Opposed both of them and thanks to everyone who opposed them too.
You have 10 unsupported Flags already!Just a thought: shouldn't Flags with Insufficient support have a more neutral color than the "normal" Flag colors?
Topic: Request Support (or Opposition) for Flags here! - page 15. (Read 50299 times)
Just a thought: shouldn't Flags with Insufficient support have a more neutral color than the "normal" Flag colors?
Please oppose this frivolous "written contract" flag raised against mosprognoz by the Bitcoin SV troll:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1085
Edit - another one against Lauda:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1086
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1085
Edit - another one against Lauda:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1086
Opposed both of them and thanks to everyone who opposed them too.
^^^
Thanks for the excellent summary; opposed the ones I hadn't gotten around to yet.
Thanks for the excellent summary; opposed the ones I hadn't gotten around to yet.
Please oppose this frivolous "written contract" flag raised against mosprognoz by the Bitcoin SV troll:
He's been busy: he raised all 3 possible Flags against 3 users:I know this isn't the right thread for this subject
Then please open a new topic 
Please support this flags against mosprognoz and lauda
You're free to ask for Flag Support here, but you kinda lost credibility when you created all Flags the system allowed you to create. 
Please support this flags against mosprognoz and lauda
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1085;support
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1086;support
Thanks for all supporters
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1085;support
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1086;support
Thanks for all supporters
Please oppose this frivolous "written contract" flag raised against mosprognoz by the Bitcoin SV troll:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1085
Edit - another one against Lauda:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1086
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1085
Edit - another one against Lauda:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1086
This korner guy has his banned hand in a lot of pies. I know this isn't the right thread for this subject, but we need to see what we can do to get his flood of new alts banned for ban evasion (the ones impersonating people commenting in the SV thread -- you have one now too, named "suchpool"). Banning the Bitcoin SV account would also be nice.
Please oppose this frivolous "written contract" flag raised against mosprognoz by the Bitcoin SV troll:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1085
Edit - another one against Lauda:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1086
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1085
Edit - another one against Lauda:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1086
I'm going to plant my previous Flags here if that's OK?
Of course 
See Personal Trust Flag viewer for Timelord2067 for all of them.*Sweet* Thanks for the list! (am redoing my signature)
I'm going to plant my previous Flags here if that's OK?
Of course See Personal Trust Flag viewer for Timelord2067 for all of them. Please take a look at this flag and tell me whether or not you believe it is correct:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1002
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1002
Opposed and tagged the creator.
(Now I'm only one flag behind Veleor for Most Inactive Flags.)
Unfortunately I am the record holder of bitcointalk in most inactive flags.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1094569;page=iflags
Please take a look at this flag and tell me whether or not you believe it is correct:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1002
(Now I'm only one flag behind Veleor for Most Inactive Flags.)
BTW, our perfect-trading quant shop / hedge fund boy wonder is costing his "customers" (not sure if he actually has any) more money than they are making after his advertised fees.
OP still never admitted to lying about having a bankroll of 800 BTC, but that's for another flag, this one, to be exact:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=752
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1002
(Now I'm only one flag behind Veleor for Most Inactive Flags.)
BTW, our perfect-trading quant shop / hedge fund boy wonder is costing his "customers" (not sure if he actually has any) more money than they are making after his advertised fees.
OP still never admitted to lying about having a bankroll of 800 BTC, but that's for another flag, this one, to be exact:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=752
PayPal scammer with locked thread, please support/oppose red flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=938
Here is the scam accusation: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/paides1995-is-a-big-scammer-be-aware-and-avoid-his-services-5197475
Evidence is quite reasonable to me.
Here is the scam accusation: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/paides1995-is-a-big-scammer-be-aware-and-avoid-his-services-5197475
Evidence is quite reasonable to me.
Hi, i am asking support for this flag https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=976
TradePlus used stock photos for their team members. Their explanation of the issue is interesting, despite using those photos on their website and in the whitepaper.
TradePlus used stock photos for their team members. Their explanation of the issue is interesting, despite using those photos on their website and in the whitepaper.
photos had to be taken from free stock photos, stock photography uses the same models we never said ever this our team phots buddy get your facts right
You have a point but in your opinion what is the best or most appropriate manner to handle the issue?
What if the flag reference is the thread OP and both the flag and thread were created by the same person?
Flags are an important part of the forum set up but scammers can and definitely have abused it.
What if the flag reference is the thread OP and both the flag and thread were created by the same person?
Flags are an important part of the forum set up but scammers can and definitely have abused it.
Legit flag creators should do the same thing we used to do with red trust references before flags came along - archive all valuable evidence.
Flag abusers will get their flags opposed anyway so there is no big difference if their references are valid or not. I wouldn't go overboard with any special rules on this. The flag system is convoluted enough.
My post was alluding more so towards Flag abusers. I guess you are right, if they abuse the system with Flags they will get opposed but it still does not stop it being a nuisance.
Maybe trying to modify the Flag system at this time is not ideal but some of those factors that were taken in to consideration at time of its release might be considered if it is overhauled in future.
I don't think anyone is missing those reference threads started by korner, but why did they all get deleted? Was it due to being banned? I thought that only happened if the account was nuked, but he still has many posts.
Some threads were created by alts that got nuked, some were just zero-value garbage. I think I reported the last one that was on the Off Topic board and it said "flag 123". Literally that's all it had in it - the number of the flag.
You have a point but in your opinion what is the best or most appropriate manner to handle the issue?
What if the flag reference is the thread OP and both the flag and thread were created by the same person?
Flags are an important part of the forum set up but scammers can and definitely have abused it.
What if the flag reference is the thread OP and both the flag and thread were created by the same person?
Flags are an important part of the forum set up but scammers can and definitely have abused it.
Legit flag creators should do the same thing we used to do with red trust references before flags came along - archive all valuable evidence.
Flag abusers will get their flags opposed anyway so there is no big difference if their references are valid or not. I wouldn't go overboard with any special rules on this. The flag system is convoluted enough.
Surely if a flag exists for a thread that no longer exists it means the alleged evidence the flag was created on is not available therefore the flag should not exist either.
I wonder what the community consensus is on this.
I wonder what the community consensus is on this.
I dislike the whole idea of forcing a reference to point to a thread (can't point to a specific post or to an archive) and requiring it to not be self-modded etc but then it still allows the thread to be deleted, locked, or the contents to be completely replaced etc. If anything it should require an immutable archive link, or better yet - don't impose any specific requirements that can't be enforced anyway.
But as it stands now, we shouldn't invalidate flags if the reference is removed. A scammer might trick moderators into deleting a thread and apparently moderators can't or won't check if it's used for a flag.
You have a point but in your opinion what is the best or most appropriate manner to handle the issue?
What if the flag reference is the thread OP and both the flag and thread were created by the same person?
Flags are an important part of the forum set up but scammers can and definitely have abused it.
But as it stands now, we shouldn't invalidate flags if the reference is removed. A scammer might trick moderators into deleting a thread and apparently moderators can't or won't check if it's used for a flag.
I don't like the idea of a flag that doesn't have a reference thread, maybe theymos can implement a little indicator near the "delete" button that informs moderators if the thread has been used as reference for a flag. That would at least warn a moderator if the person reporting the thread is the subject of the flag, there may be an effort to manipulate the system.
I don't think anyone is missing those reference threads started by korner, but why did they all get deleted? Was it due to being banned? I thought that only happened if the account was nuked, but he still has many posts.
Surely if a flag exists for a thread that no longer exists it means the alleged evidence the flag was created on is not available therefore the flag should not exist either.
I wonder what the community consensus is on this.
I wonder what the community consensus is on this.
I dislike the whole idea of forcing a reference to point to a thread (can't point to a specific post or to an archive) and requiring it to not be self-modded etc but then it still allows the thread to be deleted, locked, or the contents to be completely replaced etc. If anything it should require an immutable archive link, or better yet - don't impose any specific requirements that can't be enforced anyway.
But as it stands now, we shouldn't invalidate flags if the reference is removed. A scammer might trick moderators into deleting a thread and apparently moderators can't or won't check if it's used for a flag.
Now we're on the subject: there are a few Active Flags (some with many supporters), while the Reference topic has been removed. See http://loyce.club/trust/flags/personal/ReferenceTopicDoesNotExist.html for the list.
That's the mod's problem. Why are they removing topics that are flagged ? Any solution ?The thread mentioned in the Flag seems to have been removed: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5200699
That instantly invalidates the Flag.See http://loyce.club/archive/topics/520/5200699.html to see what the topic was all about.
Those types of flags should be removed, I hope theymos is taking a look at this otherwise anybody can create a flag then delete the thread associated with it.
So far, only 5 Flags have been removed. I don't think theymos wants to spend too much time on it, it's up to the community to Oppose invalid Flags.Is it possible to delete a thread created by yourself ? I was thinking only mods have that option.
Users can only move their thread to Archival. Mods can move it to "the trashcan". But a user can just create a worthless thread, use it as Reference, and then wait for a Mod to clean up his thread.Or a user could simply be Nuked, that removes all topics opened by said user.
Surely if a flag exists for a thread that no longer exists it means the alleged evidence the flag was created on is not available therefore the flag should not exist either.
I wonder what the community consensus is on this.
I don't think this community will ever reach consensus on anything I wonder what the community consensus is on this.
My opinion: if an Active Flag doesn't have a valid Reference topic anymore, someone should create one, create a new Flag, and the current Flag supporters should stop supporting the old Flag and start supporting the new Flag.
I think that's the proper way to use the Flag system, but it's a lot of work.
Jump to: