Trust flags - page 10. | Bitcointalksearch.org

bob123

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 2481

So, SaltySpitoon..

you left a negative trust rating to "pikacha15" for "attempting to sell fake items".

Selling fake items is not illegal. And you did financial damage to him by interfering into his business.

Based on your logic, you are a scammer and should deserve a flag.

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on June 26, 2019, 05:25:40 PM

Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam

SaltySpitoon

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 2154

Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?

Quote from: mindrust on June 26, 2019, 05:11:58 PM

Except what Bob did wasn't scamming. It was just unethical.

Doing unethical stuff doesn't need to be flagged.

Account selling isn't against the forum rules but it is discouraged. If it is discouraged, you can fight them in unethical ways.

If bob hadn't revealed his identity, we wouldn't even be discussing this. You would be desperately tagging a newb account now.

Nobody would care and everybody except the hacker would be happy.

We are at a very different place fundamentally. Doing unethical stuff means getting tagged. What Bob did was unethical but it directly and intentionally caused SeW financial damage. Deception was used to financially harm another person, how is that not a scam?

I am strongly disagreeing with the ends justify the means mentality. If you rob a drug dealer, you still get arrested for stealing. Certain actions have lines drawn in the sand, if we start making exceptions, rule of law goes away. If someone can get away with scamming someone because they are doing something you don't like, what prevents me from justifying scamming you for something I don't like? Scamming is scamming plain and simple, there is no hearsay and no party is in disagreement of the events that happened, just their interpretation of them.

Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1826

Quote from: mindrust on June 26, 2019, 05:11:58 PM

Account selling isn't against the forum rules but it is discouraged. If it is discouraged, you can fight them in unethical ways.

I'm not even sure why the "account selling isn't against forum rules." is even brought up. Technically, most scamming isn't against the forum rules. You can get a loan for 1 BTC, with the intention of never paying it back, and your account will not even be temporarily banned. You can keep posting away. The only scamming that is against forum rules is to provide links to phishing or malware, which will get your account nuked, ASAP.

bob123

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 2481

Quote from: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 04:20:08 PM

I believe the elements of a contract were met, including acceptance of said contract [...] and there was clearly financial damages. This meets the criteria for supporting the flag.

No, it doesn't.

The financial damage has to occur because of breaking an agreement.

This is clearly not the case.

What is the agreement in your eyes? Please enlighten me.

Additionally, sharing publicly available information (usernames) is no financial damage. And that's all i did.

mindrust

legendary

Activity: 3234

Merit: 2420

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on June 26, 2019, 05:00:52 PM

Quote from: mindrust on June 26, 2019, 03:51:43 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 11:47:23 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

While I agree with you, what bob did was unethical but since his actions revealed a scammer who was trying to sell an account which he didn't originally own or paid for, it doesn't matter how and why Bob shared these information with us.

He (SeW900) was selling a hacked account (zackie) which overrides Bob's unethical actions. I am not sure if he deserves a flag even if the account wasn't hacked, I would just ignore the flag probably but not now. Nack.

You know what I think now?

I think zackie should create a flag for SeW900 for hacking and selling his account.

SeW900 deserves a red flag all around his forehead. I guess I'll just PM him.

While I wholeheartedly support an investigation on SeW900 and the hacked account matter, they are two unrelated instances. You don't get free license to damage others because they committed some other offense. The account being hacked wasn't brought up until 2 days after the fact, it did not have any bearing on Bob's initial actions which I'm calling scamming.

Its a really bad road to travel if we start justifying people's actions based on perceived problems with the other people. Maybe tomorrow it'll be cool to scam investors in ICOs since they are perpetuating what some perceive as dishonest investments. Maybe we can all decide its ok to rip off Bitcoin Cash users because we don't support their fork.

Except what Bob did wasn't scamming. It was just unethical.

Doing unethical stuff doesn't need to be flagged.

Account selling isn't against the forum rules but it is discouraged. If it is discouraged, you can fight them in unethical ways.

If bob hadn't revealed his identity, we wouldn't even be discussing this. You would be desperately tagging a newb account now.

Nobody would care and everybody except the hacker would be happy.

SaltySpitoon

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 2154

Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?

Quote from: mindrust on June 26, 2019, 03:51:43 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 11:47:23 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

While I agree with you, what bob did was unethical but since his actions revealed a scammer who was trying to sell an account which he didn't originally own or paid for, it doesn't matter how and why Bob shared these information with us.

He (SeW900) was selling a hacked account (zackie) which overrides Bob's unethical actions. I am not sure if he deserves a flag even if the account wasn't hacked, I would just ignore the flag probably but not now. Nack.

You know what I think now?

I think zackie should create a flag for SeW900 for hacking and selling his account.

SeW900 deserves a red flag all around his forehead. I guess I'll just PM him.

While I wholeheartedly support an investigation on SeW900 and the hacked account matter, they are two unrelated instances. You don't get free license to damage others because they committed some other offense. The account being hacked wasn't brought up until 2 days after the fact, it did not have any bearing on Bob's initial actions which I'm calling scamming.

Its a really bad road to travel if we start justifying people's actions based on perceived problems with the other people. Maybe tomorrow it'll be cool to scam investors in ICOs since they are perpetuating what some perceive as dishonest investments. Maybe we can all decide its ok to rip off Bitcoin Cash users because we don't support their fork.

Blacknavy

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1291

[FLAG] Mindrust [DT1] member gave me redtrust without reason

Quote from: Blacknavy on June 26, 2019, 04:15:40 PM

He obsessed with me because we had couple arguments in past.

Here's his slander

I've never encouraged merit farming/trading in my life. I use this forum properly and never cross the general rules.

He became a DT member just a 2-3 weeks ago and appearently he doesn't even know how to use his power.

Quote

Ortada hiçbir kanıt yok çünkü seçime katılan hiçbir üye o bahsettiğin grupta değil.

Quote

There is no evidence because none of the members in the election is in 'that merit trading group'

This was fully what i wrote. I do not know what to say because Mindrust is obviously crossing my words and trying to change the meaning.

I believe that DT members will oppose this. It's not fair someone to crop only one part of my sentences and giving me red trust. I hope someone will fix this.

FLAG #295

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2870

Merit: 2298

Quote from: LoyceV on June 26, 2019, 03:44:45 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 11:47:23 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

I'd like to see theymos' opinion on this flag. It seems to be dividing users:

Quote

292 Insufficient support. SeW900 flagged bob123 (type 2, see why). Supported by SaltySpitoon, Quickseller, SeW900. Opposed by suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, bones261, marlboroza, xtraelv.

I am willing to listen to theymos’ opinion on the matter, however what he says will not be the deciding factor in my opinion on the matter, unless he is able to make an argument that changes my mind (or if someone else does the same).

I believe the elements of a contract were met, including acceptance of said contract. There was clearly deceit based on bon’s own words, and there was clearly financial damages. This meets the criteria for supporting the flag.

Account sales are allowed, and as such there are no public policy exceptions to not enforcing the contract. No portion of the contract forced bob to actually use the account he agreed to buy, so the argument that enforcing the contract would cause bob to do something immoral.

I think this is a pretty clear case that should not be controversial.

mindrust

legendary

Activity: 3234

Merit: 2420

Quote from: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 11:47:23 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

While I agree with you, what bob did was unethical but since his actions revealed a scammer who was trying to sell an account which he didn't originally own or paid for, it doesn't matter how and why Bob shared these information with us.

He (SeW900) was selling a hacked account (zackie) which overrides Bob's unethical actions. I am not sure if he deserves a flag even if the account wasn't hacked, I would just ignore the flag probably but not now. Nack.

You know what I think now?

I think zackie should create a flag for SeW900 for hacking and selling his account.

SeW900 deserves a red flag all around his forehead. I guess I'll just PM him.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 11:47:23 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

I'd like to see theymos' opinion on this flag. It seems to be dividing users:

Quote

292 Insufficient support. SeW900 flagged bob123 (type 2, see why). Supported by SaltySpitoon, Quickseller, SeW900. Opposed by suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, bones261, marlboroza, xtraelv.

bob123

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 2481

Quote from: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 11:47:23 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

Oh quicksy.. how many threads do you want to spam with this?

For once and all, the flag says:

Quote

SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages [...]

I don't want to start arguing whether we had an agreement or not.
I also don't want to start arguing again whether the account seller got damage.

I have answered that in the 2 other threads already.

But.. IF i violated an agreement and IF the account seller got monetary damage because i tagged his accounts as untrustworthy:

The 'damage' has not been done because of violation.

Based on this (which is enough already), and the fact that 'damage' and 'violation of agreement' can't bee seen as such.. the flag absolutely is inappropriate.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3710

Merit: 10196

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 11:47:23 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

Link or it didn't happen.

Tongue

Edit:

Found it through Royse777.... (the above post, of course) Wink

Thanks Royse.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=292

AB de Royse777

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 3878

Visit: r7promotions.com

Quote from: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 11:47:23 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag ~~#293~~ that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

~~What am I missing?~~

~~I see no oppose from any of the above users. In fact except marlboroza who supported, none of the above left any vote for this flag.~~

~image removed~

~~DT view: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=293;dt~~

Edit:
Quote edited: #292

Just received a PM asking that it was wrong flag number and the right one is #292. I have gone through the topic and I see two side.

One side is that bob123 on purpose tried to get the information of the account the seller was selling. Perhaps by proving it, he can tag the seller.
Other side is that, should we allow this kind of tricky business to get information? Seems like we need to trust bob123 to read his mind.

Anyway, I know things can go nasty in this forum when politics involves and I like to keep myself away from all these. I am in a neutral position here.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2870

Merit: 2298

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

malevolent

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 1721

Quote from: coinlocket$ on June 18, 2019, 09:25:30 AM

What about alt abusers? flag type 1 is worthless in my opinion.
Flag 1 is visible only for newbie and guests, I've sent over 1k feedback for alt abusing in the past.
Now if I flag them all, the flag will be visible only for people who don't care about the abusing.
Managers will not see the flag.

What do you mean by alt abusing? People who use more than one account in the same bounty campaign? Just keep a thread in Reputation, like the ones Lauda or DarkStar_ have with lists of sig spammers and other shitposters.

eddie13

legendary

Activity: 2296

Merit: 2262

BTC or BUST

Quote from: coinlocket$ on June 18, 2019, 09:25:30 AM

Now if I flag them all

You cannot flag them all.. It is not technically possible..

Quote from: coinlocket$ on June 18, 2019, 09:25:30 AM

Managers will not see the flag.

I'm pretty sure they will/can if they check trust pages..

marlboroza

legendary

Activity: 1932

Merit: 2270

Quote from: coinlocket$ on June 18, 2019, 09:25:30 AM

What about alt abusers? flag type 1 is worthless in my opinion.
~
Managers will not see the flag.

You can still send them negative feedback(or, neutral) which managers will see and they can click trust to read why someone has -.

It is not that old system completely disappeared, it is still here, with some adjustments.

coinlocket$

legendary

Activity: 2366

Merit: 1512

#1 VIP Crypto Casino

Quote from: malevolent on June 18, 2019, 07:29:16 AM

Ban evaders should be reported for ban evasion, you can use the Newbie-flag to flag an alt account of a scammer.

What about alt abusers? flag type 1 is worthless in my opinion.

Flag 1 is visible only for newbie and guests, I've sent over 1k feedback for alt abusing in the past.

Now if I flag them all, the flag will be visible only for people who don't care about the abusing.

Managers will not see the flag.

malevolent

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 1721

Ban evaders should be reported for ban evasion, you can use the Newbie-flag to flag an alt account of a scammer.

coinlocket$

legendary

Activity: 2366

Merit: 1512

#1 VIP Crypto Casino

Can we add one more flag for ban evaders/ abusers/multiaccount etc? Huh

Topic: Trust flags - page 10. (Read 12746 times)