Pages:
Author

Topic: Let me be the first to start a bitching thread about the flags - page 2. (Read 1250 times)

copper member
Activity: 2926
Merit: 2348
If someone hasn’t actually scammed anyone, someone doing their own research should investigate if the person is safe to trade with or not. The point is that the person reaches their own conclusions. The opinion of a very small number of people don’t get to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

I agree therefore I'm suggesting to make the links to the research materials easier to see. I'm a big fan of informed decisions.

Part of doing your own research is understanding how the system works. If you make the indicator too “large” you are moving into the range of telling someone not to trade with the person, and imposing your opinions on others.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile.
Quote from: Theymos
Lied in a flag affirmation.

Lol, reads like a bitter obituary.
So, for "false flagging" (great phrase, might catch on) Theymos leaves red trust, as well as
Quote
will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP

As he only has to "seek" as far as his keyboard for that to happen, I wonder how many reds before you're out?


I'm waiting for this nonsense to go down already; however I've already successfully planted several flags on desired targets. Negs are useless, I'm not in DT1 this month anyways. So what difference does it make? He can play his centralizing card for sure. Tongue At least I established this:

There is no requirement of anything when leaving red-trust now: No risked amount, no scamming, heck probably not even outright lying.
That would be quite the DT-farewell play.
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 1737
"Common rogue from Russia with a bare ass."
This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile.
Quote from: Theymos
Lied in a flag affirmation.

Lol, reads like a bitter obituary.
So, for "false flagging" (great phrase, might catch on) Theymos leaves red trust, as well as
Quote
will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP

As he only has to "seek" as far as his keyboard for that to happen, I wonder how many reds before you're out?

legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
~

Can you please leave? You're just picking fights and not even trying to stay on topic.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
This is not entirely correct. The guideline has been further relaxed to the point that you're allowed to leave negative ratings for a single instance of lying (at least on a flag). It is probably relaxed to the point that you can leave negatives for anything (as they are more or less irrelevant) This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile.
Ouch  Roll Eyes
I welcome this; I had to restrain myself a countless number of times due to the idiotic guideline that we had. The users that are involved in the discussions are nowhere near realizing the full extent and impact of these changes. Red trust is more of a "post-it" now (as someone mentioned privately) than anything else. There is no requirement of anything when leaving red-trust now: No risked amount, no scamming, heck probably not even outright lying[1]. A clown world we live in now.



This is nonsense. See the description of the most broad flag:
I am not talking about flags; stop doing drugs.

[1] For those that ever need proof of the now removed rating: https://i.imgur.com/P5ESdmB.png. That picture can be taken as proof of the invalidity of any previous guidelines.
copper member
Activity: 2926
Merit: 2348
As to bitchpoint 2 I would love to see something like this implemented. It could easily save me and others hours of unnecessary work.

I also want to make one more thing clear, we can still use the old trust system to leave feedback in regards to marking scammy ICOs, correct?
Yes, and the guidelines have been relaxed in that you no longer need to strongly believe the user is a scammer, merely that trading with user is high-risk. I think both red trust and yellow box would fit most ICO scams.
This is not entirely correct. The guideline has been further relaxed to the point that you're allowed to leave negative ratings for a single instance of lying (at least on a flag). It is probably relaxed to the point that you can leave negatives for anything (as they are more or less irrelevant) This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile. This also confirmed my very early statement that the requirement for scamming is gone.
On the plus side: All non-scam related negative ratings are fully within guidelines now. Thule and cryptohunter can't be complaining any more. Cheesy
This is nonsense. See the description of the most broad flag:
Quote
   
Due to the factors mentioned in the above topic, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has 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 any mere disagreements I may have with the user.
The threshold is that:
*you believe *anyone* trading with the person had a *high risk* of loosing money
*The conclusion is based on a set of circumstances that *any* knowledgeable and reasonable forum member would agree with
*The flag is not based on a disagreement with the person.    
sr. member
Activity: 490
Merit: 275
You have to write it like this ! I quote you so we can see it all
yes, I know that but I do not want distract the discussions For non-interested ( you can edit height~150 will be More suitable )


I like it. It wouldn't be "trade with extreme caution" perhaps but a softer warning. Let's hope theymos considers it.
I agree with you  It wouldn't be "trade with extreme caution" Maybe something else appropriate

or just red color It should be enough like:

     +0 / =0 / -10     ( Hover the number to show warning)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
🚸 +0 / =0 / -21     ( Hover the ico to show warning)
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org

I like it. It wouldn't be "trade with extreme caution" perhaps but a softer warning. Let's hope theymos considers it.

This is not entirely correct. The guideline has been further relaxed to the point that you're allowed to leave negative ratings for a single instance of lying (at least on a flag). It is probably relaxed to the point that you can leave negatives for anything (as they are more or less irrelevant) This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile.

Ouch  Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 3199



You have to write it like this ! I quote you so we can see it all

Code:
[img]https://i.ibb.co/sqhKyP0/image.png[/img]
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
As to bitchpoint 2 I would love to see something like this implemented. It could easily save me and others hours of unnecessary work.

I also want to make one more thing clear, we can still use the old trust system to leave feedback in regards to marking scammy ICOs, correct?
Yes, and the guidelines have been relaxed in that you no longer need to strongly believe the user is a scammer, merely that trading with user is high-risk. I think both red trust and yellow box would fit most ICO scams.
This is not entirely correct. The guideline has been further relaxed to the point that you're allowed to leave negative ratings for a single instance of lying (at least on a flag). It is probably relaxed to the point that you can leave negatives for anything (as they are more or less irrelevant) This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile. This also confirmed my very early statement that the requirement for scamming is gone.
On the plus side: All non-scam related negative ratings are fully within guidelines now. Thule and cryptohunter can't be complaining any more. Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
If someone hasn’t actually scammed anyone, someone doing their own research should investigate if the person is safe to trade with or not. The point is that the person reaches their own conclusions. The opinion of a very small number of people don’t get to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

I agree therefore I'm suggesting to make the links to the research materials easier to see. I'm a big fan of informed decisions.

So i can still use the neg. feedback for some kind of users like the Fake ANN Gang right ?

I have readed theymos post again and again and i guess we can us it !

Red trust - yes. Yellow box flag - probably. Red box flag - probably not, until they actually steal money and victims complain.
copper member
Activity: 2926
Merit: 2348
If someone hasn’t actually scammed anyone, someone doing their own research should investigate if the person is safe to trade with or not. The point is that the person reaches their own conclusions. The opinion of a very small number of people don’t get to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 3199
So i can still use the neg. feedback for some kind of users like the Fake ANN Gang right ?

I have readed theymos post again and again and i guess we can us it !
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
As to bitchpoint 2 I would love to see something like this implemented. It could easily save me and others hours of unnecessary work.

I also want to make one more thing clear, we can still use the old trust system to leave feedback in regards to marking scammy ICOs, correct?

Yes, and the guidelines have been relaxed in that you no longer need to strongly believe the user is a scammer, merely that trading with user is high-risk. I think both red trust and yellow box would fit most ICO scams.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 2061
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
As to bitchpoint 2 I would love to see something like this implemented. It could easily save me and others hours of unnecessary work.

I also want to make one more thing clear, we can still use the old trust system to leave feedback in regards to marking scammy ICOs, correct?
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18706
I think hiding the yellow-box warning flag from the majority of forum users is a disadvantage (main reason for this thread). If we're using it to warn newbies then we should make everyone else aware of it too.
Agreed, especially when you have also removed the "Trade with extreme caution" tag which would have gone along with the yellow box and changed it to a tiny, inconspicuous hash, without any accompanying explanation. Given how poorly the trust system is understood and used by the majority of users, no one is going to notice the hash unless they have already read enough around the forum to know what it means and they are actively looking for it.

It is also an issue that the banner is only displayed if the user is the OP of a thread. It is trivial to create an innocuous thread with one account (e.g. Is anyone selling x, Does anyone have a link to x?), and then post your fake gift cards, Ponzi, auto-buy links, whatever, with another. Without the banner or the "Trade with extreme caution" tag, and only the tiny hash symbol instead, scammers will be able to once again trick many guests and newbies before someone complains enough to place a red-box flag on them.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Someone enlighten me how this could actually be useful.

I can see some benefits - red box has more weight than the old -9999 trust scores and is supposed to be policed to prevent abuse, there is a yellow box option for not-a-proven-scammer-but-still-untrustworthy users and even the old-style trust feedback can (and should) still be used, albeit somewhat diminished. More options is good, extra complexity and inevitable confusion - not so much. We'll need some time to get used to it and to gauge how it works.

I think hiding the yellow-box warning flag from the majority of forum users is a disadvantage (main reason for this thread). If we're using it to warn newbies then we should make everyone else aware of it too.
member
Activity: 252
Merit: 56
I kinda feel like this whole new change might make the newbie understanding situation of scams over here potentially more worse. Like instead of the crying red mark that scammers and deceiving people had, now its just going to be a series of numbers which most of the new member wouldn't bother understanding with. I hope I am wrong but it doesn't really seem like it.

Is it going to be any useful, for I only see more threads about new flags being created, and not so much support/opposal for it yet.

Someone enlighten me how this could actually be useful.

Wrong. once they are given a scam FLAG there will be a big warning like before.

Before NON SCAMMERS and SCAMMERS were both given this warning, which is obviously MUCH MORE confusing.

Now ONLY CONFIRMED SCAMMERS get the SCAMMER warning.

Hope that has helped clear it up.

So now a newbie reads... warning this person is a scammer. He can say to himself this person is a scammer. He does not have to say I wonder if they are a scammer or a whistle blower that reported a scammer.
legendary
Activity: 2383
Merit: 1551
dogs are cute.
I kinda feel like this whole new change might make the newbie understanding situation of scams over here potentially more worse. Like instead of the crying red mark that scammers and deceiving people had, now its just going to be a series of numbers which most of the new member wouldn't bother understanding with. I hope I am wrong but it doesn't really seem like it.

Is it going to be any useful, for I only see more threads about new flags being created, and not so much support/opposal for it yet.

Someone enlighten me how this could actually be useful.
Pages:
Jump to: