Topic: Red Tag is becoming Rampant in the Forum. - page 2. (Read 1029 times)

You just have to bear in mind that sometimes those tags are unnecessarily given by some rogue or insane members for no just cause. I believe that's why CM will state that "If you receive legitimate negative feedback during..." because a lot of them know that some tags are not legitimate. Avoiding people with tags on the forum is prejudice by my judgment.

Certainly, some kind of control measures are in place for this. I have read discussions of some DT members challenging other DT members on unnecessary tags and in most cases those tags had been reviewed. If not for that, most DT members would easily tag anyone who disagrees with their point of views. There are people who love power and won't hesitate to use it on others unjustly.

buddy you are not meant to skip people that have negative trust, the only communication you have with someone that have two hundred (200) positive  trust and someone that has one thousand (1000) negative trust is the same thing here, the only difference between them is that you won't trust negative trust person in terms of business transaction, but only bond merge both of you is interaction to the community.

many user users have negative trust currently, the measure were seeing them before in gambling never be the same because some campaign that accept negative trust is like they want their most post to come from gambling section or board, negative tag matters alot it's when the campaign they are into end up and they will find it very strange to be selected in another campaign because of their reputation.

i think that nothing will be done remedy it, because you can't isolate a negative trust person in the community and is not cultured, because for negative trust should be enshrined here, is directly meant for people that is scam or you have done transaction with and it went unsuccessful, who cheating is the blood can't fail to commit evil.

actually if you received a tagged from someone without proper reason and you know that you are not guilty of crime you have to state it out for community to look into it and deliberates about it, because according to @loyceV tutorial thread of trust system, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52715278
it was stipulated that to give a tag to someone can't come as a result you have issues or misunderstanding with the users. So i think they are reasons while and genuine points while flags is been given.

It is quite possible that some people have individual agreements with certain companies or casinos like you said. Maybe they are friends with the developers, maybe the sites throw some work their way and this is a way to return the favor and say thanks. Or maybe they just gambled there, got lucky, and they now want to advertise them a little. If I remember correctly, Lauda used to wear a FortuneJack signature for a long tome even though she/he was not a part of the campaign at one point. At least officially. There are surely other examples, I just can't think of any. 

Well, I meant individual contracts ... and apparently there are enough participants on the forum whose names do not appear in any spreadsheet, nevertheless, these guys wear signatures with advertisements from different bookmakers (I suspect this is not a gesture of goodwill). As for the regular campaign, you are right, the participant who added the disclaimer will be removed from the campaign, (but as I said, there have already been such precedents at the forum).

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.

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:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?


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.

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.

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.

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


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.

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]}.

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.

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. 

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.   

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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