WHICH flags are appropriate for each scenario listed here???????????????????????

[The-One-Above-All]

Just to get a rough idea of how to set up my flags. With some examples of scenarios

1.  lauda, owlcatz , tman - extortion attempt which many senior members believe WAS a real attempt to extort another member

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0

a/ what flag is suitable for a directly effected member
b/ what flag is suitable for a concerned member that was not directly effected?

2. laudas et als shady looking escrow dealings concerning 3000BTC

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.msg44083126#msg44083126

a/ what flag is suitable for a directly effected member
b/ what flag is suitable for a concerned member that was not directly effected?

3. laudas PROVEN lie for financial gain (SCAMMING) that he was on the launch of xcoin/dark and there was NO Instamine whilst holding bags of it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.msg6748208#msg6748208

a/ what flag is suitable for a directly effected member?
b/ what flag is suitable for a concerned member that was not directly effected?

4. lauda et al's flagrant and continued trust abuse and giving out red trust to persons that presented observable instances of his past here.

a/ what flag is suitable for a directly effected member?
b/ what flag is suitable for a concerned member that was not directly effected?


Local rule - you must give a sensible reasoned answer with some grounding based on the new flags rules

5. Nutildah knowingly by his own words trying to or succeeding at  facilitating scams for a payment of 0.3BTC

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

a/ what flag is suitable for a directly effected member?
b/ what flag is suitable for a concerned member that ws not directly effected?

[1713953087]

1713953087

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Unless you personally have suffered losses / been scammed yourself by the account in question then the only flag you can add on a profile is the first option -

Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)

[FFrankie]

Why not post this from your main account? are you too afraid of the backlash you will receive?


I don't think any flags are necessary for any. Just assume that everyone here is a lair, cheater, and stealer and take the proper pro-cations when trading, and mind your own business

[The-One-Above-All]

Why not post this from your main account? are you too afraid of the backlash you will receive?


I don't think any flags are necessary for any. Just assume that everyone here is a lair, cheater, and stealer and take the proper pro-cations when trading, and mind your own business

Even if your first assertion is possibly true. Not that we are an alt of anyone. That is merely a poor reflection on this state of the trust system. Why should one asking such questions be at risk of getting negative trust. So unless you have video evidence of another member posting on this account why bother considering it? what relevance does it have to the initial post. The answers should be the same if any of those questions was asked by ANY other member.

Allowing whistle blowers to be given scam tags is the very reason a sensible person may decide to use a shield here. Stop the abuse and REALLY blacklist abusers and no need for shields.

Please tell theymos to delete the entire trust system them and just put a message on every ones account " this person is possibly going to scam you as soon as they can"

[nutildah]

Even if your first assertion is possibly true. Not that we are an alt of anyone. That is merely a poor reflection on this state of the trust system. Why should one asking such questions be at risk of getting negative trust. So unless you have video evidence of another member posting on this account why bother considering it? what relevance does it have to the initial post.

OK so you're not an alt of anyone (let's just ignore the fact that this is a blatant lie) and your trust history saying you are cryptohunter is just a "poor reflection" of the state of the trust system. Why should anyone care what you have to say about matters that happened well before your time? You're just a Jr Member who has only been on the forum since earlier this year. How did you develop such an ingrained, biased, nuanced opinion of things that happened years before you were a member?

You should let more senior accounts that are far more familiar with the history of forum matters than you deal with new changes to the trust system. Just sit back and... well... do whatever it is that you "do" when you're not bitching about the forum.

Also, I think your thread title needs more question marks.

[The-One-Above-All]

Even if your first assertion is possibly true. Not that we are an alt of anyone. That is merely a poor reflection on this state of the trust system. Why should one asking such questions be at risk of getting negative trust. So unless you have video evidence of another member posting on this account why bother considering it? what relevance does it have to the initial post.

OK so you're not an alt of anyone (let's just ignore the fact that this is a blatant lie) and the fact that your trust history says you are cryptohunter is just a "poor reflection" of the state of the trust system. Why should anyone care what you have to say about matters that happened well before your time? You're just a Jr Member who has only been on the forum since earlier this year. How did you develop such an ingrained, biased, nuanced opinion of things that happened years before you were a member?

You should let more senior accounts that are far more familiar with the history of forum matters than you deal with new changes to the trust system. Just sit back and... well... do whatever it is that you "do" when you're not bitching about the forum.

Also, I think your thread title needs more question marks.

Why ask a question we have answered you before ...just for back ground on this false accuser who has no PROOF there can be many explanations for whatever compilation of intentional goodies we are giving you all to frustrate you further.

How do you know we have not been lurking since 2010? that is right you do NOT. Like you do NOT have video evidence the member that operated the cryptohunter account is operating this account.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127540.msg50571141#msg50571141
You have no PROOF.

We have proof that you will willingly and knowingly facilitate scamming for 0.3 btc and you actually confess that you are EVIL.

WHY SHOULD ANYONE LISTEN TO SOMEONE EVIL who for 0.3btc will help scammers scam other members??

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

this is a good point i need to put up a flag clarification scenario for someone who says they want to facilitate scamming for 0.3btc and is EVIL. thanks for reminding me.

Now keep on topic please we are discussing the question posed in the initial post.

[nutildah]

How do you know we have not been lurking since 2010? that is right you do NOT. Like you do NOT have video evidence the member that operated the cryptohunter account is operating this account.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127540.msg50571141#msg50571141
You have no PROOF.

You (cryptohunter) might've had some case for the trust system being broken if you had handled your initial trust issues with rationality and patience instead of absolutely losing your mind and throwing lies around, and even now I could imagine your red trust eventually being cleared if you were able to attain a stable mindset.

So basically you are saying theymos is a liar? He wrote that post on May 2nd, and you've only gotten worse since then. Your lies are now more out of control than ever. This forum has its fair share of trolls, which you are one of. So, have fun doing what you do best, I guess...

BTW, nobody "lurks" since 2010. Your claim would be supported by much greater evidence if you actually had an account that dated back a few years. Say to maybe April 2013 or something...

[The-One-Above-All]

How do you know we have not been lurking since 2010? that is right you do NOT. Like you do NOT have video evidence the member that operated the cryptohunter account is operating this account.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127540.msg50571141#msg50571141
You have no PROOF.

You (cryptohunter) might've had some case for the trust system being broken if you had handled your initial trust issues with rationality and patience instead of absolutely losing your mind and throwing lies around, and even now I could imagine your red trust eventually being cleared if you were able to attain a stable mindset.

So basically you are saying theymos is a liar? He wrote that post on May 2nd, and you've only gotten worse since then. Your lies are now more out of control than ever. This forum has its fair share of trolls, which you are one of. So, have fun doing what you do best, I guess...

BTW, nobody "lurks" since 2010. Your claim would be supported by much greater evidence if you actually had an account that dated back a few years. Say to maybe April 2013 or something...

we are saying theymos does NOT have video evidence nor proof that our account is operated by the same person that operated the cryptohunter account. YES!! you are getting it our EVIL SCAM FACILITATING IMBECILE.

He has access to server side information that it was intended he should have to see what would happen. It was disappointing but still he seems to have more than made up for it of late. You have not heard of tor browser we take it? LOL .. theymos is not magic you do understand that? or perhaps he is here with us right now with his video camera. Perhaps WE ARE THEYMOS? have you considered that?

Either way please stay on topic. We have PROOF. You have NADA. You have what it was intended you have. Like the person trying to hide would come here all calling the same pet names and going after the same people. LOL  

All may be revealed in time. Then you may all look even more foolish.

Get back to begging for 0.02btc loans like you were just a few months ago and stop derailing our thread. Stick to answering the questions directly posed in the OP.

"nobody lurks since" "everyone knows" "theymos said" " I will help scam people for 0.3 btc"  please stop looking silly now and stay on topic.

LOL 2013 - suchnoobs

[nutildah]

You (cryptohunter) might've had some case for the trust system being broken if you had handled your initial trust issues with rationality and patience instead of absolutely losing your mind and throwing lies around, and even now I could imagine your red trust eventually being cleared if you were able to attain a stable mindset.

So basically you are saying theymos is a liar?

we are saying theymos does NOT have video evidence nor proof that our account is operated by the same person that operated the cryptohunter account. YES!! you are getting it our EVIL SCAM FACILITATING IMBECILE.

Quit dodging the question. Is theymos a liar or not?

Perhaps WE ARE THEYMOS? have you considered that?

No, no I had not considered that. I don't think anybody had considered that you are not cryptohunter to be honest.

Back to the topic at hand, you are free to leave your own flags. You don't need to conduct a "community consensus" on everything that you do or think. Just do it. Meta is no longer the correct section to ask such questions. Might as well move your consensus-building topics to Reputation, and then you can self-moderate them.

[The-One-Above-All]

You (cryptohunter) might've had some case for the trust system being broken if you had handled your initial trust issues with rationality and patience instead of absolutely losing your mind and throwing lies around, and even now I could imagine your red trust eventually being cleared if you were able to attain a stable mindset.

So basically you are saying theymos is a liar?

we are saying theymos does NOT have video evidence nor proof that our account is operated by the same person that operated the cryptohunter account. YES!! you are getting it our EVIL SCAM FACILITATING IMBECILE.

Quit dodging the question. Is theymos a liar or not?

Perhaps WE ARE THEYMOS? have you considered that?

No, no I had not considered that. I don't think anybody had considered that you are not cryptohunter to be honest.

Back to the topic at hand, you are free to leave your own flags. You don't need to conduct a "community consensus" on everything that you do or think. Just do it. Meta is no longer the correct section to ask such questions. Might as well move your consensus-building topics to Reputation, and then you can self-moderate them.

No theymos is NOT a liar. He is simply making a best guess based on the server side information we intended him to have. Theymos though is incorrect. If we wanted him to have at hand the same information as you and nothing more we would have used tor browser and made a few other changes too. It in unusual for theymos to intercede and attempt to out a member as an ALT in public when not called upon to do so, or not involving any scams. However we wanted to present a small test. As we say the result was a little disappointing but then we are not among the very most popular with admins because they do not understand we want the same thing. A transparent set of rules that ensure the fair and equal treatment of all members. So we did not become too upset over it.

That is good. As intended. You should not think too much you are likely to start feeling discomfort and frustration.

No we think at these early stages some precedents that are commonly agreed on should be discussed.
No we think that meta is best and that people should make an effort to stay on topic and relevant to the questions in the OP of their own volition. So please do so. Trying to attack us on every thread does nothing only to reflect poorly and ensure the board is littered with examples of your own scam facilitating for payment behavior, that is there as PROOF, not speculation.

We will not raise a flag for you at this stage but please refrain from these weak sauce off topic attacks lacking proof or any real relevance when you are dealing with observable instances that are verifiable independently  and require no trust of ourselves nor our motives. Just tell yourself we the true legend if that makes you happier. We like to indulge those fantasies.

[nutildah]

No theymos is NOT a liar. He is simply making a best guess based on the server side information we intended him to have. Theymos though is incorrect. If we wanted him to have at hand the same information as you and nothing more we would have used tor browser and made a few other changes too.

Quoted for future posterity.

Sorry CH, nothing would prevent people from knowing that you are CH -- your ego won't let you hide yourself. Anybody can tell that its you. You praise yourself far too often and go on raving, long-winded rants about the exact same subjects you did with your last account, with an equal amount of futility. You also use the same colloquial terms not shared by other members of the forum. You stand out from a mile away. Theymos didn't have to look at any IP information to know that you are cryptohunter. Neither do any of us.

The best way to test out a flag is to leave it and see if it gets supported or not. Don't use it as an excuse to again air your tired personal grievances. If you know an injustice was committed, post your flag, and see what kind of a response it gets. Don't pretend to be asking for guidance when you really just want to rehash the same old drama in a new context. Nobody is going to help you out here because everybody knows what your end goal is.

[The-One-Above-All]

@the-one-above-all could you let us know the secret of your writing skills. I mean from where you got all these energy for writings? Sorry if it's off topics

But then others will be able to compete in terms of number of words if not with the reason and logic that allows them to flow so rapidly and with such strength. You will do well to find an instance where our central point has been clearly debunked. Meta board is excellent fun. We though welcome the days where we can discuss more positive things together rather than demonstrating most people frequenting this tiny sub board are power hungry greedy scum bags that don't mind destroying other peoples accounts to ensure they cream off the best financial deals here.

The new flag system is excellent. Even if the Lemons flag is a little weak. We only hope theymos is not pushed back further by the bullies here. Our next plan is to invite a lot of older legends from the alts boards to join here.  We need to raise the bar here. Too many fragile minds ready to snap like twigs and then become angry and bitter like suchmoron or moronbozo or lauda or well it would be easier to name those that are even really a slight challenge to debate with. There are but a handful of members I guess.

Meta we notice guides this forum quite heavily. It would be better to fill meta with more suitable and capable minds. You may start noticing a few new members appearing here that are going to raise the standards of debate to a level that makes them more interested and less of a slagging match centered around false allegations, wild speculation and spew from weak and dull minds. Some have a nice command of the English language but that flowery veneer is soon peeled back to reveal the disappointment beneath. Kind of like those teenagers that fix a big exhaust pipe to their grandmothers old car. You turn to view the exotic sports automobile roaring up the street,  and you see the black smoking, pathetic example of 20 year old ghetto level transportation crawling along. Same thing.

Anyway, back on topic.  So these are all flag level 1 if you are not effected by them personally right? so it ranges from LEMONS to lies and scamming that nearly cost the board a $ 2 000 000 000 dollar compensation offer. Seems a very broad range.

@nutildah

Yes, frustratingly similar are we not. Almost as if I has to be the same person publishing from both accounts. Yet there could be several explanations that would account for it all. Perhaps ALL will be revealed at the right time.

Now stay on topic please. You simply can not contain yourself can you our EVIL scam facilitating broke ass little friend. Do you need another 0.02BTC loan?  What on earth happened to your NEM stake? you blew 300BTC already? or lauda took it when you were bent over in front of him.

Now look we must stay on topic? can you do so?

[nutildah]

Now look we must stay on topic? can you do so?

I actually gave you the best advice you're going to get in this thread and you drowned it out with clearly off-topic insults and ranting. Don't know what more you expect. Redemption?

[The-One-Above-All]

Now look we must stay on topic? can you do so?

I actually gave you the best advice you're going to get in this thread and you drowned it out with clearly off-topic insults and ranting. Don't know what more you expect. Redemption?

No you did not. What is our end goal? Because if you can demonstrate it is anything other than an environment that is based upon a transparent set of fair rules than ensure all members are treated equally. Then you can ask us for a 0.02btc loan in future.

[nutildah]

Now look we must stay on topic? can you do so?

I actually gave you the best advice you're going to get in this thread and you drowned it out with clearly off-topic insults and ranting. Don't know what more you expect. Redemption?

No you did not. What is our end goal?

Oh, LFC and killyou72's advice was also pretty good. Trolling is clearly your end goal because you steamrolled over their advice (and mine).

Because if you can demonstrate it is anything other than an environment that is based upon a transparent set of fair rules than ensure all members are treated equally. Then you can ask us for a 0.02btc loan in future.

OK but only if its a no-collateral loan. According to your trust summary you have a "high risk of losing money" and I'm not sure I'd feel safe giving you my collateral.

[The-One-Above-All]

Now look we must stay on topic? can you do so?

I actually gave you the best advice you're going to get in this thread and you drowned it out with clearly off-topic insults and ranting. Don't know what more you expect. Redemption?

No you did not. What is our end goal?

Oh, LFC and killyou72's advice was also pretty good. Trolling is clearly your end goal because you steamrolled over their advice (and mine).

Because if you can demonstrate it is anything other than an environment that is based upon a transparent set of fair rules than ensure all members are treated equally. Then you can ask us for a 0.02btc loan in future.

OK but only if its a no-collateral loan. According to your trust summary you have a "high risk of losing money" and I'm not sure I'd feel safe giving you my collateral.

+

LOL nobody would waste time with your collateral. I mean those begging for 0.02btc loans don't have much to lose   anyway since you will not be able to demonstrate we have any other agenda than pushing for A TRANSPARENT SET OF FAIR RULES THAT ENSURE EACH MEMBER IS TREATED EQUALLY ... you need not worry yourself about it. haha

Nem stake holder lol - come on man what happened? I allow this off topic indulgence to hear how you reduced a possible 300btc to dust.

[The-One-Above-All]

Any other feedback before I start preparing the flags for proven scammers?

Only a lemons flag for this proven liar for direct financial gain (scammer) lauda?

[SaltySpitoon]

Any other feedback before I start preparing the flags for proven scammers?

Only a lemons flag for this proven liar for direct financial gain (scammer) lauda?

You don't get a flag for lemons, you get negative feedback. To your original question, the answer is flag #1.




The "with me" and "damages" part is pretty important for flags #2 and #3. If you didn't personally lose money, then only flag #1 is appropriate.

[The-One-Above-All]

Any other feedback before I start preparing the flags for proven scammers?

Only a lemons flag for this proven liar for direct financial gain (scammer) lauda?

You don't get a flag for lemons, you get negative feedback. To your original question, the answer is flag #1.




The "with me" part is pretty important for flags #2 and #3. If you didn't personally lose money, then only flag #1 is appropriate.

It appears to us that the same mental gymnastics can be applied for flag level one as for the old trust system. Still since the damage is limited it is not such a power tool to abuse.

There seems NO REQUIREMENT AT ALL FOR FLAG LEVEL 1 - to demonstrate any CLEAR link between being scammed out of money and getting a type 1 flag. NO requirement for it to relate to scamming people out of money AT ALL.  No requirement even for it to relate to a member placing another member in a position where they could be financial at risk of losing money. CONCRETE RED FLAGS ??This seems a little bit weak considering the upper threshold which is observable and verifiable scamming, probable extortion, plausible shady escrowing, even when all 3 are combined. All 3 linked to direct financial risk and loss.


Our own flag is type 1. There can be no such LINK ANY KIND OF FINANCIAL WRONGDOING AT ALL as that would be impossible. So it appears it is simply the lemons flag. Sadly if what you say it true it seems to span from lemons love to lying for direct financial gain which nearly also PREVENTED the board being offered a $ 2 000 000 000 USD compensation offer for the instamine he claimed never happened because he was on the launch and said never happened.'

Still, never mind the new flag system is still a lot more transparent and lot more fair than the old system. So once we fully understand the limits of each flag will just work in with it THE SAME as EVERYONE else.

We will not appear ungrateful for the work theymos has put in here to push for a transparent fair environment. Although some enforcement will still be required for those that keep pushing the limits of the new flag system to a point where it is obvious they are still using it for their own political means.

Anyway since the consensus seems flag1 is the limit for ALL of those proven or highly plausible direct financially motivated wrongdoing then we will just have to accept we have been grouped in with the same category as a filthy piece of proven scamming shit like lauda (who does not yet AMAZINGLY have even a type 1 flag) LOL  - - oh well.


ALSO as a direct question to SS - would you support type 1 flags in those instances in the initial post? or not and if not why not?

[SaltySpitoon]

-snip
It appears to us that the same mental gymnastics can be applied for flag level one as for the old trust system. Still since the damage is limited it is not such a power tool to abuse.
-snip

-snip-
ALSO as a direct question to SS - would you support type 1 flags in those instances in the initial post? or not and if not why not?
-snip

I find you making light of my lemon prejudices unfair. If people can refuse to do business with someone because of their political affiliation, religious views, race, or sexual preference, why can't I refuse to do business with someone because of their opinion on a fruit that I may or may not have mental trauma about as a result of numerous choking scares.

Flag one should be worded slightly differently in my opinion, but if you read the original announcement regarding flags

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.

A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it. It shows a banner on topics started by the flagged user for guests and for users with less than 7 days of login time. For all users, a "#" is shown next to their trust scores.

For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created. This is the only thing which causes the "Warning: trade with extreme caution" warning to return. It also triggers a banner similar to the newbie-warning banner which is visible to all users. A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.

It spells out that flags aren't for general warning signs. Each person can describe shady or potentially dangerous behavior on a person's feedback, for example dishonesty, aggressive behavior, vindictiveness, fondness for lemons. Those things fall under #1 on Theymos' list about getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness. I like to simplify it by thinking of what type of behavior would keep me from patronizing someone's restaurant. Flags are more directly related to business. If someone is selling illegal product keys in the digital section, you may put a newbie warning stating, "This person is selling illegal keys" you may not have personally been damaged, but I think its fair to say that the keys could become invalidated or other repercussions could occur. In that case you can't flag using flag option #2 or #3, but #1 applies.

As for your hypotheticals, I'm very aware of some of the situations. Some of them I'm not so I can't comment. I don't agree with your assessments on some of the situations, so overall, I'd say more that Lauda may deserve red feedback, but not flags.