Topic: Let me be the first to start a bitching thread about the flags (Read 1267 times)

*saying with sarcasm*  Why is he even still allowed to post?

I think what theymos is trying to say is that he wants that to happen. Unless the user knows about newbie/guest warnings and wants to see them (for which the "#" is sufficient), there is no need to alert them.

It still sounds a bit backwards to me too (I prefer more information to be available, not less) but I doubt he's gonna budge so we need to keep that in mind when we use those flags. If needed, combine them with red trust ratings for a bit of extra exposure.

^ I believe that if member has a warning flag, then all forum users should be aware of this, regardless of ranks.

There's a chance, in my opinion, that "#" symbol could be overlooked even by some long-term users.

Some longstanding members, which rarely visiting Meta or Reputation, may not notice "#" symbol and can lose money because of this.

If users got warning flags, based on objective criteria, that it is dangerous to do business with them, in such a case should be a more visible icon for them.

For example:

I guess that they could "undo" themselves if they don't get support in 2 days? Or 7 days?
Because even without red colors and support they can still scare newbies and maybe sometimes it's not the case.

Considering that trust ratings no longer has the same effect as before, could we expect that trusts will be visible in all sections of the forum in the future?

There is also a suggestion: removing flags which don't have a single support.

There are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. Newbie-warning flags are only for warning newbies, not for warning experienced members who should know better, or for harming the target. The "#" symbol is supposed to be inconspicuous, since it's not supposed to be a warning or a "mark of shame".

(I won't rule out adding a per-post warning for newbies if people evade the per-topic warnings, though.)

Ok, can we please try to stay on the topic of... ah I think I see the problem here... well, let's just try to bitch more about the technical details set forth in the OP than personal attacks, for which there are plenty of other threads.

Are you surprised it leaked after it was sent to ~110 users?  I don't think he cared it would leak anymore than sharing his thoughts in the same way any other user could.                                                                     

Only in a clown world would the owner of this forum ALLOW proven scammers like you to use his trust system to facilitate and hide your own scamming actions by giving red trust to whistle blowers.

You and your gang are living in the clown world. You surround yourself with beta gimps like Laudas Feltching Clown  and smarmacist and the other bunch of corrupt weak gimps.

I hope he handles it by blacklisting you. There is no place on DT for a PROVEN LIAR AND SCAMMER. Even if you were not using red trust to silence people presenting observable instances of  your prior lying and scamming you just should not be there.

The best part is suchslob has revealed herself as a back stabbing piece of shit now too. Or is that your alt lauda? she seems to risk it all to keep your account with some power??

We see no back tracking on theymos's part we see someone simply realizing now that he really did let a gang of backstabbing ,scamming, lying, extorting scum nearly take over this board.

Let's hope he blacklists the lot of you dirt bags.  ONLY those willing to work with transparent and fair rules that treat each person equally are welcome here.

Meta board means NOTHING is a tiny tiny tiny subset of this board, most devs and true supporters of this movement never even visit this shit hole meta.  Of course meta board will cry when their gravy train just got shoved off the tracks. Keep crying bitch.

Remember this you scamming piece of shit??


once you try and scam people you do not go back, you said once you were new and that was a mistake. a true legend once said to you " that is fine lauda it's never too late to leave the dark for the light"   but you were just lying you never left you just moved on to darker things. no more chances you're done.

You nearly once contributed to getting btc knocked off top position. Lucky a real legend was there to stop you

The-One-Above-All
^
Only he is always b*tching and never, ever, eeeeever been asked for in any thread, thats not been created by himself

Support-wise, I probably do because his policies are part of the clown world we live in today.  

He backtracked because he overplayed his hand. How he handles it now is even less relevant than it was before.

Lauda again believing he is more in charge here than theymos.  Get this proven scammer blacklisted before it can do more damage.

What back tracking?? I don't see any. Let's hope he just blacklists you straight out after likely trying to allow you some dignity to be naturally voted off.  Still will look better when you are bitchslapped completely out and blacklisted by the forum owner.

He's making shit up again, i.e. lying and I've tagged theymos for selectively condoning this extremely untrustworthy behaviour. The reality/truth: People stand to retain full power by just fully flipping into excluding me.

---

Nevermind, seems that theymos is backtracking. The time that you managed to get the author of the system to backtrack. Outplayed he indeed is.  

I have to ask... who the fuck are "they"?

No; there is no competitive alternative.

I have no power, nor is anyone obliged to share any PM with me nor would I be able to know/prove that they got it. Weak-play; but he got beaten at his own game-theory. The small wins matter for the greater good.

they clearly trust him enough to use his forum.

IMO, the message leaked because of the power they stand to lose.

The PM leaked a minute after it was sent, that's how much they trust him. If he blacklists, he centralizes. That is the right way. I wonder what would happen if sufficient people refused this (which I would not advise for).

I won't edit that, rather up date it separately with the info that I (as a member of DT1) have just received a PM which ends


and it didn't come from CryptoHunter....

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.

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. At least I established this:

That would be quite the DT-farewell play.

Lol, reads like a bitter obituary.
So, for "false flagging" (great phrase, might catch on) Theymos leaves red trust, as well as

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

Can you please leave? You're just picking fights and not even trying to stay on topic.

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.



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.

This is nonsense. See the description of the most broad flag:
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.    

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 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)

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


Ouch 

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

https://i.ibb.co/sqhKyP0/image.png

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.

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.


Red trust - yes. Yellow box flag - probably. Red box flag - probably not, until they actually steal money and victims complain.

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.

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 !

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Added a couple more bitchings.

Give it up Bro. Not that I care on your thoughts anymore. And talking about asshats, much better for you to celebrate for now. And what's up with your garbage? Even the admin proves your facts are pure of shits anyway.

Note: I was just curious on what you have said, that's why I remove you into my ignore list  but now that I have proven that its nothing to be curious about, now back to my ignore list 😂

You might also consider having a flag that is so unique that only you will have 😊 Stop cryin' now,  and move on.

LOL at the supporter of liars and scammers like suchmoon still wanting some WARNING for the  trust abuse his pals are still allowed to leave. Wheeled out by lauda to garner some support for the ability to still cause a WARNING on honest members who they fail to present enough evidence to demonstrate is a danger financially to the board.

IF THE FEEDBACK DOES NOT WARRANT A FLAG THEN WHY SHOULD THERE BE ANY WARNING? it confuses the entire thing.

It falls short of the threshold of a warning and is subjective personal garbage.

Put a green smiley face in front of anyone with a negative rating in the old system because since most people on DT have observable instances of lying or scamming or support those that do, a negative rating is an endorsement.

Suchmoon would you support a flag on lauda for blatantly LYING about the instamine of xcoin/dash whilst he was holding bags of it, to SCAM investors into believing the initial distribution was legit??

No you would not so why should anyone have a caution fucking emblem on their account for saying WARNING OTHERS  about the scammers you support.

If you can not present feedback that meets the threshold for scamming or CERTAIN negative actions that impact financially at all then why the fuck should there be a warning or caution symbol?

NO!!

I think you should have a warning symbol for knowingly supporting liars and scammers you fat slob.

Anything that does not meet the flagging threshold is not worthy of a warning. It is just confusing and misleading. You yourself will not ensure that lauda an observable liar and scammer has a flag or even one of these warning symbols but you want those that whistleblow on them to have a symbol. NO.

Meet the threshold for a flag, demonstrate the person is financially a danger here or tough shit your feedback is subjective garbage and has to be read before either a NEGATIVE or POSITIVE association should be pinned to the account.

@cabalism13

when can we put a little turd emblem in front of turd world ass lickers trust ratings like yours? filthy little parasite spamming away posting garbage.

NO NO NO last time theymos presented the merit clause in trust lauda worm tongue and suchblob and pals come along and push him to CHANGE the original design that favors them and their cycled 250 merits nonsense.

Theymos should leave it as it is now. Not give in to your bitching and gaming attempts.

Can't meet the transparent threshold for a flag. Fuck off and leave people alone you obese clown.

The only thing I would support is a message saying read and investigate all feedback thoroughly yourselves before making any decisions. A red warning sign makes that decision for them. Red warning signs or ANY negative warning signs should be for those that meet the flagging threshold only or it confuses the entire thing.

Something like this:

Seems like a great change. Just a '#' makes no sense imo. It's not clear what '#' means, especially not for new users who haven't learned about the trust/flag system yet.

My suggestion was not about replacing the "!!!", I think that one is visible enough.

I want to replace the "#" (non-scam guest/newbie warning) with something more prominent. It should not be red, but rather yellow-ish to be consistent with the color of the warning box itself.

redsn0w's icons could be used for both (replace "#" with the yellow one, and "!!!" with the red one), or perhaps the "#" should be replaced with yellow "!!!" to make it consistent, but the exclamation signs don't look well in that color.

No problem.

We already have the same: !!!. Your icon can be used, but color should be changed to Red. Everything relates to Trust should be displayed in Red, and we all are familiar with such color, that is a good indicator of Trust issues.

Change the color of the symbol to RED and that would be more suitable.

But Lauda didn't start a thread! I'm still the first!

---

Added another bitch point to the OP.

What about this?

"#" is a useful as trying to collect air with your bare hands.

Looks like it. Additionally, you are also de-incentivized to support anything. After all, a misjudgement in support could instantly mean you get blacklisted. Why do it at all? Nobody is a scammer.

You're a bit late for that  

^^ which is quite logical to be honest. According to the flag system, no one is scammer unless they have personally scammed you.

1


Here is roughly what I had in mind:



Instead of the current:



I think non-guests and non-newbies deserve a better warning than the tiny inconspicuous "#".

The answer is "no".

---

2

Add a one-click option to convert an old (pre-flag-system) red trust rating to a newbie/guest yellow box flag. There are many of those ratings with proper references that really should be visible to guests. All other rules would still apply, it would be just a shortcut to make it easier for some folks who look out for scams in Marketplace, ANN/ICO dumpster, etc and would likely be adding hundreds of these flags now.

---

3

Color confusion. The count of red ratings should be red, not orange. The "+" / "-" signs should be the same color. The green should be more green (not sure if it still turns dark green at a certain value like it used to be). For example:

+2 / =1 / -10

instead of

+2 / =1 / -10

---

4

More color confusion. The newbie flag (the "yellow box") has this wording:

"... This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with ..."

The "red flags" part trips my OCD alarm. I know it's figurative but still. Plus there might be some cultural misinterpretations. I think it should be replaced with "warning signals" or "danger signs" or something like that.