How can I find the Support_Oppose to a create flag?

[JimmySlander]

Hi everybody,

I am new here so we are not really used to the flag concept, so there is a Topic of our community project that has been flagged red, and we obviously want to oppose this flag but we are not able to find where to Oppose (Usually we find them in the Trust of the user but in our case the Creator or the topic has no flag assigned to him)

So in our case the topic is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2091093.0

And the creator of the topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1101537


Does not have a flag shown so we cannot Oppose to it

Anyone can help us figure that? How can we find the associated flag and to vote Oppose to it

Thanks a lot

[1715149695]

1715149695

[1715149695]

1715149695

[actmyname]

They have not been flagged. They have been given negative feedback. There is no flag to oppose unless you want to create one, but you won't achieve your desired result of removing the negative feedback. The users that sent the feedback are the only ones that can remove it.

[JimmySlander]

They have not been flagged. They have been given negative feedback. There is no flag to oppose unless you want to create one, but you won't achieve your desired result of removing the negative feedback. The users that sent the feedback are the only ones that can remove it.

Ah wonderful, that makes sense now, so it is not even a flag just a feedback, and is there a way we give a good feedback to at least change it?

Because it does not have a sense if 10 people vote Bad feedback and we are 200 are Ok with the service and due to those ten the warnin is shown

[actmyname]

Ah wonderful, that makes sense now, so it is not even a flag just a feedback, and is there a way we give a good feedback to at least change it?

Because it does not have a sense if 10 people vote Bad feedback and we are 200 are Ok with the service and due to those ten the warnin is shown

If you want more details on how this system works (Default Trust) check this post:

^{2419329067823cab5b4e5ac5dd18a6abf1f57f45e753f5fc934292f3085a3717 | why did I pick this post?}

This belongs in Meta.

For the purposes of explanation, trusting someone simply means that you carry their feedback in the "trusted" section.

Depth is the degree of which you recursively trust those in your trust list and those that are in the trust lists of people that you trust.

For example:
Depth 0 means that you only trust people who you add to your trust list.
Depth 1 means that you trust people who are in your trust lists, and in the trust lists of people you added to your trust list.
Depth 2 means that now additionally, the people in the depth 1 lists are trusted by you.
Depth n means that you trust the people in the depth n-1 lists.

An illustrative example:

This symbol: -> means adding someone to the trust list.

You -> A
A -> B
A -> C
B -> D
B -> E

Depth 0:

A is trusted.

Depth 1:

A is trusted, B and C are trusted.

Depth 2:

A is trusted, B and C are trusted, D and E are trusted.If you're familiar with CS terminology, think of it as a tree with nodes, where parents add children to their trust list.

Basically, feedback is binned in two different categories: trusted and untrusted.
Anyone in your trust list will send trusted feedback (in your view) and all else will be untrusted.

These members are on the DefaultTrust network which means that unless you change your trust list, they will have feedback that shows as trusted.

[JimmySlander]

Ah wonderful, that makes sense now, so it is not even a flag just a feedback, and is there a way we give a good feedback to at least change it?

Because it does not have a sense if 10 people vote Bad feedback and we are 200 are Ok with the service and due to those ten the warnin is shown

If you want more details on how this system works (Default Trust) check this post:

^{2419329067823cab5b4e5ac5dd18a6abf1f57f45e753f5fc934292f3085a3717 | why did I pick this post?}

This belongs in Meta.

For the purposes of explanation, trusting someone simply means that you carry their feedback in the "trusted" section.

Depth is the degree of which you recursively trust those in your trust list and those that are in the trust lists of people that you trust.

For example:
Depth 0 means that you only trust people who you add to your trust list.
Depth 1 means that you trust people who are in your trust lists, and in the trust lists of people you added to your trust list.
Depth 2 means that now additionally, the people in the depth 1 lists are trusted by you.
Depth n means that you trust the people in the depth n-1 lists.

An illustrative example:

This symbol: -> means adding someone to the trust list.

You -> A
A -> B
A -> C
B -> D
B -> E

Depth 0:

A is trusted.

Depth 1:

A is trusted, B and C are trusted.

Depth 2:

A is trusted, B and C are trusted, D and E are trusted.If you're familiar with CS terminology, think of it as a tree with nodes, where parents add children to their trust list.

Basically, feedback is binned in two different categories: trusted and untrusted.
Anyone in your trust list will send trusted feedback (in your view) and all else will be untrusted.

These members are on the DefaultTrust network which means that unless you change your trust list, they will have feedback that shows as trusted.

Ok I nderstand how the system works but the issue is now if one vote a negative feedback the flag will show untill he quits his feedback, but if he does not or has gone, what the 200 positive  can do? we dont have even a green flag lets say ok you show the red one until the other quits it, but how about the 200 not shown ? at the end it is a matter of who votes first?

[actmyname]

Ok I nderstand how the system works but the issue is now if one vote a negative feedback the flag will show untill he quits his feedback, but if he does not or has gone, what the 200 positive  can do? we dont have even a green flag lets say ok you show the red one until the other quits it, but how about the 200 not shown ? at the end it is a matter of who votes first?

Here's how the flags work: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.0

The specific part that is relevant to 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.

[JimmySlander]

Ok I nderstand how the system works but the issue is now if one vote a negative feedback the flag will show untill he quits his feedback, but if he does not or has gone, what the 200 positive  can do? we dont have even a green flag lets say ok you show the red one until the other quits it, but how about the 200 not shown ? at the end it is a matter of who votes first?

Here's how the flags work: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.0

The specific part that is relevant to 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.

Thank you very much I have been reading this between yesterday and this morning but I have to confess it is not clear and easy to read at least for me may be because English not being my first language

in the case of thepositiveve votes are higher than negative what happens with the red warning, I understand it will still shown

as for example here the user who created the topi has this ratings Trust: +14 / =0 / -0 and has the warning box, may be the system could also allow positive voter to quit the warning based on votes otherwise it is unfaire that some can have weight for their vote and other not

[marlboroza]

Because it does not have a sense if 10 people vote Bad feedback and we are 200 are Ok with the service and due to those ten the warnin is shown

200 shill accounts count as 0.

in the case of thepositiveve votes are higher than negative what happens with the red warning, I understand it will still shown

as for example here the user who created the topi has this ratings Trust: +14 / =0 / -0 and has the warning box, may be the system could also allow positive voter to quit the warning based on votes otherwise it is unfaire that some can have weight for their vote and other not

Read https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.msg2221664#msg2221664, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.0 and finally this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.0 everything is explained.