Update (I will try read it thoroughly and edit OP later)
Some changes:
- If the number of pre-flags-system negative trust ratings is greater than the number of all positive trust ratings, a warning banner is shown for guests & low-login-time newbies.
- I added "These warning banners will disappear when you have 7 days of login time. You should familiarize yourself with the trust system before then." to the newbie warning banner. Note BTW that it usually takes months for someone to get 7 days of login time: among all 4096 users with 6.5 to 7.5 days login time, the account age (lastLogin-dateRegistered) is: maximum 3216 days, minimum 7.5, median 677, average 936.
- The pages you see after clicking "next" are now bigger.
Some people are acting as though these changes are "letting scammers off the hook", but I don't really think so. Let's assume for a moment that flag types 2 & 3 are too restrictive and will therefore never be used. Even then, you can still give scammers negative feedback, which will display next to their posts in orange, and the threshold for giving negative feedback has been loosened. You can also give newbie-warning flags very easily, and the warning which this creates is shown to more people than any previous warning.
The only thing that scammers got is that they don't have red trust scores or a "trade with extreme caution" warning. But when you consider the measures in the previous paragraph, who is actually going to be scammed due to the absence of this? I think few if any. IMO the main point of these things was to punish/deter scamming, which is what was causing a lot of drama. And by making the threshold for
this specific thing higher, it became reasonable to lower the threshold and widen the effect for the other warnings.
I think that scamming will be net-reduced due to these changes.
This system actually incentivizes one-account-one-scam
If someone creates a newbie account and tries to scam with it, they have roughly the same ability as before. The only thing they might be missing is a tiny piece of screen real estate shown only to logged-in users with a trust score and "Trade with extreme caution!" The more effective warnings are the banners, which have been
expanded.
If someone does a long con, they have more to lose, since the scam flags create a banner for all users, and it's more exclusive and therefore meaningful. This can give you a bit more confidence in veteran members.
So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?
Newbie-warning flag.
Is a non-victim creating an otherwise factual flag also considered to be abusing the system?
Is someone who supports a factual flag that was created by a non-victim also considered to be abusing the system?
And is someone who opposes a valid flag also considered to be abusing the system?
That's all misuse of the system.
If you have not been scammed by him, then you should not create a scam flag. A newbie-warning flag and/or trust rating would be OK.
On agreement types:
A written contract is a piece of text taking the rough form of "I will do this, and then you will do this in return," where both sides clearly agreed to it. It needn't be super formal, but there definitely shouldn't be any case of someone
not realizing that they were agreeing to something. "I'll send you 1 BTC for the coin" -> "OK" is enough of a written contract.
Exactly what falls into an "implied agreement" may be somewhat grey-area, and certain very obvious torts may also count. Let's see how the culture around this develops.
I wish the "#" would be more prominent though, and the less-than-3-supporters contract violation flags had some sort of indicator too. Not red and scary, just more visible.
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.)
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.
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.
Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe:
- Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
- Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.
Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.
The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.
