Can a DT member (or any member) oppose their own flag?

[suchmoon]

I think this question was touched upon in the main flag discussion thread but I lost track of it due to off topic posts and personal squabbles. That, and the fact that all my off topic reports are still unhandled , prompted me to create this thread and make it self-mod.


I'm not aware of any DT members having a real flag. iasenko put one on himself, clearly a mixup of some sort. It did expose one important detail though: the system allows any user to oppose (or support too I guess) a flag that has been put on them.

So let's say that happens for real, and it likely will eventually: someone flags a DT member. Is it ok for that member to oppose such flag?

Keep in mind a few aspects of this:

• DT member's support or opposition carries more weight. For example, if you flag a non-DT-member with the guest/newbie flag, you would need at least one DT member to support it in order for the flag to reach most of their intended audience (guests and newbies without custom trust lists). But if you flag a DT member with the same guest/newbie flag, you need to get at least two other DT members to support the flag, if we assume that the target will oppose it.
• Getting other DT members to support a flag against a DT member might be an uphill battle, and getting two supports even more so.
• Other self-serving actions - such as meriting or sending trust feedback to yourself - are not allowed. Meriting your alts, trusting your alts, etc is heavily frowned upon.
• Does it matter only for DT members or for everyone? If we prevent only DT members from doing so then it puts them at a slight disadvantage to everyone else.
• LoyceMobile: Someone on DT1 can also include or exclude a user who left him feedback (positive or negative). Isn't that more or less the same thing?
• LoyceMobile: If the DT1 is guilty, he'll shouldn't be on DT, and once he's excluded his opposing vote loses it's power.

Anything else that should be considered?


Self-moderated thread. Please stay on topic. There are plenty of drama threads already so if you want to say something unpleasant to another user please use one of those threads or hold your peace.

[1714803076]

1714803076

[1714803076]

1714803076

[Steamtyme]

I'm still trying to catch up on the last few days myself, but I believe they can oppose a flag against themselves. Really their only chance to defend themselves against potentially malicious flagging apart from a thread, things of the sort had been seen in DT before with Feedback wars and whatnot.

I think it should be allowed, being on DT shouldn't prevent you from defending yourself, in opposition to a flag. If the action is worthy of a flag anyone on DT should support it regardless of who it is against. I think this system forces people to take a closer look at things. Edit: I meant to point out this is defense of yourself not using an alt to defend or vice versa.

• Getting other DT members to support a flag against a DT member might be an uphill battle, and getting two supports even more so.

I hope not or they really don't deserve the responsibility. DT shouldn't have a shield of any sort, it's fine for people to question accusations more closely but shouldn't outright dismiss them in the face of evidence.

[ChemicalSpillage]

You should be able to contest your own flag. If the flag is legitimately used then other DT members will support it and/or exclude the member in question.

There should be no reason why you are unable to do so: if a flag is maliciously placed then there must be the possibility to rectify the improper usage thereof.We have two possibilities:

A) Flagger is malicious. Flag gets opposed. Flagger gets excluded (and/or flagged) themselves.
B) Flagee is malicious. Flag remains as it is correct and responsibly-used. Flag gets support. Flagee gets excluded.

[suchmoon]

A) Flagger is malicious. Flag gets opposed. Flagger gets excluded (and/or flagged) themselves.
B) Flagee is malicious. Flag remains as it is correct and responsibly-used. Flag gets support. Flagee gets excluded.

Both of which can happen without the flagee (lovely word, thank you) needing to intervene. In fact B would be easier without the flagee intervening. It doesn't matter much for A - I would expect (even though I don't like that implication) that backlash against this scenario would be stronger anyway.

I think it should be allowed, being on DT shouldn't prevent you from defending yourself, in opposition to a flag.

So perhaps let's remove the ability from everyone, to level the playing field?

Opposing the flag against yourself seems almost redundant really. Technically nearly everyone will want to dispute/oppose a flag against themselves. Which is fine, they can present arguments in a discussion. The trouble is that the actual "Oppose" button carries a lot more power when used by a DT member.

[TheBeardedBaby]

I PMd theymos about it but got no answer yet. I thought it might be a bug, because before it was not possible to post any feedback to yourself, it thought this should apply also for the flag system. I tested the system so I hope theymos will remove it, well it doesn't make any difference anyway, because nobody supports it anyway

[Quickseller]

You can oppose your own flag. It is one additional way to contest the charges against yourself.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I believe so. Opposing simple means you're defending yourself especially when it's a false flag and you're 100% sure to be innocent. I see opposing as serving the same purpose kinda like the counter tagged of the old system speaking specifically about DT members.

[TheBeardedBaby]

I believe so. Opposing simple means you're defending yourself especially when it's a false flag and you're 100% sure to be innocent. I see opposing as serving the same purpose kinda like the counter tagged of the old system speaking specifically about DT members.

I don't think anyone will support a flag again them, simply because 99% will never confess even if they made a mistake. We have so many examples already in the forum...

[LoyceMobile]

Someone on DT1 can also include or exclude a user who left him feedback (positive or negative). Isn't that more or less the same thing?
If the DT1 is guilty, he shouldn't be on DT, and once he's excluded his opposing vote loses it's power.

[teeGUMES]

Technically nearly everyone will want to dispute/oppose a flag against themselves. Which is fine, they can present arguments in a discussion.

If this is what we are going for then the local rules in some of the 'flag support' threads need to be banished. bill gator had no option but to oppose his own flag due to Lauda creating a local rule saying that bill gator could not reply in the 'flag support' thread. yes he could have created his own thread but then we will have a 'flag support' thread as well as a 'flag oppose' thread for every single flag, lets just get away from making local rules like this.

[pugman]

I mean I'd say it is fine for someone to oppose their own flag if they end up changing their mind or any other reason, there should be some benefit of the doubt for the users in the system, so for now its fine for the system to be fine as is, for now at least, unless people start abusing, but i dont see that happening.

[suchmoon]

Someone on DT1 can also include or exclude a user who left him feedback (positive or negative). Isn't that more or less the same thing?
If the DT1 is guilty, he'll shouldn't be on DT, and once he's excluded his opposing vote loses it's power.

That's a very good point, thank you. I'll steal this for the OP.

However if anything it confirms the disbalance between accusations against DT users vs accusations against non-DT users. I would much prefer the judgement to be carried out by peers.

Unfortunately it's not easy to avoid seemingly retaliatory exclusions since they're not dated and to an outside observer it's unclear if e.g. I excluded Thule because he red-trusted me. Or it might be even possible for a would be scammer to red-trust all DTs, then scam, then complain that the inevitable exclusions and ratings and flags are "retaliatory".

If this is what we are going for then the local rules in some of the 'flag support' threads need to be banished. bill gator had no option but to oppose his own flag due to Lauda creating a local rule saying that bill gator could not reply in the 'flag support' thread. yes he could have created his own thread but then we will have a 'flag support' thread as well as a 'flag oppose' thread for every single flag, lets just get away from making local rules like this.

Not to get too far in the weeds, but I don't think such local rules would be enforced by mods. I think Lauda eventually changed the rule to allow bg to respond. If I were in that position (being accused) I would respond anyway if I had to say something.

I mean I'd say it is fine for someone to oppose their own flag if they end up changing their mind or any other reason, there should be some benefit of the doubt for the users in the system, so for now its fine for the system to be fine as is, for now at least, unless people start abusing, but i dont see that happening.

With hundreds of users in DT and some quite belligerent I'm certain it will happen.


Let's say the option stays as is (which is what the opinions in this thread seem to point to). I would still not use it. If I'm accused and I can't convince a sufficient number of DTs that I'm right then I probably deserve the flag anyway.

[Vod]

Not to get too far in the weeds, but I don't think such local rules would be enforced by mods

1)  You shouldn't be able to restrict someone from posting on a flag support thread.

B)  If I have a local rule due to mindless harassment, I expect it to be enforced.

[bill gator]

I think Lauda eventually changed the rule to allow bg to respond. If I were in that position (being accused) I would respond anyway if I had to say something.

The rule became extremely contradictory; it states that the accused user may post, but then states that there is no accusation and explicitly lists me as someone not to reply. I'm not going to jump through linguistic hoops to defend myself from an unpopular opinion that has no facts to justify it. My trade-history speaks for itself; I don't want to derail this thread into something it isn't meant to be about. If someone made a ridiculous claim about you, suchmoon, your instinct might be to defend yourself, but occasionally the other side is so self-defeating that it isn't worth the words.