Flag Abuse - Bitcoin SV - Shocking - Theymos Please Take Action.

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

So we all recall the red flags posted on many users accounts in the wake of the Bitcoin SV account on the forum.  I would like to formally request these flags be removed as they were in clear breach of the rules around flags moreover they have a negative impact on users who actually have done nothing wrong the flags are complacently incorrect in there nature stating.

I refer to the 3 flags posted on my account by the Bitcoin SV troll who I now believe is banned from the forum. 

The first flag claimed that dew to factors in a topic the troll believes that anyone dealing with me is at high risk of losing money?
This claim is complacently false and have no bearing on the post's that I have made in relation to this troll.

Second alleges that I violated a casual or implied agreement resulting in damages again this claim is 100% false.

I do appreciate the users who added there opposition to these flags but the fact of the matter is the flags are still able to be viewed on my account and they do have a detrimental effect even with full opposition to new members who many not understand the system it looks very bad.

I work very hard in the community here and have been a good member over the years with no issues i feel the blatant misuse of the system deserves some attention from the mods. 

Please look into the matter as I feel it's a taint on my account for no reason other than some Bitcoin SV troll misusing the system to tarnish users who are in good standing.

I feel that after a flag has been opposed X=amount of times the flag should be removed from the account it's unfair to leave "inactive" flags on a users account when misuse of the system is clear and as such I request that the following flags be removed at the earlier opportunity.

Thank you for your time.

** Flags below for reference **

Code:

Bitcoin SV alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with MagicByt3 is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. 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.
Support: Bitcoin SV
Opposition: owlcatz, LFC_Bitcoin, nutildah, ibminer, DireWolfM14, MagicByt3, Lauda, Timelord2067, BitcoinFX, examplens, IconFirm, dragonvslinux, SockyMcSockFace
Insufficient support.

Bitcoin SV alleges: MagicByt3 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. MagicByt3 did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around December 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.
Support: Bitcoin SV
Opposition: owlcatz, LFC_Bitcoin, nutildah, ibminer, DireWolfM14, MagicByt3, Lauda, Timelord2067, BitcoinFX, examplens, IconFirm, dragonvslinux, blurryeyed, SockyMcSockFace
Insufficient support.

Bitcoin SV alleges: MagicByt3 violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. MagicByt3 did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around December 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.
Support: Bitcoin SV
Opposition: owlcatz, LFC_Bitcoin, nutildah, ibminer, DireWolfM14, MagicByt3, Lauda, Timelord2067, BitcoinFX, examplens, IconFirm, dragonvslinux, blurryeyed, SockyMcSockFace
Insufficient support.

[1713285714]

1713285714

[1713285714]

1713285714

[1713285714]

1713285714

[1713285714]

1713285714

[LoyceV]

See http://loyce.club/trust/flags/personal/2371095.html for all Flags created by (and against) Bitcoin SV. I'm not going to post them here, the list is too long.

[Lafu]

You dont have to be worry about specialy from Bicroin SV!
He has done that on so many Users and it dont effect your Account  as long the most or all are opposing the Flag.

Trust and Flags as long they are not hardcore spammed are not Moderated.

But yeah would be nice to have them after some time removed or specialy the Users who do that gets some temp Ban.

And there are more Users that have done that like Game-protect and ......  !

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

See http://loyce.club/trust/flags/personal/2371095.html for all Flags created by (and against) Bitcoin SV. I'm not going to post them here, the list is too long.

Thank you LoyceV I feel there should be some new rules regarding trust flags when something like this occurs, while the user in question has been revoked dew to it the users who he has clearly made false accusations against should be cleared after enough opposition votes have been cast.

While the flag system is a very useful tool and has it's merits it also has it's downfalls and I think as a community we should look to avert these false flags when there is clear manipulation and lies included in the context of the use of them in this case.

I also think a Flag weight should be applied to the opposition. Once the weight reaches a specific level of agreement or opposition actions should be triggered either removing the flag or sealing the flag as a prominent feature on the account in question.

The weighting could be by things like standing of member voting for or against the flag
Merit of the person voting on the flag
Length of time registered on the forum

As some examples of thing that could be used to gauge if the flag is valid or non-valid.

Thoughts?

[ibminer]

Tis' a lot of flags lol 

[DooMAD]

When flags come from an infamous troll, I see them more as a badge of honour, not a taint.  You must have been doing something right to earn one (or three, as the case may be).  Keep up the good work.  

[nutildah]

He was temp banned for what was likely trust system abuse but is now unfortunately unbanned.

He has about 40 active accounts, a decent list of which can be found here. Some of the accounts are already banned, so he should be banned for ban evasion, but I suppose he hasn't because there is no direct evidence linking him to the banned accounts (even though its obviously him). Regardless, he should be banned for trolling.

He's left me a total of 10 flags so far, so don't feel too bad about your 3.

[Chlotide]

You may be right OP, but who cares about flags made by a user nobody trusts? As far as I understood the flag system, anyone can make a type 1 flag but would only be displayed to users who trust the flag creator.
I understand it is annoying at least, but does not seem to have any real impact on your account.

Not that sure a flag should be deleted if it has no support. Even better, if you see a flag about a certain user and you see all DT1 saying he is an ok guy, that flag would really have the opposite effect. There's no such thing as bad advertising.

Personally think you over complicate things. Just leave the trust system work. The weeds will be removed by default

[20kevin20]

~
I feel that after a flag has been opposed X=amount of times the flag should be removed from the account it's unfair to leave "inactive" flags on a users account when misuse of the system is clear and as such I request that the following flags be removed at the earlier opportunity.
~

Sorry to hear about the flags. Seen you on the forum and I like what you're doing.

The suggestion you made about flags would then be abused in different ways by using alts and/or buying accounts in order to remove an accusation against them.

I'd rather make it so if three conditions are met (X amount of time passes, there are more than 5 total supporters+oppositions & the ratio is 1:10 (support:opposition) or less), the background of the flag gets removed and the entire flag goes 65% opaque so it would be less visible. Somewhere above/under it, there could be a text mentioning "Due to the very high ratio of opposition vs support, the flag will be considered invalid".