying to steal others money but either way I don't trust them. Does it deserve negative feedback? Arguably, yes. Some people would disagree. Some people don't care. Account selling is another issue. Some people find the selling of bitointalk accounts extremely shady. Others don't. Others are on the fence. Selling an account isn't directly a scam but it can certainly lead to them. Should we leave negative for account sellers? Some people think so and other don't. Even more probably don't care. People get into petty spats here for a multitude of reasons and others are quick to try dig up dirt and blow things out of proportion to try get their comeuppance and they sometimes use the feedback system to do that and the cycle continues. This update does help to curb that but it's also going to make life easier for a lot of scammers, but as I've always said you're never going to be able to please everyone with any feedback system whatever you do.

[suchmoon]

Just a minor fact-check. I'm on DT1 this period. I didn't get the theymos pm. I ~excluded Lauda all along.

It appears to have been sent to current and potential DT1 members who don't exclude Lauda. For example I'm not currently in DT1.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It appears to have been sent to current and potential DT1 members who don't exclude Lauda. For example I'm not currently in DT1.

I'm currently DT1, don't exclude Lauda, and never received it. I did previously have Lauda included, but removed the inclusion before the PM was sent (I think - certainly hours before I saw it first mentioned) after reading about her issue with The Pharmacist.

[The-One-Above-All]

Just a minor fact-check. I'm on DT1 this period. I didn't get the theymos pm. I ~excluded Lauda all along.

It appears to have been sent to current and potential DT1 members who don't exclude Lauda. For example I'm not currently in DT1.

Let's keep it this way.

All DT1 members that have not excluded someone with this much dirt hanging over them

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153864.0

should have been excluded and painted up red a long time by any RESPONSIBLE and TRUSTWORTHY DT member. All the ass felching gimps and greedy scum that ride the lauda gravy train need to be pushed off.

This thread seems to have served its purpose well.

1. Reveals suchmoon as a back stabber and possible alt of lauda.
2. Reveals theymos is already unwilling to push DIRECT BLACKLISTING of lauda even after he immediately gave the new rules the same abuse he did the old rules.
3. Reveals theymos is too nice to people that stab him in the back and try to twist and spin his very kind action of just keeping lauda out of DT by the normal exclusion process rather than hand him a bitch slap black list directly for the board to rejoice and gloat in laudas face  is being spun into somehow theymos is the bad guy here for trying to keep a PROVEN scammer and PROVEN trust abuser out of the trust system.

Let's lock the thread. It's not like you don't ALL send PM's recommending who to remove and who to exclude on DT. What a bunch of hypocritical and backstabbing pieces of shit you all turn into when your ABUSING POWERS are threatened.

Disgusting.

QWK has previously stated

1. He is not interested in the truth ?

2. He feels it is good that innocent members are given red trust because it increases awareness of scamming

or some such madness. We should not be taking what qwk says at face value.  He said when lauda tells him to buy him a amazon gift voucher he just does it?  

The guy is certainly smarter than most of you low functioning dregs on meta,  but is operating completely independently from the morals and reasoning patterns with regard honest and dishonest or right vs wrong ..that 99.99% of other human beings accept as normal and reasonable.  Again not a person you want on DT.

His critical words about theymos are therefore again to be treated with extreme caution and investigated thoroughly before accepting them as TRUE.

This thread rather than casting any doubt on theymos who send this to 110 people so certainly not a sneaky attempt but rather again another example of theymos being too nice and too lenient when it comes to dealing directly with scammers , liars and their gang of corrupt scumbag pals.

[qwk]

QWK [...] is not interested in the truth ?

The only observable truth here seems to be an open SPAM accusation against forum user theymos.

Now, I don't know how many users received the PM in question, but obviously not each and every one on DT1 received the PM, so it's fair to assume that it was only sent to a select subgroup of users, which at least somehow mollifies the SPAM accusation.


BTW: no need to yell, my name is "qwk", not "QWK"

[Last of the V8s]

For example I'm not currently in DT1.

Ridiculous. We should have a politburo system or similar, so the best ones are always there on DT1, and only the 'bottom-feeders' like myself and, well, others, come and go. /s
You and most other holidaying politburo members seen to be taking it very well though.

[The-One-Above-All]

QWK [...] is not interested in the truth ?

The only observable truth here seems to be an open SPAM accusation against forum user theymos.

Now, I don't know how many users received the PM in question, but obviously not each and every one on DT1 received the PM, so it's fair to assume that it was only sent to a select subgroup of users, which at least somehow mollifies the SPAM accusation.


BTW: no need to yell, my name is "qwk", not "QWK"

@qwk (what does it mean anyway?)

please don't be deliberately ignorant. "DEMANDING" then going on to say I don't like it done in private should have been done publicly. Trying to spin it as a negative sneaky action not just on the basis of spamming. If the train-man demands....then it happens. It was a request. If he wanted it kept secret he would not have sent to 110 members. Suchmoon to react like this is simply another indication lauda is an alt of suchmoon. She will deny it but I would bet she gets many exclusion inclusion suggestions from other  members.

The reader can see what is really going on. This acceptance by you of ONLY 100% irrefutable (even by crazy ludicrous lengths of unbelievable excuses or explanations being given consideration and weighted far more than any normal person would allow) FACT is bogus. Even when you spot there that denial is just looking silly, you say you don't care about the truth. This means it is pointless to try to convince you of something you do not want to accept. You just will not operate under what are generally considered the accepted rules of reasoned debate.

Anyway going off topic towards the end but this thread is bogus.

Anyway fine you will be qwk from now on. I thought the letters QWK represented words.