Topic: PM from admin demanding to exclude a certain user - page 3. (Read 2858 times)

To be honest, at first I thought admin (theymos) account has been hacked when I saw the message from him. But after visit meta I realized that message came from real admin. Seems Lauda has been removed/blacklisted from DT1 and asmin want to remove her from DT2 as well and that's the reason to ask distrust(~) her from trust list. My question is, why admin had not bothered to make public post with his opinion instead of send personal messages? Because sending messages to all DT's means it has become publicly. This kind of PM isn't appreciated to me from any users.

That is not pathetic , i understand Theymos does not want to use his Admin's privileges in the trust system so he limited his actions to what is available for the average DT member, that is great and all, but really , why create all the mess?

 I can't see anything wrong with theymos directly controlling DT list and blacklisting whoever he thinks are not worthy of being a DT, after all he can very much adjust the rules to simply exclude every member whos name starts with L and get rid of Lauda forever, We know he is not going to do such a thing but still he is the one who created the system based on what he thinks right.

 therefore it is always better to get his hands dirty and manually fix what is broken, the only time this would be invalid is when forum members themselves chose how they want the system to be like, and since it is not the case then who ever has the power to create/alter/modify the system should use that power to fix what needs fixing.

Correct -- that's what Lauda has been saying too.


Your subjective non-contributing view to the matter, which also contradicts what Lauda says about himherself.

Just to confirm, it does.

The good thing about this new trust flag is that, no one single handedly leave a red flag to anyone's account. This will reduce the trust misuse which we have seen from the last trust system.

Theymos tries to follow his own system. I think it's very good and trustworthy behavior. Of course, many 'justice warriors' that cries about how much they care about forum would turn it into Gulag.  (with corruption, of course)

Just reccomendation. no demand (as i understand). Blacklisting is shit, the shittiest shit and it's a little strange that people in Bitcoin forum who is on DT1 saying something like: "It would be better to blacklist @user, than asking to distrust him". Lol, it's pathetic



Lol. Please look at this topic - CLICK. Many users, like yahoo62278 told to OP that "no victim - no scam". "If bestmixer would created this topic, we would tag Hharmpuz" states they. For me, i think it's right statement. Because you can't punish someone for things that he didn't done

Well this has got messy pretty quickly, although I wouldn’t expect it any other way really, just perhaps not so soon. The positive side to it is that it brings up the flaws pretty quickly, which leaves a possibility to alter the system or guideline it better before the damage is structural.

I personally dislike receiving PMs encouraging supporting or disapproving mal use in one way or another, and they are related to the usual drama which I occasionally glimpse through, but have no desire to read on a permanent basis as if I was reading The Mirror reporting on how “Fun with Flags has hit Bitcointalk, and is being used to tell people to Flagoff”.

@Theymos’s PM states what seems like a fact: the red flag given to Quickseller did not (to my finding) have any solid supporting contractually proven evidence, and hence was uncalled for. @Lauda later amended as far as flags allow, by removing support to the flag.
The flag is therefore Inactive due to Insufficient support, but I find it still tarnishes one’s profile since it cannot be deleted. I would prefer for flags to be erasable by it’s creator, providing it does not have other people’s support. If the creator of a flag wants to delete a supported flag, he would need to convince the supporters on the arguments for it to happen, and if all retracted their support, it could be erased. 
 
Theoretically, the reading of the OP where @theymos verbalized the Trust flags introduction and subsequent changes indicates that “If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP”. That is what he has done by delegation, although when I read it I assumed it was going to be a direct act.
Whether the suggested call to action is harsh or not after barely a few hours of setting the new system in motion is subjective, and therefore we can decide whether to follow or ignore the suggestion enclosed in @theymo’s PM.

It does raise the question of whether every single flag (at least DTs) will be scrutinized from here on with the same cause of action. That seems like a hell of a job to do, and even more so considering that people come and go from the DT list be it due to votes or to capping the list to 100. I’m not even sure if DT2 counts towards flags the same way as DT1 does (I think it does). If so, this multiplies the number of flags to potentially supervise, which seems like an overly task (likely, only those brought to attention would need a revision).

I don't think anyone is demanding infallibility, simply objective and publicly observable information on which to judge an accusation, I.E. not just beliefs and opinions. As I stated before, everyone can play pretend time and claim they think XYZ, but it is much more difficult to manufacture objective facts over and over.

I agree with this;   having a scaled impact value vs.  a simple yes/no;  needs to be considered IMHO.  I have seen people with negative trust;  just because they were duped into advertising for a scam unknowingly.....

In the same regard; my Yobit banner could potentially have harmed me if yobit truly went south for the winter and started ripping everyone off blatantly (which i personally am surprised they haven't yet); because for me;  the sig was just a way to put a little coin in my pocket for doing the same thing I have always done;  help in the areas I can help in;  when I am physically/mentally able to do so.....  Never once did I advocate anyone use them or go out of my way to shill for them;  I would only suggest people go in and hit up the free coins when there was something worth nabbing (like the free .01 ETC every 24 hours), or when I was gung-ho on a [still in progress] "coin" that I believe the project has merit (as a DEX)....
Shit; I already have a negative distrust from some asshat on the old system for my yobit banner;  with literally no real reasoning for it other than I would rebut or continue the discussion with logical processes and analysis in my process of trying to help them through the issue they were having.    I think it might even be the guy whom sent an ETH smartcontract token set to his ETH wallet on yobit;  which they have never supported..... he was quite butthurt at my honest curt replies.


 Yeah;  but here's the rub;  If you dont have evidence of a scam;  it's a blind accusation from you in the eyes of everyone else with an objective mind.....  so that's a double edged sword of a concept to try and modify that way.  Even if the people who trust you see it;  they have nothing on it past your say so;  that doesn't fly in the online world unless you are truly respected by even the people who havent conversed with you.   Very few people reach that status in any regard. (at the same time, I am baffled why people put so much stock into actors' opinions these days)

I suppose we did want differing degrees of severity in regards to negative feedback. I'll have to give this some more thought and form a more substantiated opinion as discussion develops.

---

Is there any message indicator for when a user PMs a flagged user? I know that some users have tried to sneak their way into scamming others in sections that hide trust ratings (and now flag markers).

Previously, leaving a negative rating would effectively cripple a person's ability to conduct business, as it created the bight red warning to "trade with extreme caution", regardless of what the comment said. Now, if you were to leave negative trust for "liking lemons" there will be no bright red warning, and anyone reading this comment will promptly ignore the rating -- in other words, the negative rating no longer cripples a person's ability to conduct business.

What the above means is Lauda can no longer use the threat of him sending a negative rating as a means to get what he wants out of people, others will no longer be afraid of criticizing him (Lauda has given many people negative trust for criticizing him, recently explicitly for doing this, and previously, the comment was for other, bogus reasons, but was done immidiately after they criticized him. if lauda wants to open a flag against someone, they need to create a thread in which the person in question can be defended by himself or others -- lauda had said today that "no discussion is necessary" for flags he opened today.

No, you are just not allowed to use the high-power scam flags -- intended mainly for punishing people, not really for preemptively warning about scams -- without first being scammed. You can still use the newbie-warning flags and negative ratings, which have plenty of warning power.

I don't mean the guest/newbie flags. I mean the type-2 and type-3 flags, which are reserved for victims of scams.

Our trust now shows a flag and those people have not proven we have scammed anyone because that would be impossible. So this may not be the case.

One option is in relation to reputation. I have no problem with this, at all. I think this is a good addition save for the fact that it has a lessened effect on all the previous genuine negative feedback.

Flags are inherently flawed in the fact that the victim of a scam must flag the user.

Innocent until proven guilty, sure. But with this one it is unflagged until victim proves scammer guilty. If no victim acts on the flag, then nothing is done. You are not allowed to flag without first being scammed.

I think this is why one option is for heavy scam potential;  vs. an actual accusation of a scam that happened....

Innocent until proven guilty must still hold; or everything falls apart quickly...

Sometimes in life to start building on strong foundations the old building must be destroyed. A total reset where we ENSURE only REAL scammers get a scam tag it seems sadly it is the only way to start again. You may have made all legitimate red tags. I believe in your case it is plausible. However the same can NOT be said for other DT members. Therefore a general rule must sadly accommodate the worst cases of trust abuse. We must not blame the creator of the systems for giving too much credit to those that abused the systems or failed to stand against the abuse. The creator this time is taking no risks with over estimating the system controllers integrity.

Long term point 1 will be a non issue.  We must look long term hence the need for strong foundations.

Point2 - there will always be a trade off for guessing or speculating or having faith that a person will scam against innocent members being flagged as scammers. That is just the thin end of the wedge or the start of the rot as they say. This FAITH that someone will scam can be gradually reduced down to eating lemons if left unchecked. That has obvious implications for free speech which is the corner stone of such a progressive movement as this.  It is more important to ensure all members are treated equally and fairly than it is perhaps to protect some of the most greedy risk takers. It is my belief only a handful of people here have the tech chops to stop the largest and most damaging scams and even with their valid warning you will see a lot of greedy and foolish people screaming take my money.

Let's never allow free speech to be crushed to save people from themselves.

To bring this back to the intial post though. We are pleased this thread was started. We and most sensible people can see it is an attempt to shed negative light on theymos who is trying his best to rid this forum of the cancer of scammers that seek to use the trust system to facilitate their own scamming and silence whilstle blowers. We hardly think sending the REQUEST not demand (if it was a demand then I am sure it would be happening by now) to 110 people is the sign of someone trying to do any back room manipulation. We stick to the belief it was an attempt to allow lauda to be removed from a position where it can bring more damage without making him look like he just got the boot from the forum owner in public. Theymos tried to be nice and look what happens they turn it on him trying to suggest he was being sneaky. Disgusting behavior by excellent member suchmoon. As we say it adds weight to our suspicion that suchmoon is lauda.

I have two problems with the reputation + flag system.

One: we have to go back and find our flaggable tags. Although you'll have the negative reputation points, one thing that is missing is the newbie flag. They are still likely to fall prey to a scammer.

Two: flags can only be created by victims. This means that when a flag is created, the scammer will have most likely already gotten what they wanted.

Tags are now relegated to the meaningless lemons garbage they were allowed to degrade to. So people looking at the score didn't know if the person ate lemons or steals bitcoins without scanning a ton of weird strange personal nonsense unrelated to scamming.
Flags are the real deal. I mean we already have a nice new shiny flag let's see if this is allowed to stand or these scum bags get black listed. We are not too bothered because it is still a huge move in the right direction and they will not get away with this on everyone only very very unpopular persons like us where the board is willing to allow scammers and their miscreant pals to give a flag to a person that they have ZERO chance of demonstrating has scammed or tried to scam ANYONE  out of money. The change was never just about us or our fav true legend, it was about gaining free speech for the entire board free of the threat of your sig being zapped away if you said something a gang of scammers, liars and their supporters didn't want you to say.

Theymos seems to be getting bullied around by some very ANGRY dt scammers and their gang right now. Let's hope theymos has some REAL supporters who want to see fair and transparent rules applied equally to all members.

Nice to see the DT scammers and their excellent member pals reveal themselves for who they really are now though. Nice to see suchmoon trying to spin this message theymos sent to 110 people as some sneaky stealth move he really wanted kept secret and now he is a bad guy. Rather than the real reason that is probably he felt sorry for lauda (fuck knows why) and didn't want to bitch slap him with a black listing so we could all gloat. But rather have his support eroded from beneath him with excludes.

Either way win win. People always show their true colors eventually. We believe suchmoon is lauda and have for quite some time. This certainly adds weight to that possibility. Usually suchmoon can be found brown nosing theymos constantly why suddenly turn against him for lauda?? because how can it turn on it's self. I remember someone once saying somewhere oh suchmoon we didnt know you could speak croatian > it started saying oh no it was " then some excuses" like moron bozo taught me a few words or some such explanation. That could be smoke with no fire but then again it could be a furnace below the surface.

I don't see how telling a large group of users to exclude a certain person can resolve any feuds. This brings the drama level up a notch. Based on some conversations I had, it seems to have just added more anxiety on top of whatever other shit was going on.

But thank you for clarifying the intent. I sympathize with it, if not the execution.

Great, the score was meaningless before anyway. How does one rate how trustworthy someone is on a scale from -999 to 400ish? I don't know what the upper positive trust scale was. I don't think you should get a number for being an alleged liar or successfully trading 1000BTC. I think whoever is going to trade with you should decide the validity of the claim themselves and how much they are willing to trust you with.

The color doesn't matter either, why should green, red, or heliotrope tell you who is trustworthy. Just read a person's feedback and you'll get all of the info you want. I'm against the go ahead and trade recklessly if you see green, or avoid at all costs if you see red mentality that seems to have accidentally been cultivated here. I've traded with actual scammers in the past. You just use escrow. I've requested escrow be used with deep green trusted members. Numbers, scores, and reassuring colors just numb your gut feeling.

Sure, lets add QS to DT1, maybe then you'll feel better when they get a PM sent about them from Theymos for misusing the new system. I have really come to loath the use of the word factual or its derivatives on Bitcointalk. We have a difference of opinion on the definition of what constitutes a warning. if I cared or you cared, we could discuss this further, but you are right we aren't going to come to an agreement and there is no point in wasting our time continuing.



This is what I don't get. No, the new system DOES unilaterally allow people to tag whoever they want for whatever they want. There is just now a distinction between Flag, this person scammed me, and feedback, this is a warning I think this person is a scammer and here is why. I'm now free to leave people positive or negative feedback for lemons. I've been dangerously close to leaving CryptoHunter lemon feedback to prove a point, but didn't do so because of some people's fixation on feedback as a unified structure of infallible information.