Topic: Trust flags - page 11. (Read 12939 times)

No, sorry. I only add things that I can automate to the list.

Could you sort out all flags into categories, such as casinos? I have a topic, Trust/ Flag of casino/dice sites' owners, so it might be more convenient if the Flag List can have some categories. I know that I have to do it myself for my topic, by screening your Flag List. I just worry that I might miss some casinos that I don't know. Anyway, I am so thankful to have access to your Flag List, for free.

I've updated my Trust Flag viewer, see http://loyce.club/trust/flags/13.html

I've seen requests for some statistics, and with the color coding it's easy to count:
Active flags
The large majority of flags are either type 1 (yellow) or inactive.
There are only 15 Active red flags. 2 of those involve ky94PjDw. I'm not entirely sure what the story is, but it seems to be a Flag testing account.
That leaves just 13 red flags: type 2 (1x) and type 3 (12x). Out of 12 type 3 flags, 4 were flagged by me, and they're alt-accounts.

Insufficient support
9 type 3 flags have insufficient support. I didn't count type 1, and type 2 has no unsupported flags.

I expect the number of type 2 or 3 flags to rise once new scams are reported, and the victim can be pointed in the right direction to create a flag.

Buddy, if we are talking about what is fair, you would have been red long ago. I can't even remember how many second chances you have got and here you are crying about things not being strict enough. Maybe count your blessings instead of training to be the next internet police. Let the campaign managers worry about it.

Well that demonstrates you are unable to comprehend what this thread undeniably demonstrates

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-most-important-thread-you-can-contribute-to-this-yearno-kidding-5088852

Why should ANYONE that is not CLEARLY demonstrated to have scammed someone out of money or attempted to scam someone out of money be given a RED DANGER and message saying they are a CLEAR DANGER TO MEMBERS FINANCIALLY. Makes zero sense for someone that tried to warn the board about a DT members past scamming be given a tag that says they are a financial danger? how would that be fair? or useful? it would be confusing and would facilitate scamming.

The clear point is you can not allow SUBJECTIVE and GAMED metrics to be a base for anything. They are not reliable metrics and merit is pretty much MEANINGLESS as suchmoon correctly recognized after cryptohunter helped her gain some clarity on the entire subject.

This seems like a concern of people that want UNFAIR advantage for sig campaigns themselves.

If the campaign manager can NOT demonstrate the person does NOT meet the transparent threshold for post quality and can NOT demonstrate he is a scammer then they should be allowed on to the sig campaign on a first come first served basis. This is the only fair way UNLESS he wants to go to a LOT more trouble himself IE to garner a lot of interest and then demonstrate clearly he is selecting the best posters that are NOT scammers.  This will NOT be within the capacity of the low functioning campaign managers we currently have here. You will then need the smartest people on the board (not ex bin men)  that are capable of clearly demonstrating WHY certain members posts are more VALUABLE than others. That is not a task for 99.9% of meta posters.

I mean really perhaps you should stipulate that only the MOST technically proficient members that are ABLE to digest complex designs on white papers to see if the design is plausible and valuable should be campaign managers for NEW alt projects.  Therefore ensuring we don't get a ton of HUGE ICOS sucking peoples bitcoins away for vaporware and projects that would require multiple nobel prizes to reach early milestones.

The real problem here is that most people are quite low functioning and would have no chance of really isolating the most valuable posters, this is clear from the merit system where most merit is allocated on political grounds on a tiny sub board and given out by tiny tiny tiny fraction of members that are the primary receivers . So if you get average joe's as campaign managers then they need to set a threshold they can comprehend and say if the members posts meet this and have no scammed people for money or tried to then they get accepted first come first served.

It will be our latest goal here to ensure the insider gangs gaming of the top sig spots comes to an end.


@ xtraelv

I guess you mean lose funds? even then intent would surely be the key factor here to a scam tag. Bankrupt is going to be hard to prove it was a scam in most cases I would guess. Gross negligence is it scamming? some may say it could get a higher flag than a lemons flag.
Some people you are just going to have to warn people on thread also. For instance cryptopia ? what would most say about this? scam? negligence? I guess until the entire debacle is done we won't know. Looks like an exit scam but impossible to say for sure.

Also how does this flag system apply to e.g. the CEO or founder of an LLC  that goes bankrupt or causes some users to loose funds ?

They don't have a contract with any of the users. The contract is between the user and the LLC.

So either no flag or a newbie flag is used ?

If you want I created a topic earlier along these same lines, Campaign Managers - Ineligible users based on Feedback and Flags. I've been curious to see how the new systems would work in these cases. I still think negative feedback has the same effect of tainting an accounts visibility. I do think the color should have remained red.

Flag system is more fair  than the old system where people abused it with no 3rd party verification or appeals.

At least with the Flag system, their is an option to oppose a flag to make it inactive.
Nothing like that existed on the old system.

So unless you get a flag, no amount of negative trust you get will make your trust turn to negative/red? right. That doesnt seem right to me. Because this opens the door for merit abusers to abuse merit, get tagged negative, and still be get put into signature campaigns because there trust isnt red. Unless signature campaigns specify no negative feedback. Eh. answered my own question

but.

I don't think its "fair" that you have to get a flag in order for your account to be marked red.

  ,  old news

The before red trust queen and her cohorts , did falsely accuse me , only ~10 days before their reign of terror ended,
No hard feelings on my side.  

---

Thanks ,
I'll make a mental note of just minion.  

suchmoon is not Lauda.

Congrats dude.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2522969

@suchmoon
One question,
are you Lauda or just a minion?

Just Curious.  

At least the new system does not show max negative trust -9999. It is good.

If I had to guess, that was probably the purpose of the post.

One of the best endorsements for the system so far.

Trust system don’t need you.

Not a fan of this system.

poncho, if you're reading this, please reach out to me. no matter when you see this message. you know how.

Unless you can prove the user in question contractually violated you, all you can leave is the newbie warning flag (type 1).

I don't think that would be accepted as evidence they lost money would it?

We need to keep quite strict about this kind of thing else we will end up with the same bunch of trust abusers using all kinds of mental gymnastics and new accounts to create flags for lemons and imaginary losses they didn't have to suffer themselves or didn't really happen at all.

You would surely need to provide some evidence that exists on this board that you were a victim of a SCAM.

We have a nice shiny flag (started by a proven scammer lauda and supported by his usual gang of asskissing wretches and a retarded mental case timelord ) using some mental gymnastics to say we are HIGHLY DANGEROUS TO PEOPLE MONEY HERE AND WE CANT WAIT TO SCAM THEM OUT OF ALL THEIR BITCOINS  when we have never dealt or mentioned or traded for goods or money here ever.

We don't mind the immediate and observable clear abuse of the LEMONS FLAG which we are pleased has limited damage to a NON SCAMMING account for daring to mention the the truth here, but to allow such flagrant and obvious abuse of stronger flags is something WE HOPE the bullies will not stop THEYMOS acting on and blacklisting these pieces of untrustworthy scum.