The red flag

[KingsDen]

I do not fully understand how the red flag or the trust system works. But with a general knowledge, I feel that the numbers at the right side (-ve) depict danger, untrustworthiness and unsafe to do business. However, if the +ve exceeds the -ve the users reputation is not mared.

Now the purpose of this topic!
Are there some users exempted from the consequences of the red trust? Or first what are the consequences of having a red trust?

1. I stormed on some companies sponsoring campaigns whereby the Campaign manager is red trusted, almost all the participants of the campaign are red trusted. The company tried to open some sort of honest review by users. Yet, the review was influenced with money.
Even under the review, some users were crying how they were defrauded by same company.

2. Amidst this, people are still patronizing the company. Does it therefore mean that the red flag or trust is not the true representation of a user. Can a user be a saint and yet red trusted by many?

3. These campaigns pay good money. Where exactly does this money come from? From the defrauded individuals or the company generated profits?

4. Even if the forum cannot or does not want to do anything about scam moderation due to certain reasons, is there no a specific amount of red trust a user should get without a corresponding positive trust and get banned?

5. A user who in past associated with scam and on the long run sincerely repents, is there a way the red trusts can be reversed, or is it as irreversible as the merit?

Thank you all!

[1714656851]

1714656851

[1714656851]

1714656851

[1714656851]

1714656851

[1714656851]

1714656851

[1714656851]

1714656851

[1714656851]

1714656851

[lovesmayfamilis]

OP, try to hammer in the search just the word  "flags"

I am sure that after reading a few posts from what the search will give you, you will get a lot of answers that excite you.



[GUIDE] Overview of the trust flags https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5156835.0
Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0
Trust flags https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.0

For a start, I think that's enough.

Can a user be a saint and yet red trusted by many?

This is especially fun.

[Lucius]

1. I stormed on some companies sponsoring campaigns whereby the Campaign manager is red trusted, almost all the participants of the campaign are red trusted. The company tried to open some sort of honest review by users. Yet, the review was influenced with money.
Even under the review, some users were crying how they were defrauded by same company.

It is clear to me which campaign is in question, but you must know that scam as such is not moderated on this forum - which means that forum members can act in accordance with their beliefs through trust and flags system and thus warn others of something bad. It is up to each individual to assess the situation and do what they think is right - of course some people do everything for money in real life, hiding behind an online identity makes things even easier for them.

2. Amidst this, people are still patronizing the company. Does it therefore mean that the red flag or trust is not the true representation of a user. Can a user be a saint and yet red trusted by many?

You have users who have 50+ positive trusts, and 5+ negative ones - whether someone calls them saints or devils is completely irrelevant. If you personally trust someone, then it doesn't matter how many negative trusts there are, does it?

3. These campaigns pay good money. Where exactly does this money come from? From the defrauded individuals or the company generated profits?

Maybe from the source you mention, and maybe most of those who participate in the said campaign are not actually unique users but alt accounts of that same company. In other words, perhaps the company pays most of the money to itself - because the pay rate definitely raises the suspicion that there are some strange things besides the obvious ones.

4. Even if the forum cannot or does not want to do anything about scam moderation due to certain reasons, is there no a specific amount of red trust a user should get without a corresponding positive trust and get banned?

As far as I know the answer is no, no one will be completely banned just because they get a certain number of negative feedbacks.

5. A user who in past associated with scam and on the long run sincerely repents, is there a way the red trusts can be reversed, or is it as irreversible as the merit?

Feedback can be removed instantly from the one who left it at any time, and it happens every day - people change their minds, delete or change feedbacks - it's not something permanent like merit, although admin has the ability to intervene in case of merit abuse.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Can a user be a saint and yet red trusted by many?

This is especially fun.

It's also a definite "yes" but it depends on who that member has gotten all the red trust from.  If it's from DT members, there might be a problem.  If it's from members not on DT, especially newbies with their own red trust, it's probably safe to say that the member can be trusted--but you always have to look at the reference link on the person's trust page where the negative is.  A lot of times if some idiot leaves retaliatory or otherwise just malicious feedback there won't be a link to anything to show that the receiver of the neg can't be trusted.

OP, take a look at my trust history and you'll see that there are probably more negatives than positives.  Does that mean you can't trust me?  No (though I'm sure there are some members who'd tell you otherwise).  Most of the red trust I've gotten has been from members I'd previously tagged for various misdeeds like account selling or abusing bounties.  The same is true for many members on the default trust list, because a lot of them are or have been active scam busters and have thus gotten a lot of negative trust in return from members they've busted. 

That's just how the trust system works.  Anyone can give anyone else a positive, neutral, or negative trust for any reason.  It's not like eBay's feedback system, where there has to be a verified transaction between people exchanging feedback.  In fact, TECSHARE was pushing for something like that before he died if I'm not mistaken.  I tend to think it would be an improvement on the current system, though there needs to be a way for members to warn others of scammers before scams occur--and that's where the current trust system has its value.

[logfiles]

Are there some users exempted from the consequences of the red trust? Or first what are the consequences of having a red trust?

It entirely depends on how people see the negative feedback on your profile. Some negative feedback is genuine and even has proof in the reference showing that you can not be trusted, while other feedbacks are just sent due to disagreement between members (Not a correct way of using the trust ratings)

For example, I could send you negative feedback saying "You are very annoying" yet you never scammed anybody. So some people can still trust you and do business with you.

2. Amidst this, people are still patronizing the company. Does it therefore mean that the red flag or trust is not the true representation of a user. Can a user be a saint and yet red trusted by many?

The people patronizing the company also have red trust for different reasons. Why should you trust what a bunch of untrusted thugs tell you?
I mean, they are all coordinating to defraud more people.

3. These campaigns pay good money. Where exactly does this money come from? From the defrauded individuals or the company generated profits?

From fraud. If they had genuine intentions or were making lots of profits, they would have sorted out all the issues at hand, just like the other company around the forum.

4. Even if the forum cannot or does not want to do anything about scam moderation due to certain reasons, is there no a specific amount of red trust a user should get without a corresponding positive trust and get banned?

The moderation policy is so clear on scams. Scammers don't get banned. It's entirely up to the community to label them

5. A user who in past associated with scam and on the long run sincerely repents, is there a way the red trusts can be reversed, or is it as irreversible as the merit?

It depends on how forgiving the member who left the feedback is. But Admin or Mods never interfere with the feedback or dispute.

[KingsDen]

OP, take a look at my trust history and you'll see that there are probably more negatives than positives.  Does that mean you can't trust me?  No (though I'm sure there are some members who'd tell you otherwise).  Most of the red trust I've gotten has been from members I'd previously tagged for various misdeeds like account selling or abusing bounties.  The same is true for many members on the default trust list, because a lot of them are or have been active scam busters and have thus gotten a lot of negative trust in return from members they've busted. 

I have gotten a glimpse of how the trust system works. I have journeyed through your trust history, aswell as other reputable members. It looks like a cold war from your reply and what I witnessed. The revenge of the busted!
But I think it's risky, if there isn't a police to enforce or regulate the system, the negative people may overwhelm and hijack the system.

[OgNasty]

OP, take a look at my trust history and you'll see that there are probably more negatives than positives.  Does that mean you can't trust me?  No (though I'm sure there are some members who'd tell you otherwise).  Most of the red trust I've gotten has been from members I'd previously tagged for various misdeeds like account selling or abusing bounties.  The same is true for many members on the default trust list, because a lot of them are or have been active scam busters and have thus gotten a lot of negative trust in return from members they've busted.  

I have gotten a glimpse of how the trust system works. I have journeyed through your trust history, aswell as other reputable members. It looks like a cold war from your reply and what I witnessed. The revenge of the busted!
But I think it's risky, if there isn't a police to enforce or regulate the system, the negative people may overwhelm and hijack the system.

The negative users are definitely a cancer on the trust network.  A lot of them are unhappy with their own lives and use this forum as an outlet to attack others.  As more successful and positive members flee this place, we are left with an ever growing % of unproductive members who think that spreading negativity is somehow a good thing here.  They team up to get each other in the default trust network and take out their frustrations on those whose attention they seek to give them some sort of relevance here they are unable to achieve in their daily lives.  My advice is to add these users to your trust settings with a ~ in front of their name to exclude them and free yourself from their negative influence.

If you want to judge someone's reputation, you'd be better off counting the number of positive interactions, as trust envy is very real here.

[nhingjhun]

1. I stormed on some companies sponsoring campaigns whereby the Campaign manager is red trusted, almost all the participants of the campaign are red trusted. The company tried to open some sort of honest review by users. Yet, the review was influenced with money.
Even under the review, some users were crying how they were defrauded by same company.

2. Amidst this, people are still patronizing the company. Does it therefore mean that the red flag or trust is not the true representation of a user. Can a user be a saint and yet red trusted by many?

3. These campaigns pay good money. Where exactly does this money come from? From the defrauded individuals or the company generated profits?

I understand your concern OP. I can't find any rule here that say's a red tagged user were prohibited to manage a campaign.

If i were to ask I won't promote or give a shit about the project if the manager had red trust.


 

[The Cryptovator]

First of all, you need to study more to know about how works trust and flag systems. Just keep in mind, trust and flag system can't prevent doing anything except warning. Trust and flag systems have been implemented just for warning purposes. It's not related to forum rules. If a user has a red trust of a flag from DT members and still you want to believe them, then we can't prevent you. That's it.

[ShowOff]

I do not fully understand how the red flag or the trust system works.

The flag is a warning symbol to other users on this forum to avoid users getting it on suspicion of finding evidence of its attempts to deceive the community. This is one I understand from using flags. This example seem to have gone into detail about what the purpose of enabling the flag for a particular profile is.

First of all, you need to study more to know about how works trust and flag systems. Just keep in mind, trust and flag system can't prevent doing anything except warning. Trust and flag systems have been implemented just for warning purposes. It's not related to forum rules. If a user has a red trust of a flag from DT members and still you want to believe them, then we can't prevent you. That's it.

The DT tag only serves to warn the community via trust feedback or flags and users can still consider it dangerous or trust the profile. An obvious example is the Signature Campaign of a site that is known to have a long history of unresolved scams and people still believe in trying to play there and also promote it. In essence, I agree to say that your flag is one of the warning signs that comunity should avoid.

[KingsDen]

They team up to get each other in the default trust network and take out their frustrations on those whose attention they seek to give them some sort of relevance here they are unable to achieve in their daily lives.

I rightly understand the above statement. I have gone through your trust history in relation to others. Most times the feedbacks are not the true representation of the persons behind the accounts. It seems to take the system of the popular Chinese adage "an enemy to my enemy is my friend ".

My advice is to add these users to your trust settings with a ~ in front of their name to exclude them and free yourself from their negative influence.

Adding one to my trust settings with a ~ means "distrust". So, is distrusted someone by virtue of settings ineligible to provide feedback to a user? If yes, the purpose of the trust system will be affected. Because, I might scam someone and hastily distrust him before he red tags me . I don't know if am making a clear sense from this side.

[UserU]

The people patronizing the company also have red trust for different reasons. Why should you trust what a bunch of untrusted thugs tell you?
I mean, they are all coordinating to defraud more people.

Ironically around a week ago, there was one red-tagged user from that notorious campaign that had the guts to "call me out" for recommending a casino (Luckyfish, which wasn't a scam).

He went along the lines of "The casino is had some negative rating, how could you promote this to other people?" Yet he has -2 and an active flag.