Red Tag is becoming Rampant in the Forum.

[KingsDen]

Someone has sent me that link before but I was being lazy not to go true it, but this time I'll peruse. Thanks for the data, it revealed that @Lovesmayfamilis doesn't trust my judgement  How did this happen?
Have I made any judgement in this forum before??  Or one has to follow his/her instinct.

I have a counter-question. Have you done anything to be trusted?
The trust list is made up of individual findings. This is a better solution than scattering negative reviews here and there. Therefore, you can also get acquainted with other people's trust lists an.d make your own, based on your preferences for trusting people present on this forum.

No, I have not done any business in the forum. So, my trustworthiness hasn't been put to test. In same vein, I have never done anything to be distrusted as well.
My confusion, should I go ahead and add random people that has not been trusted by anyone in the forum to my distrust list?
Or whenever we are discussing in a thread, anyone that doesn't agree with my opinion once or twice, I should add them to my distrust list?

[UserU]

One of the exceptions of their campaign is that they don't accept users who are negatively tagged, but they do accept those who got tagged just for wearing their signature.

Oh, the irony

[Stedsm]

One of the exceptions of their campaign is that they don't accept users who are negatively tagged, but they do accept those who got tagged just for wearing their signature.

So them being the reason behind a user's negative tag is fine for them, knowing that those users will never get their tags removed and got their account ruined while also trying to enroll more in order to get their cheap advertisement done at the cost of those accounts' ruination is truly unacceptable and should be stopped because some good members may fall for this, at most for the reason of any specific IRL emergency or whatever reasons. Pity for them who join such campaigns.

Anyways, I don't think there's any reassessment needed for busted accounts as well as spammers and scammers because even if trusted and given another chance, the greed in them so provoke them to continue committing the same "mistakes" they've done so far. I believe that those who got active recently, got their email or password changed immediately after that should be scrutinized and checked because many of such accounts were found guilty as bought accounts in order to participate in signature campaigns (or if an account is bought that has green trust, it can be much more dangerous to the community).

[LoyceV]

should I go ahead and add random people that has not been trusted by anyone in the forum to my distrust list?

No. That would mean you can add a few million users, it's useless.

Or whenever we are discussing in a thread, anyone that doesn't agree with my opinion once or twice, I should add them to my distrust list?

No. You can distrust me now, I disagree.
For the record, there's nothing wrong with having a different opinion. Some people seem to think that's the end of the world nowadays, but really, it's fine.
You can even include someone who excludes you.

[DaveF]

A lot depends on the context of the discussion.

Here is the rub, you and I might have a different opinion about exchange 'x'
You think it's the worlds best exchange and see all these users using it with no problem.
I see a bunch of users who have had issues with it.
You keep telling people it's fine. I keep seeing bad things. You are going to probably either get a ~ from me or a neutral feedback.
Some people would neg you. It's a different view of what to do.

I am not going to red tag people for having different political beliefs or thinking alt coin 'z' is better then BTC but they are going to be ~
Other people think that pushing alt coin 'z' is worth a red tag.

I have done successful trades with people AND left them positive feedback who I have now ~ since I don't LIKE the way they do things and don't fully trust them. It's kind of a dichotomy BUT it tells the truth at lest to me. I did a successful trade here is that fact, but I don't trust them or their opinion, so here is ~ so other people have to make up their minds as to if they should be trusted.

-Dave

[Igebotz]

These users are wearing signatures, doing other things normally in the forum as if the -ve tag doesn't really matter.

Red tagging is not a restriction; rather, it serves as a trade risk warning. However, as LoyceV previously stated, the red tag has lost its credibility, and there are DT members whose red tagging no longer has effect as a result of their improper use of the system. There are at least one or more users with red trust, ranging from Chipmixer to the least signature campaign. Managers are no longer interested in it.

If the number of negatively tagged users keep increasing, it will reach to a stage that majority of the users in the forum would be negatively tagged and hence could fault the essence of the trust system.

Except for those who are here to milk money from the forum, that wouldn't change anything for those who here to seek knowledge. To put my thoughts in a single line, I believe that the increase of red tags has done more good than harm because the number of fraud accusations in the forum has decreased as well.

[acroman08]

One of the exceptions of their campaign is that they don't accept users who are negatively tagged, but they do accept those who got tagged just for wearing their signature.

I am a bit confused about that. they said that they won't accept accounts with negative trust unless the negative tag was because of them. yet I see account posting with their signature who were negatively tagged way before they started their first signature campaign. do they mean that they'll accept the account as long as it got negatively tagged because of them even though it already has a negative tag even before they joined their campaign?

[icopress]

I am a bit confused about that. they said that they won't accept accounts with negative trust unless the negative tag was because of them. yet I see account posting with their signature who were negatively tagged way before they started their first signature campaign. do they mean that they'll accept the account as long as it got negatively tagged because of them even though it already has a negative tag even before they joined their campaign?

It all depends on a specific campaign and on a specific manager, since there is a difference between a reasonable red tag and a red tag that has nothing to do with trading risk (let's say, if users exchanged reciprocal tags for personal reasons). In addition, it is worth considering the fact that campaign managers' personal trust lists have been formed over the years, the lists that differ significantly from the defaulttrust lists, (it is also worth considering the depth of trust).

For example, I had a case where, due to personal grievances, I was unfairly marked with a red tag by one of the DT, and this was just the moment when I applied for one of the campaigns ... But as it turned out, this user was on the manager's list of mistrust, so this red tag was not taken into account.

[Pmalek]

So them being the reason behind a user's negative tag is fine for them, knowing that those users will never get their tags removed and got their account ruined while also trying to enroll more in order to get their cheap advertisement done at the cost of those accounts' ruination is truly unacceptable and should be stopped because some good members may fall for this, at most for the reason of any specific IRL emergency or whatever reasons. Pity for them who join such campaigns.

Yeah, they apparently don't consider such tags as valid reasons why a member should not be allowed to participate in their signature campaign. I have seen warning messages posted in scam campaigns recommending that members shouldn't apply and wear the signatures, otherwise they could get tagged. If people see those warnings and apply anyways, they only have themselves to blame for what happens next. 

Here is the rub, you and I might have a different opinion about exchange 'x'
You think it's the worlds best exchange and see all these users using it with no problem.
I see a bunch of users who have had issues with it.
You keep telling people it's fine. I keep seeing bad things. You are going to probably either get a ~ from me or a neutral feedback.
Some people would neg you. It's a different view of what to do.

I think that adding that user to your distrust list is the maximum that should be applied in such a situation. Neutral and especially negative feedback is excessive in my opinion. If people were to do that, than where does it stop? Everyone has different experiences with wallets, exchanges, and other services. Punishing someone for having had a good experience because you had a bad one doesn't seem right.   

<Snip>

That's really something that only their campaign manager can answer. I remembered that part regarding negative feedback when I read the campaign requirements. It could be that they don't consider those tags as valid reasons for that member to be excluded. Or they simply don't care and only made that rule to sound more professional than they are.

[Findingnemo]

<Snip>

That's really something that only their campaign manager can answer. I remembered that part regarding negative feedback when I read the campaign requirements. It could be that they don't consider those tags as valid reasons for that member to be excluded. Or they simply don't care and only made that rule to sound more professional than they are.

Forum members who care about their reputation will never promote a scam website after they acknowledge it so whoever is doing after they knew doesn't really care about the reputation at all, they just need money and 1xbit is willing to give to them to such negative users because they can't expect a good reputation user to promote their services. Anyway redtag can't put an end to someone's posting, it has to be deal with the reporting.

[icopress]

Forum members who care about their reputation will never promote a scam website after they acknowledge it so whoever is doing after they knew doesn't really care about the reputation at all, they just need money and 1xbit is willing to give to them to such negative users because they can't expect a good reputation user to promote their services.

I know a lot of guys who don't care about reputation at all, just because it's not a product ... it's all about personal beliefs. Since there are those who, out of fear, do not advertise 1xBet, because they understand the consequences, (so it's only a matter of price). But there are those who do not advertise 1xBet because of their personal views, those for whom even the thought of promoting fraud behavior is unacceptable.

There is another side to the coin ... if we knew that someone really needs money, and that person added a fraud warning to their sig, then they probably would have avoided the red tag, something in the spirit of what mprep regularly did with his sig, ^{[he did not check the advertised projects but always took care of the disclaimer]}.

[Findingnemo]

Forum members who care about their reputation will never promote a scam website after they acknowledge it so whoever is doing after they knew doesn't really care about the reputation at all, they just need money and 1xbit is willing to give to them to such negative users because they can't expect a good reputation user to promote their services.

I know a lot of guys who don't care about reputation at all, just because it's not a product ... it's all about personal beliefs. Since there are those who, out of fear, do not advertise 1xBet, because they understand the consequences, (so it's only a matter of price). But there are those who do not advertise 1xBet because of their personal views, those for whom even the thought of promoting fraud behavior is unacceptable.

There is another side to the coin ... if we knew that someone really needs money, and that person added a fraud warning to their sig, then they probably would have avoided the red tag, something in the spirit of what mprep regularly did with his sig, ^{[he did not check the advertised projects but always took care of the disclaimer]}.

@icopress first of all I want to show something for you.

Note that 1xBET is not the same as 1xBit! The former is (as far as I know) legit, the latter is a scam.

Literally yes, they are different even though I came across both the names lot of times didn't recognize it until the bitcointalk AI (Loycev) wrote this recently.


1xBit is ready to pay every read tagged user so its actually an golden opportunity for them to have one even though its ethically wrong but as far as the forum is not going to have concerns regarding that until the members who wear their signature flood the forum with spam messages.

[icopress]

@icopress first of all I want to show something for you.

Note that 1xBET is not the same as 1xBit! The former is (as far as I know) legit, the latter is a scam.

Literally yes, they are different even though I came across both the names lot of times didn't recognize it until the bitcointalk AI (Loycev) wrote this recently.

Yes, I may have mixed up the names, but that's a different question ... this is a question for 1xBet, as being a legitimate bookmaker, they can put a lot of effort into preventing scammers from ruining their reputation (due to consonance of brands). At least, if I were the owner of a bookmaker, whose name would be combined with the name of a fraudulent bookmaker, I would do my best to suppress the activities of the company, because of which my reputation suffers.

[BITCOIN4X]

Literally yes, they are different even though I came across both the names lot of times didn't recognize it until the bitcointalk AI (Loycev) wrote this recently.

If you are used to watching Laliga match, then you will be very familiar with one of these site (1xBET) because it is one of the sponsors of Laliga. But 1xbit is definitely a scam site where there are a lot of customers complaining about their service site.

Findingnemo, if you check 1xbit squad one by one then you will also find that some of them are bounty cheaters who have previously been tagged for campaign abuse. Some managers no longer accept it in campaign, but 1xbit accept it and it allows the account so far to post. They can post useful stuff and maybe the forum don't ban it, but the signatures carried by them will have a negative impact on other users where this can increase the number of fraud occurrences.

If tag can stop their activity, maybe I'll tag them all even though they're already tagged. But so far none of them care about negative tag on profile because they have considered these consequences since submitting the application.

[KingsDen]

No. You can distrust me now, I disagree.
For the record, there's nothing wrong with having a different opinion. Some people seem to think that's the end of the world nowadays, but really, it's fine.
You can even include someone who excludes you.

Thanks very much @LoyceV, the picture is getting clearer now.
One more; if I distrust you now and later on you red tag me, for the fact that I have initially distrusted you, will it render your tagging meaningless?

Note that 1xBET is not the same as 1xBit! The former is (as far as I know) legit, the latter is a scam.

A company can operate two brands, be righteous in one brand and be evil in the other brand.
Rub Alice in one brand, pay Bob in the other brand.
The evil of one brand translates to the success of the other brand.

[Heartilly]

My perception of Red Tag in the forum has changed vastly compared to when I newly joined this forum late May this year.

I think it's only you who noticed that. Most users joining 1Xbit for example are ignored in the forum. Don't worry even they are lots of them that won't hurt the forum's overall looks. No need for a remedy or solution. Don't make it complicated as what you noticed is far from happening.

You can put them on your ignore list and just do your usual communication and exchanging replies with each other.

[decodx]

My perception of Red Tag in the forum has changed vastly compared to when I newly joined this forum late May this year.

I think it's only you who noticed that. Most users joining 1Xbit for example are ignored in the forum. Don't worry even they are lots of them that won't hurt the forum's overall looks. No need for a remedy or solution. Don't make it complicated as what you noticed is far from happening.

You can put them on your ignore list and just do your usual communication and exchanging replies with each other.

You are right, this is a perfectly good solution. You can't go wrong if you put all 1xbit shillers on ignore. Most members ignore them anyway, from what I've seen.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Thanks very much @LoyceV, the picture is getting clearer now.
One more; if I distrust you now and later on you red tag me, for the fact that I have initially distrusted you, will it render your tagging meaningless?

If you add a tilde to someone who didn't trust you before, it shouldn't have any consequences for you. This is your own choice. You have the right not to believe this person.
Moreover, if this person decides to leave you negative feedback in the future, then this time he must explain why he did it and leave a reference link.
Otherwise, it looks like an abuse of trust reviews. And if a member of the DT does this, then most likely he will not hold out in his place for a long time. Since the DT is responsible for the reviews they put and very strong evidence is needed in order to leave a negative review for someone.

[Pmalek]

There is another side to the coin ... if we knew that someone really needs money, and that person added a fraud warning to their sig, then they probably would have avoided the red tag, something in the spirit of what mprep regularly did with his sig, ^{[he did not check the advertised projects but always took care of the disclaimer]}.

I am sure there are rules that campaign managers follow to prevent that from happening. But even if there weren't, I am sure such a participant would be asked to adjust his sig and get rid of the warning. If someone is willing to advertise a scam site, it seems paradoxical to have a piece of info that says "be careful when playing on this casino because they might scam you".

Here is rule that ChipMixer has, for example:

7. Adding additional lines into your signatures is not allowed.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1935179.0

If you are used to watching Laliga match, then you will be very familiar with one of these site (1xBET) because it is one of the sponsors of Laliga. But 1xbit is definitely a scam site where there are a lot of customers complaining about their service site.

They are sponsoring the Italian Serie A as well. Just open the official site (https://www.legaseriea.it/en) and before it loads, you will see an ad for 1xBet for a few seconds before you are taken to the homepage.

[LoyceV]

if I distrust you now and later on you red tag me, for the fact that I have initially distrusted you, will it render your tagging meaningless?

From your perspective: yes.
From the rest of the forum's perspective: no. As long as I'm on DT, users who include DefaultTrust and haven't excluded me will see my feedback. You may want to check my Personal Full Trust Depth viewer for all users too.