Ban locked threads in Alternate cryptocurrencies > Announcements (Altcoins)

[Upgrade00]

If a DT member gives a negative to the user there is a banner that would appear for users with less than 7 days login time

AFAIK, this only applies to flags and not negative feedback, any user can create a flag, and if they have more support than opposition, it would appear at the top of threads made by the suspected account.
Negative feedback is visible on the users trust rating.

[1714884279]

1714884279

[1714884279]

1714884279

[1714884279]

1714884279

[Rizzrack]

AFAIK, this only applies to flags and not negative feedback, any user can create a flag, and if they have more support than opposition, it would appear at the top of threads made by the suspected account.
Negative feedback is visible on the users trust rating.

Seems you're right. Got a bit confused I guess   
Hard to find the perfect solution

[DaveF]

I was going to start a new post, but figured bringing this thread back to life might be better.
It looks like the new method is to post a copy of a legit announcement with legitimate links and then go back and edit them later.
Still using locked / self mod posts.

So how about a combination of things?

1) If the post is started as locked or changed to locked at any time or if it's a self mod even the OP can't edit their post. This way what you post stays what it is and then of you want to change something you have to make another post in the thread.

2) If a post is locked / self mod links in the posts are not active for 24 hours. This way people can take a look and see if they look good. The issue that I see with this is that they could have a legit github / whatever and then they just change that link.

3) Both 1 & 2 can be avoided by copper members. If it's a legit project throwing $20 is not a big deal, if it's not it's going to get real expensive real quick.

4) looking for ideas.

I doubt anything will come of this but still think it needs a discussion.

-Dave

[actmyname]

I was going to start a new post, but figured bringing this thread back to life might be better.
It looks like the new method is to post a copy of a legit announcement with legitimate links and then go back and edit them later.
Still using locked / self mod posts.

-Dave

Is it in the context of editing the links, then locking the thread and preventing others from warning users about it?

I still don't see a problem with simply moving locked posts to the very back of the board, perhaps in a section of their own. It can function as a soft-trashcan "sub-board". A thread is locked only when the author decides that there should be no more posts. In that situation, they should have little complaints about being shoved to the back of the queue.

This would prevent abusing the lock feature, as well as provide users a way to finally get rid of those threads they're done with, without having to resort to moving it to Archival.

[Rikafip]

I was going to start a new post, but figured bringing this thread back to life might be better.
It looks like the new method is to post a copy of a legit announcement with legitimate links and then go back and edit them later.
Still using locked / self mod posts.

-Dave

Is it in the context of editing the links, then locking the thread and preventing others from warning users about it?

Yep. They make copy of already existing announcement thread and use legit links( social media, website, github etc) in order to appear legit and to avoid getting nuked immediately, and later on change legit wallet with malware infected one. That happens basically on the daily basis.

That idea about automatically placing locked topics on the bottom of the board sounds like an easy and solution, with no major drawbacks that I can see.