Make Trust flags visible in all sections

[Veleor]

Considering that members getting Trust flags when there is a hard evidence only,

so I propose to make Trust flags visible throughout the forum, because other users must remain vigilant at all times in communication with such members.

[1715683854]

1715683854

[1715683854]

1715683854

[1715683854]

1715683854

[1715683854]

1715683854

[1715683854]

1715683854

[1715683854]

1715683854

[yogg]

I totally agree that it should be made more obvious when a flag has been opened against some user.
A simple "#" symbol is cryptic and only veterans of the forum will notice it. Maybe some icon that makes it more obvious to use caution when trading with such persons.

I also believe that displaying flags by default to users that have less than 7 days of logged in time is not enough.
Imo, the time limit should be raised or the display of existing flags should be made more obvious.

[IMadeYouReadThis]

It is ofcourse important to get the warning displayed in all the sections of the forum, why to restrict this warnings?

I also believe that displaying flags by default to users that have less than 7 days of logged in time is not enough.
Imo, the time limit should be raised or the display of existing flags should be made more obvious.

Yes, I agree the time limit is not enough and I don't think a person would be capable of judging other user's here in just 7 days of login time and it is also prone to vulnerability overall.

[LoyceV]

I've been in favour of showing Trust ratings on all boars for a very long time. The best example I know is user Velkro, who promotes a scam in his signature, and mostly posts in Beginners & Help to target naive new users.
Showing trust and Flags (and the red !!!) on all boards could help prevent some scams.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Sure, it now make more sense to show the trust flags in all boards since before you can get one (flag) you must have committed a serious crime, just as you have pointed out unlike the former (trust score) which minor offends were punishable . I do support the suggestion but if theymos still stand on his former reason for not showing trust score (now flag) on all board then I suggest he should consider increasing flag coverage to more boards especially as the scammers might consider operating on those boards they can't be detected that easily.

[xolxol]

do you need to see these flags on all sections? for example in off topic section are you going to trade with people there too?wouldnt be so great to most people's eyes.

[Upgrade00]

I also believe that displaying flags by default to users that have less than 7 days of logged in time is not enough.
Imo, the time limit should be raised or the display of existing flags should be made more obvious.

7 days log in time takes quite a while to acquire and I believe was adopted as the bear minimum for a user to have gotten acquainted with the trust system and how to protect themselves from scams. I understand that it targets, newbies, jr members, members and in some cases also full members.
I would not mind the flags being made more obvious on comments of the user. The '#' is not very conspicuous. And not all flags attract the "Warning: Trade with extreme caution" text.

[LoyceV]

The '#' is not very conspicuous.

That's by design:

The "#" symbol is supposed to be inconspicuous, since it's not supposed to be a warning or a "mark of shame".

[Upgrade00]

That's by design

True. Would also be nice to see how long before (or if) the per post newbie warning sign is created.
If a welcome message is created anytime soon it could contain a message drawing attention to the trust signs, this would point newbies in the right direction.

[madnessteat]

I support that idea. Even with the old trust system, a similar question arose about users who had negative feedback from DT members. The visibility of flags in all the threads will play a good role in warning against possible deception. After all, the cheater can use this loophole to find his new inattentive victims in the threads where his flag is not shown.

[The-One-Above-All]

there is no HARD evidence required for any link to financial wrong doing at all for the lemons flag. So there is no point making any kind of extra warning for that. The only extra warning should be that the lemons flag should not be confused with a red scamming flag. Lemons flags likely means you have been trust abused by one of the dumb fucks that abused the old system so much we had to create a new one.

It seems the mental gymnastics of the trust abusers means anyone can get a lemons flag so that is hardly HARD EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RISK.

Can't wait for the first turd to get black listed because atm we notice all kinds of bullshit reasons to give the lemons flag out, whilst real scammers are not getting any flags at all.

Perhaps for the higher level flags SO LONG AS theymos sticks to his word and blacklists trust that start trying to abuse those flags.

[actmyname]

there is no HARD evidence required for any link to financial wrong doing at all for the lemons flag. So there is no point making any kind of extra warning for that.

You won't see them. Newbies will. And given that users with any kind of flag have something negative associated with them, there should be some note to take what they say with a grain spoonful of salt.

The only extra warning should be that the lemons flag should not be confused with a red scamming flag. Lemons flags likely means you have been trust abused by one of the dumb fucks that abused the old system so much we had to create a new one.

Do you have any examples of abusive tier-1 flags?

Can't wait for the first turd to get black listed because atm we notice all kinds of bullshit reasons to give the lemons flag out, whilst real scammers are not getting any flags at all.

Perhaps for the higher level flags SO LONG AS theymos sticks to his word and blacklists trust that start trying to abuse those flags.

I thought anyone who abused flagging of any type would get blacklisted.

Go ahead and create a thread in Meta exposing the instigators and supporters of abusive flags.

[The-One-Above-All]

there is no HARD evidence required for any link to financial wrong doing at all for the lemons flag. So there is no point making any kind of extra warning for that.

You won't see them. Newbies will. And given that users with any kind of flag have something negative associated with them, there should be some note to take what they say with a grain spoonful of salt.

The only extra warning should be that the lemons flag should not be confused with a red scamming flag. Lemons flags likely means you have been trust abused by one of the dumb fucks that abused the old system so much we had to create a new one.

Do you have any examples of abusive tier-1 flags?

Can't wait for the first turd to get black listed because atm we notice all kinds of bullshit reasons to give the lemons flag out, whilst real scammers are not getting any flags at all.

Perhaps for the higher level flags SO LONG AS theymos sticks to his word and blacklists trust that start trying to abuse those flags.

I thought anyone who abused flagging of any type would get blacklisted.

Go ahead and create a thread in Meta exposing the instigators and supporters of abusive flags.

Yes our own flag is a CLEAR example where there is NO link at all to STRONG EVIDENCE of financial loss or any instances that demonstrate there was a plan to set up another member for financial loss, or any kind of scenario where we had the opportunity or had intention to scam any member out of money or goods. The flag is bogus.

If the flags are NOT to highlight scammers and is just another form of FEEDBACK then what is the point of retaining the old trust system at all? just get rid of the old red tags and say the new lemons flag can be ANYTHING that another member "BELIEVES" or "suspects" could be a NEGATIVE instance.

Also the flag was created by a PROVEN liar and scammer who has CLEAR motive to try and use the new trust flags against our account for his own personal reasons.  The first 4 people to back the flag JUST HAPPENED to be the SAME four people we were arguing with most that day. Oh really??

Also this proven liar and scammmer has NO FLAG at all.

LOL the entire lemons flag is just subjective, speculative garbage. However that is fine so long as theymos does NOT start backtracking and allowing blatant abusers of the old system to start calling for more weight to be added to their new bogus flags and confuse the members into thinking (if they look into it) that these flags are again just subjective garbage that some form of mental gymnastics can ensure are given to anyone that does something they do not like or for whistle blowing on their observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing.

If you start allowing people to believe flags are not SPECIFICALLY related to FINANCIAL RISK then again the system will start to lose it's effectiveness.

If you can give a lemons flag for something "you believe" to be negative and "not directly " related to behaviors that demonstrate clear financial wrong doing then it becomes useless and carries a lot less weight.

Whether this is ABUSE of the lemons flag or if this intended to be the lemons flag is something we need to wait and see. If it need be NOTHING to do with instances of financial wrongdoing at all then the wording should be altered to something like, a member "considers" this person behavior demonstrate some NEGATIVE  traits that should "you " should consider before trading with them.

[actmyname]

If you can give a lemons flag for something "you believe" to be negative and "not directly " related to behaviors that demonstrate clear financial wrong doing then it becomes useless and carries a lot less weight.

"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."

It may be linked to the possibility of financial loss but that does not mean the user has had to scam prior to the flagging thereof. Moreover, yellow flags are for newbies. How about this scenario? A user is a self-admitted troll, gray-hat hacker, and hardcore anti-bitcoinist. They ask for a loan.You're free to start your own flag against Lauda and outline the evidence for others to develop an opinion of which should end up in support (if you're using flags properly).

You're also free to ask theymos to oppose your flag and/or remove Lauda from DT

[The-One-Above-All]

If you can give a lemons flag for something "you believe" to be negative and "not directly " related to behaviors that demonstrate clear financial wrong doing then it becomes useless and carries a lot less weight.

"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."

It may be linked to the possibility of financial loss but that does not mean the user has had to scam prior to the flagging thereof. Moreover, yellow flags are for newbies.You're free to start your own flag against Lauda and outline the evidence for others to develop an opinion of which should end up in support (if you're using flags properly).

You're also free to ask theymos to oppose your flag and/or remove Lauda from DT

Yes that is all very true.

If you can not present some instance of financially motivated wrong doing or even a reasonable scenario where that member looks to have been "preparing" or "setting up" people for a scam then it is nonsense to have a specific FINANCIAL WARNING on their account.

The LINK to behaviors that demonstrated the member was even setting up a scenario for POTENTIAL scamming should be a MINIMUM for a specific warning of that type.

Don't mention you like lemon cake because those sorts of people are certainly "possible" future scammers.

We promised not to start complaining about the flag "SYSTEM" in its proposed form. However if greater FINANCIAL RISK weightings are applied to things that are not meeting even the minimum "LINK" threshold then that will be bogus.

Also Theymos already allowed lauda to abuse and did not get blacklisted so if this blacklisting for clear abuse is not enforced then again that is not going to be worth all the work of creating a TRANSPARENT SET OF FAIR RULES THAT ARE APPLIED TO EVERYONE EQUALLY.

If it stays as it is now and remains lemon colored with the # of neutral color then that is fine. If you start implying these people are scammers with red colors and any greater weight at all then it is simply opening the system up to MORE abuse again.

If you can prove someone HAS scammed - give them a high level flag and present the proof.

If you can demonstrate someone has reasonably lured or created a scenario which is a know tactic to scam people out of money then give them a lemons flag.

If you just don't like them because they keep presenting instances from your own past that demonstrates you are a scammer then tough luck. You should not have tried to scam.

If they have never done anything or even been in a scenario where you can demonstrate they scammed people out of money or even have plausibly been "trying" or "planning" to scam people out of money that is not a flag related issue. Or you risk making reducing the proven or potential SCAMMING YOU OUT OF MONEY warning flags are meant to be.

Anyway all fine for now, still a HUGE improvement, but no increasing the FINANCIAL RISK WARNING of the lemons flag.

Excuse the CAPITALS but it helps the casual reader place extra attention where we really want it to go.

[malevolent]

Not the worst idea, fine by me. Maybe these flags should also be visible when receiving private messages from flagged users.

[malevolent]

Bump. Here's a scammer who might get away with phishing newbies' wallets seeds seeing how some sections don't have warnings: https://archive.is/FRqgX

[Quickseller]

Bump. Here's a scammer who might get away with phishing newbies' wallets seeds seeing how some sections don't have warnings: https://archive.is/FRqgX

His english thread belongs in a marketplace sub, as he is offering a "service" of sending BTC to you after you give him your seed, even though it is a complete scam. The thread you linked is in a HYIP sub, which IMO should have the trust flags visible, as it is a marketplace sub.

[jademaxsuy]

Bump. Here's a scammer who might get away with phishing newbies' wallets seeds seeing how some sections don't have warnings: https://archive.is/FRqgX

Yes, red flags would be good if it will be visible on all areas. It is very alarming nowadays that many users created new account for the sole purpose and that is to scam other users by leading to a phishing sites or making fraud by having good offer and then lead to scamming.

Probably admin can change it but if they will not make it then probably also they had a good reason. So, it would be good thing also not to get trust every user here and should do a checking prior to do transactions for there are users here that are not having red trust but are also scamming probably not been reported for now.