Pages:
Author

Topic: Request Support (or Opposition) for Flags here! - page 12. (Read 49805 times)

legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Yes, of course, that would make it much easier to support/oppose, especially when reference topic deleted or does not exist.
Done:
New: (Support | Oppose)
Because of Flag spammers, I've added quick links to (Support | Oppose) Flags.
The BBCode for this has a small mistake, that will be fixed tomorrow.
legendary
Activity: 3248
Merit: 3098

Question[/b]: should I add direct links to "Support" or "Oppose" Flags on my Trust Flag viewer?
Pros: This makes it much faster to Oppose all Flags from a Flag spammer.
Cons: That would mean you have to trust me for creating the correct link.

Yes, of course, that would make it much easier to support/oppose, especially when reference topic deleted or does not exist.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
There's another Flag spammer (now nuked):

Quote
2020-01-23 Thu 03.18h
source: loyce.club

1314 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged witcher_sense (type 3, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by witcher_sense[/size].

1313 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged stompix (type 1, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1312 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged stompix (type 2, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1311 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged stompix (type 3, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1310 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged peloso (type 1, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1309 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged peloso (type 2, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1308 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged peloso (type 3, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1307 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Vadi2323 (type 1, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1306 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Vadi2323 (type 2, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1305 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Vadi2323 (type 3, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1304 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Balthazar_home (type 1, see why). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1303 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Balthazar_home (type 2, see why). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1302 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Balthazar_home (type 3, see why). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1301 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Balthazar (type 1, see why). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1300 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Balthazar (type 2, see why). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1299 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Balthazar (type 3, see why). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1298 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged nutildah (type 1, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1297 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged nutildah (type 2, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1296 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged nutildah (type 3, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1295 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Cyrus (type 1, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1294 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Cyrus (type 2, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1293 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Cyrus (type 3, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1292 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged xandry (type 1, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1291 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged xandry (type 2, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1290 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged xandry (type 3, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1289 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged kzv (type 2, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1288 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged StartupAnalyst (type 1, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1287 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged FontSeli (type 2, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by nobody.

1286 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged StartupAnalyst (type 3, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by Ratimov[/size].

1285 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Veleor (type 1, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by Ratimov[/size].

1284 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged taikuri13 (type 2, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by taikuri13, Ratimov, StartupAnalyst.

1283 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged witcher_sense (type 2, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by witcher_sense, Ratimov, StartupAnalyst.

1282 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged StartupAnalyst (type 2, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by Ratimov[/size].

1281 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Veleor (type 2, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by Ratimov[/size].

1280 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Veleor (type 3, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by Ratimov[/size].

1279 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged FontSeli (type 3, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by Ratimov, StartupAnalyst.

1278 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged kzv (type 3, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by VIVA-E. Opposed by Ratimov[/size].

1277 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Ratimov (type 1, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by Kingf1sher, VIVA-E. Opposed by Ratimov, peloso.

1276 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Ratimov (type 2, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by Kingf1sher, VIVA-E. Opposed by Ratimov, peloso.

1275 Insufficient support. VIVA-E flagged Ratimov (type 3, see why Reference topic does not exist). Supported by Kingf1sher, VIVA-E. Opposed by Ratimov, peloso.
Most of these Flags are easy to oppose without looking into them: the Reference topic doesn't exist.



Question: should I add direct links to "Support" or "Oppose" Flags on my Trust Flag viewer?
Pros: This makes it much faster to Oppose all Flags from a Flag spammer.
Cons: That would mean you have to trust me for creating the correct link.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 5937
Requesting flag support against @Litbinex  Flag Type 1  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1267
Litbinex scam accusation topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-litbinex-exchange-plagiarism-previouly-exposed-littradex-behind-it-5219456

Litbinex is new exchange, but behind it is the Littradex exchange that was exposed by @tvplus006 for plagiarizing Binance whitepaper.
Here is Littradex scam accusation topic https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/littradex-exchange-plagiarized-whitepaper-5184130

Litbinex took over Littradex social media channels, and they are listing their LTB tokens on bunch of shady exchanges like Coinsbit and P2PB2B.
member
Activity: 234
Merit: 36
Let the bad times roll
Requesting flag support here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1223
Active accusation: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-project-isikcio-isiklar-coinscam-5216622

I don't exactly know if my accusations are appropriate, as I can't see any flag support in my favour. I just want to make sure whether I did anything wrong or is it worth for the cleanliness (anti-scam movement) of the forum.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1260

Because of the transgressions and refusal to admit wrong and stop (he has yet to stop). I'd also recommend:
Quote
~Agrawas
Apparently the user has included andulolika (in my opinion!) solely because he received a positive rating off of him. However, I have notified the user and am waiting for feedback on why they have done this. Maybe I am wrong.
legendary
Activity: 3248
Merit: 3098

Thanks for supporting the flag, hopefully another person chips and and maybe then they will decide to pay me out.
But it seems like without any detriment to them they seem fine just launching ad hominem attacks and resolving nothing.

I supported This flag after reading all about this case. The flag is now active.
Idk if they want to pay you because of the flag, but this is not the proper way to do any business.
member
Activity: 186
Merit: 15
No banking,Only Bitcoin!

Thanks for supporting the flag, hopefully another person chips and and maybe then they will decide to pay me out.
But it seems like without any detriment to them they seem fine just launching ad hominem attacks and resolving nothing.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
member
Activity: 186
Merit: 15
No banking,Only Bitcoin!
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 5937
Please support flag against @BTClover999, OP of Affiliater, scammy project  with plagiarized whitepaper that has ICO going on at the moment.

Flag type 1   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1250
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 2218
💲🏎️💨🚓
What is the forum’s policy on accounts created for the purpose of supporting/opposing flags?

That's where the team of investigators of the Known Alts thread(s) work to expose such shill/sock puppets to identify and tag the alts.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
I will tag them, with reference to this post.  Should I flag them?  Should they be reported to moderators?  What is the forum’s policy on accounts created for the purpose of supporting/opposing flags?
I don't think there is a forum policy for this. My personal policy is they're not important enough to care.
As long as invalid Flags are inactive, the system works just fine Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 1288
Merit: 415
True but as usual someone will spot it and will bring it to our attention.

If this happens on larger scale later in the future, I don't think it would be notified or handled always. Even opposing that number of abusive flags is not always handy. Only theymos could handle this at light speed and he should now.

Btw, the thread title changing trick make it more confusing, please stop.
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 3878
Visit: r7promotions.com
For voting - maybe. For creating a flag - no. Scammed newbies need to be able to create flags. It would be nice to have a limit on how many flags they can create
When you (In this case it seems that the person is me) are drinking on a lazy day in the local pub and if you already have drunk a lot then slip of tongue (better to say fingers on the keys) like this (restricting to create flags) is acceptable. What I mean by this is that you have a valid point here and I have edited my last post after seeing your response :-)


Quote
but on the other hand Bitcoin SV and other "advanced" sockpuppets are able to farm merits fairly easily so that wouldn't be much of an impediment for them anyway.
True but as usual someone will spot it and will bring it to our attention.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
I too have not much strong opinion but if I someone asks me while I am drinking in the pub on a nice evening with an intend to start a conversation with me then I would say, yeah put some restrictions (possibly allow a minimum rank) for users before they are able to create flags and also to vote. This will eliminate the brand new fake accounts to abuse with false support or oppose in a flag.

For voting - maybe. For creating a flag - no. Scammed newbies need to be able to create flags. It would be nice to have a limit on how many flags they can create but on the other hand Bitcoin SV and other "advanced" sockpuppets are able to farm merits fairly easily so that wouldn't be much of an impediment for them anyway.
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 3878
Visit: r7promotions.com
Note the word “attempted” in the subject.  
Noted. It's a great idea to edit the response title that suits the needs.

Quote
I know full well that it carries no weight
I too was wondering how it's not known by a user like you (seems to have good grasp than most of the members in the forum). Good thing is that I was not wrong.

Quote
but it’s obscenely abusive.  I am not “fine with it”.  It is a Sibyl attack, and it is spam of the trust system.
Absolutely and this is not the only user in the system. We have game-protect and many other users who do constant abuse of trust feedback system. And you already realized that I too is not fine with it.

Quote
The theoretical futility of the act does not alter this.
Fact.

Quote
the retaliatory flags against PrimeNumber7 and now Lauda (!) are just plain stupid
Yes and it seems the flags created by the user The-Devil are very wrong after all and according to your language, "I am not fine with it" in other words, I oppose the flags created against the users PrimeNumber7 and Lauda.

Quote
I think it really boils down to the question of whether the forum’s administration wants to let such useless Sibyls lie dormant indefinitely, or clean them up as the trash they are.  As a practical matter, I don’t have a strong opinion on which way they should handle this; but the question is worth broaching.
I too have not much strong opinion but if I someone asks me while I am drinking in the pub on a nice evening with an intend to start a conversation with me then I would say, yeah put some restrictions (possibly allow a minimum rank) for users before they are able to create flags and also to vote. This will eliminate the brand new fake accounts to abuse with false support or oppose in a flag.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
I wouldn't try to vote on all possible Flags. There's far too many of them, and ideally many different users should all check a few Flags once in a while to make voting more distributed.

I would like to have a one-click "advanced" option to oppose obviously frivolous flags, like the ones create by korner sockpuppets. It doesn't have to be all flags by a certain user but at least an option to select multiple ones easily and and then oppose all selected. The troll flags are basically DOSing the trust system since the effort to create them is so much lower than the combined effort of multiple users trying to oppose them.
copper member
Activity: 630
Merit: 2610
If you don’t do PGP, you don’t do crypto!
Supporting or opposing a flag from a non-DT account does not carry much weight. So we all should be fine with it.

Note the word “attempted” in the subject.  I know full well that it carries no weight, but it’s obscenely abusive.  I am not “fine with it”.  It is a Sibyl attack, and it is spam of the trust system.  The theoretical futility of the act does not alter this.

Moreover, it did apparently scare the newbie who apparently does not know he’s in no danger.  Please see above.  If you dig way back on my trust page, you will see negative sent feedback explaining that I had previously intended to send it, but I was afraid to when I was a newbie—for exactly this reason.  Against a newbie, false flags or tags are an intimidation tactic (though the retaliatory flags against PrimeNumber7 and now Lauda (!) are just plain stupid).

I think it really boils down to the question of whether the forum’s administration wants to let such useless Sibyls lie dormant indefinitely, or clean them up as the trash they are.  As a practical matter, I don’t have a strong opinion on which way they should handle this; but the question is worth broaching.

I will be opposing this flag too.

Good idea:  You’re not “fine with it”.
Pages:
Jump to: