This is not fair, LFC_Bitcoin

[unibitcoinist]

Just got this thread- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155671.0
LFC_Bitcoin has tagged user susila_bai for asking a No Collateral loan of 0.05 BTC.

Susila_bai may not have a trading background here.
Can't someone ask for a No collateral loan? You may or may not give loan, it's your choice but why the hell you will tag someone?
He is not a newbie, he is a hero member.

[1715082450]

1715082450

[1715082450]

1715082450

[ChemicalSpillage]

The trust reputation system has changed.

If someone still wants to give the loan to such a person, they can. It's not like LFC flagged the user for requesting a loan.
LFC saw red flags... so they decided to warn others thereof.

[unibitcoinist]

The trust reputation system has changed.

If someone still wants to give the loan to such a person, they can. It's not like LFC flagged the user for requesting a loan.
LFC saw red flags... so they decided to warn others thereof.

I know what has been changed.

If someone tag you for some reason, no one will find you here with this account. Don't act too much.

Edit-
I see, it's actmyname?

[bones261]

With the new trust system, the new negative trust comments do not have the impact that they used to have. There won't be a big red score display and there won't be a message stating to trade with caution. They only thing the negative trust comment due is cause the negative tally to go up by one. People are now encouraged to actually read the negative trust comments. The guideline for leaving a negative trust comment is now as follows:

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.

Apparently, LFC_Bitcoin thinks it is negative for this particular user to ask for a no collateral loan. However, since many people ask for no collateral loans, many potential lenders may simply ignore this.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

That was pretty harsh, and though I certainly respect LFC_Bitcoin I'm not going to support it--but I'm not going to oppose it, either. 

The thing is, no-collateral loans are extremely frowned upon here, and it does not matter if the request comes from a Hero or Legendary member unless there's a long history of positive trades or some other extenuating circumstances which would lead the community to think the loan would be safe.  That certainly is not the case with this guy, and the request is for a pretty decent amount (0.05BTC).  That's probably enough for someone to exit scam a neg-tagged Hero account for, though I'm not saying this is the case here.

Someone would be foolish to give this guy a loan with no collateral, but I'm not so sure about a flagging.  I'm honestly still not used to the system yet and haven't been spending as much time on the forum lately, though I'm getting back to my old self slowly but surely.

[unibitcoinist]

Do you think it will not impact his slot in the current signature campaign? Of course it will. I know you guys don't care. In fact, sometimes I found some of you guys enjoy destroying other reputation (account in fact) in the name of saving the forum.
It's not fair.

Someone would be foolish to give this guy a loan with no collateral, but I'm not so sure about a flagging.  I'm honestly still not used to the system yet and haven't been spending as much time on the forum lately, though I'm getting back to my old self slowly but surely.

I didn't know that you are a sig spammer. You didn't bother to read the thread.
On a side note, please stop saying "I don't know this", "I didn't use this" etc. If you don't know about a certain issue, try skipping that.

[bones261]

That was pretty harsh, and though I certainly respect LFC_Bitcoin I'm not going to support it--but I'm not going to oppose it, either. 

LFC_Bitcoin hasn't opened a flag, at this time. Just made a negative comment. So we do not have the opportunity to support or oppose it.

[Quickseller]

100% inappropriate. The OP of the thread is not posting from a newbie account/throwaway account.

If someone decides that guy is a low risk they may decide to lend to him. I’ve seen others receive no collateral loans.

He may it may not be untrustworthy for other reasons but the loan request is not appropriate.

[unibitcoinist]

That was pretty harsh, and though I certainly respect LFC_Bitcoin I'm not going to support it--but I'm not going to oppose it, either. 

LFC_Bitcoin hasn't opened a flag, at this time. Just made a negative comment. So we do not have the opportunity to support or oppose it.

actmyname aka ChemicalSpillage had clearly mentioned in the 2nd post, but sig spammers are not concerned about what's going on, they need to create a paid post.

[The Cryptovator]

I can't agree with @LFC_Bitcoin in that case. A Hero member ask just for 0.05BTC loan, I don't think some would like to lose his/her Hero rank account for that amount. At least he wasn't newbie and negative feedback isn't appropriate in my opinion. Although I am not going to leave counter feedback but I would like to suggest LFC_Bitcoin for reconsider his/her feedback on this case.

[Findingnemo]

Yes its not fair though IMO.Because as other said this is a high ranked member asking for a loan so actually some people might give loan and if its defaulted then its good to have a negative feedback on that account but just for warning may give neutral right?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I didn't know that you are a sig spammer. You didn't bother to read the thread.

LFC_Bitcoin hasn't opened a flag, at this time. Just made a negative comment. So we do not have the opportunity to support or oppose it.

Alright ladies, I did see the neg and for some reason thought there was going to be a flagging.  Cut me a little slack; I did read the OP and did check the dude's feedback before I wrote what I wrote.  Sometimes your brain just doesn't do what you want it to do.  That's the case here with me.

On a side note, please stop saying "I don't know this", "I didn't use this" etc. If you don't know about a certain issue, try skipping that.

On a side note, why don't you go gargle a salami stick have a nice day and don't get too upset about people getting tagged over no-collateral loans.  Vod has been doing exactly what LFC_Bitcoin did for years.

actmyname aka ChemicalSpillage had clearly mentioned in the 2nd post, but sig spammers are not concerned about what's going on, they need to create a paid post.

We have a new cunt in town.

[The-One-Above-All]

With the new trust system, the new negative trust comments do not have the impact that they used to have. There won't be a big red score display and there won't be a message stating to trade with caution. They only thing the negative trust comment due is cause the negative tally to go up by one. People are now encouraged to actually read the negative trust comments. The guideline for leaving a negative trust comment is now as follows:

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.

Apparently, LFC_Bitcoin thinks it is negative for this particular user to ask for a no collateral loan. However, since many people ask for no collateral loans, many potential lenders may simply ignore this.

Not strictly true. You WILL GET A HUGE BANNER AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE  saying more or less that you ARE PRESUMED A SCAMMER to persons up to member level and if you are not logged in.

So yes he just got branded a scammer pretty much.

[bones261]

Not strictly true. You WILL GET A HUGE BANNER AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE  saying more or less that you ARE PRESUMED A SCAMMER to persons up to member level and if you are not logged in.

So yes he just got branded a scammer pretty much.

No, the huge red banner is only triggered by old feedback. New feedback does not do anything to trigger the banner. I made an archive of the thread in question. http://archive.vn/tjkB9 (When I use the archive website, it always displays what a user will see if they are not online.)The user has no banner.

[suchmoon]

Not strictly true. You WILL GET A HUGE BANNER AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE  saying more or less that you ARE PRESUMED A SCAMMER to persons up to member level and if you are not logged in.

So yes he just got branded a scammer pretty much.

False. That's the second time today you're failing to read how it works, even after it's been explicitly quoted for you:

Some changes:
 - If the number of pre-flags-system negative trust ratings is greater than the number of all positive trust ratings, a warning banner is shown for guests & low-login-time newbies.

(emphasis mine)

Edit: oh shut up bones with your 1 minute 25 seconds faster post... robbed me of an opportunity to yell at CH

[marlboroza]

100% inappropriate. The OP of the thread is not posting from a newbie account/throwaway account.
~
He may it may not be untrustworthy for other reasons but the loan request is not appropriate.

Don't listen to QS, he thinks providing no collateral loan to account who doesn't have any trading history is not highly risky:

He is not a newbie, he is a hero member.

Oh, hero member can't scam, that must be it. Probably senior member can't scam,  legendary member can't scam and probably other ranks can't scam too.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I chose to warn potential lenders who may not be aware that no collateral loans are red flags. It is my opinion that asking for 0.05BTC (over $450 at the time of writing) with no collateral is shady.

My negative trust won’t affect the guy who was trying to get the loan from doing business here in the future. He can use escrow or if it’s loan related he can do what he’s supposed to do - offer valid collateral.

As for QS questioning anything I do regarding leaving trust ratings - You lost your right to enter a valid discussion like this when you self escrowed deal. Pipe down scammer.

I didn’t leave a flag so I’m not sure why people are getting bent out of shape. Various DT’s have been following this practise for years.

[suchmoon]

I didn’t leave a flag so I’m not sure why people are getting bent out of shape.

Well, we can't let this new flag system diminish the need for drama, can we now...

I'm expecting bitching over neutrals to start soon, I mean they're shown in this ominous black color with "=", which is obviously twice as bad as "-".

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I didn’t leave a flag so I’m not sure why people are getting bent out of shape.

Well, we can't let this new flag system diminish the need for drama, can we now...

I'm expecting bitching over neutrals to start soon, I mean they're shown in this ominous black color with "=", which is obviously twice as bad as "-".

Look at the gang of degenerates moaning about my neg too when it has literally nothing to do with them.
Definite virgins

[BitcoinSupremo]

LFC_Bitcoin did the right thing, the wrong thing here is done by the DT bullshit propaganda lobby that give people negatives for no reason in the name of the so called "saving the forum" while they are digging the forum grave.

The flags were a great move by theymos which these bullshit propaganda lobby of course do not like.