Topic: Trust flags - page 14. (Read 12939 times)

Okay, on first view, I applaud the initiative. Ideally, the warning should be index by Google et al.

Please let me know if there's something I'm missing via reply to this post or PM, reserving the right to reassess my position.

I still don't understand this system. Example:



As I can see flag is not created but warning is visible to guests but not to forum users. (On the other hand, if "+ number" is higher than "- number" there is no warning)

Account is tagged by bustabit's owner for "violating the terms of bustabit's open source license", obviously not forgiven, but no one can create flag type 2/3 except owner of site.

Is this how system should work?

Red trust has been given for different purposes. You need to read the details why the red trust is given and then you will know if doing a transaction with a particular user is safe or not.

It takes 1 minute only. To check the profile. I opened a new thread about this.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51442422

I see that most members are terrified and suggest that the new system is not a good thing.

With merits, many said exactly the same thing at the very beginning, and now they praise how well it influenced the forum, spam, quality of posts, users themselves, etc.

I am the best example of such a merit hater, who changed his mind over time.

There is no chance of introducing a solution that would be completely trouble-free, especially based on the old, not so well functioning trust system.

I think that Theymos read most of the threads in recent months about the trust system, heard suggestions and took them into account.

Of course, we have to discuss all changes especially if they happen unexpectedly and I see already very wise suggestions, but let's give time to show how much this new system is worth in action.

Let's not be bathed in hot water. Deep breath and be calm.

P.S
Please let community discuss introduced changes to the trust system in this thread and stop personal wars. There are hundreds of existing threads where you can do this.
Please respect each other. 13 pages of the thread and only 4 or 5 is about the trust system, rest are personal fights (somehow related to the subject but pretty bothersome).

You should be doing this anyway.

We're use to seeing RED warning below the user profile in threads where they participated. Now we have to look into their trust to check if a user has the credibility before making transaction.

So you are admitting you can not present anything. Look at the state of these latest lauda feltchers. We miss suchslob at least she put up a reasonable fight before being crushed and destroyed in public.

These new goons have nothing? they just refuse to even put up a fight they just roll over and start out with other accusations that will fold under scrutiny.

The important thing with the new system is the enforcement. Come on theymos lets start off as we mean to go on.

Are you going to black list these 4 morons or is a type 1 flag going to be the Lemons flag now?

Should have blacklisted lauda the moment he said fuck off to the new rules and trust abused the new flags. All this work and it will all go down the lemons rabbit hole if it is not enforced.

Give us the blacklisting button if you will not use it. We will be using it immediately on lauda and these 3 other abusers. What is their excuse now? how many lives does this cat have?

Dude, believe me, for you it's very important to be calm. Because people with schizophrenia can sometimes act on suicidal thoughts impulsively. I'm very worried about you.

FAIL FAIL FAIL  - black list this piece of shit and the other 3 idiots please.

Now dummy try and listen and understand YOU are responsible for your support of that flag not the other members of DT YOU.

I repeat (and don't try to hide behind other DT members previous abuse...)

now find the instance of us scamming people out of money, trying to scam people out of money or being remotely related to dealing with another members funds in anyway

I will keep pushing for your blacklisting if you do not present even 1 instance of what I am requesting you present right now. The others will come after you now.  Cabalism13 that self confessed troll is going to be asked to present next.

Watch this fool vanish.

Yes all DT members that left that feedbacks are bunch of scammers. Sure... Listen, why don't you visit a doctor and tell him that seeing this page makes you nervous https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2580400  

Schizophrenia causes many symptoms, including:

Delusions (believing things that aren’t true)

Hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that aren’t there)

 

Yes now find the instance of us scamming people out of money, trying to scam people out of money or being remotely related to dealing with another members funds in anyway you fucking moronic feltching puppet.

That page of ABUSE is why we needed to change from that old system to this one.

I already challenged you today to present ANY instance of scamming people out of money that will stand up to scrutiny. Where is it?

PRESENT IT NOW.  That is a page of lies and bullshit from a bunch of scammers and their supporters like you.

Watch this idiot FAIL to present anything to do with scamming people out of money ever. LOL

Can we blacklist this goon already?

I am not sure it is accurate to say those statements are reasonably believed.

Perhaps Vod (who does not like OgNasty) could create a thread explaining that he believes OgNasty was overcharging for holding forum money (while ignoring the fact the amounts charged was agreed to by both parties) and open a Type 1 flag. Being that other people also do not like OgNasty on DT, they will support said flag, while not actually believing the above criteria, or at least not reasonably so.

Here is a good example of this in action, although the fact set is different.

Instance ? Wait.. Uh... Whaaat ? Whaaat ? Is this your feedback page ? Jesus.. This must me a mistake...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2580400

Why would anyone listen to someone that is already abusing the trust system?  can you present the instance where you see us scamming people out of money exactly or been remotely connected in anyway to dealing with other peoples money ever?

The orange means caution. That is because it is supposed to signify caution. Do you get it now. RED is for proven scammers really like your master lauda.

Can we get this idiot blacklisted if he can not present ANY instances of even dealing with another persons money here by us? same for the other 3 scum bags on that fake trust flag just because I have been destroying their arguments all day.

The same 4 persons I have spent most time arguing with out of a board of millions are the only 4 so far to have trust abused our account.

The system is not bad. Let us wait for a month or so, and we will see the actual results of this new implementation. I guess people are more concerned about the color of a negative trust score   Just change it to red and everyone will be satisfied. I never saw a danger warning sign in orange color. Why are they orange Theymos ? Is it your favorite color ?

This leaves type 1 flags kind of open to the abuse the old system was open to? we have a type 1 flag don't we? or what kind of flag is it? we have not scammed any person, we have not tried to scam anyone and actually we don't deal in anything to do with peoples money or in anything where we could scam someone out of money?

We are still pleased this is a great step forward for free speech here anyway for old members, but if you can get a type 1 flag and no person can even produce some scenario where you could have taken some persons money in a scam, it seems strange to still have a warning saying this person is high risk of taking your money?

Anyway fine we are not going to start bitching too much since it is such an excellent move in the correct direction. Although people should not really face this kind of flag if they never attempted to trade, scam, or deal in scenarios where other peoples money was even involved. You know they are going to use this to still encroach on free speech to a degree. You present evidence they are a scammers boom type 1 flag you are now high risk with peoples money. It is a far lesser punishment on whistle blowers who don't require sigs, but if "the gangs  friends who are campaign managers still use the ANY FLAG will make you ineligible for a sig" then it will still encroach on free speech to some degree or almost the same degree for those that really want to have sig.

Better to keep flags for proven scammers or STRONG case or atleast SOME case they have scammed people or going to. Not let flags become another eating lemons makes you HIGH RISK /scammer. Especially when the people placing the tags are the same 4 people you have been arguing with the most on the same day they leave the flag. Seems bogus.

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.

When can we expect them to be blacklisted ? people abusing flags are to be blacklisted right ? let's get on with blacklisting ... what's the hold up. Boom get them off. Let show the abusers we mean business here. You will abide by the rules or you will get blacklisted. Simple.

The supporters are misusing the system....

The flag says:
The above statement is in no way true. I have continued trading after the incident in question with a small number of people, have had zero trade complaints, nor credible accusations of scamming by my trading partners or otherwise. For example:
^received payment in advance
Some others who did not leave trust feedback.