Any ideas from others how we schould handle that ?
Create a newbie flag (yellow box) and if you're in DT then it will be shown to guests/newbies immediately.
Topic: Trust flags - page 17. (Read 12952 times)
Create a newbie flag (yellow box) and if you're in DT then it will be shown to guests/newbies immediately.
This is a great system for numerous reasons but best of all Lauda got knocked off her/his high horse. Ahahaha
So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?
Were you a victim of this malware? If not, you can't create the flag. You need to get someone who actually got harmed to do it. 
So how should we doing it with som kind of the " Fake Ann creators " that posting links to there Malware Software in there text ?
For sure " Hit the Report to Moderator button " but sometimes it takes a while if they get deleted or the Users nuked.
There was a punch of it the last weekend and last week and i reported them , but in the time of my reports i have done there was some Users that have written in there Anns
and also they was on the way to download from there Links and they just dont do it because i tagged them and posted in there Ann with some message whats about going on !
Should we doing a flag about them too or not ?
And if we doing that it needs 3 others that it will be showing on there profil that there is something wrong with the Account so they see the warning !
The -1 in orange color dosnt help realy in that case in my opinion.
Any ideas from others how we schould handle that ?
For sure " Hit the Report to Moderator button " but sometimes it takes a while if they get deleted or the Users nuked.
There was a punch of it the last weekend and last week and i reported them , but in the time of my reports i have done there was some Users that have written in there Anns
and also they was on the way to download from there Links and they just dont do it because i tagged them and posted in there Ann with some message whats about going on !
Should we doing a flag about them too or not ?
And if we doing that it needs 3 others that it will be showing on there profil that there is something wrong with the Account so they see the warning !
The -1 in orange color dosnt help realy in that case in my opinion.
Any ideas from others how we schould handle that ?
If a person posts their scam solicitation post in a thread they did not start, and all they have is a newbie warning flag, all anybody will see is a # sign and perhaps an indication that a negative comments was made. This is like having a toy poodle act as a guard dog.
Yes that's for a flag, so this is another non issue people are trying to dream up to prevent a fair and transparent system being introduced.
Won't wash.
Wrong, only a scammer flag will have that warning. A newbie warning flag will not. By the way OAA, there you go again supporting an argument and not having your facts straight. I'm not "dreaming this up." I presented the facts and then made my analogy/opinion...
A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it. It shows a banner on topics started by the flagged user for guests and for users with less than 7 days of login time. For all users, a "#" is shown next to their trust scores.
For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created. This is the only thing which causes the "Warning: trade with extreme caution" warning to return. It also triggers a banner similar to the newbie-warning banner which is visible to all users. A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.
Have another try fool.
Now you are a celebrity. The screenshots from your profile are posted in the warning thread for beginners.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51442422
Quote
Lauda alleges: Bitcoin SV violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. Bitcoin SV did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around May 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.
Support: Foxpup, Lauda, TheNewAnon135246, redsn0w, mocacinno, yogg, mindrust, Hhampuz, iasenko, bitcoinPsycho, mosprognoz, Iamtutut
Opposition: Quickseller, hv_, HardFireMiner, sirsplashalot, williamuk, Olga Buzova, Bitcoin SV, reckon, Sorbent, Alex LZ Saver, exp0it, Bitcoin Cash, binance.com, Alfabank
Good system theymos. Look at the opposing accounts individually, especially "binance.com" and "Alfabank". Support: Foxpup, Lauda, TheNewAnon135246, redsn0w, mocacinno, yogg, mindrust, Hhampuz, iasenko, bitcoinPsycho, mosprognoz, Iamtutut
Opposition: Quickseller, hv_, HardFireMiner, sirsplashalot, williamuk, Olga Buzova, Bitcoin SV, reckon, Sorbent, Alex LZ Saver, exp0it, Bitcoin Cash, binance.com, Alfabank
A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean. I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google.
IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake. The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers. LOL says someone who obviously does not have a college degree.
They don't need to know that that score means because it means NOTHING.
Only a flag would be important to them for buying their gift card. Then they will get a red warning to help them.
The only people who will benefit are THE ENTIRE BOARD that are not scammers. Well done sandy.
If a person posts their scam solicitation post in a thread they did not start, and all they have is a newbie warning flag, all anybody will see is a # sign and perhaps an indication that a negative comments was made. This is like having a toy poodle act as a guard dog.
Yes that's for a flag, so this is another non issue people are trying to dream up to prevent a fair and transparent system being introduced.
Won't wash.
A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean. I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google.
IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake. The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers. LOL says someone who obviously does not have a college degree.
They don't need to know that that score means because it means NOTHING.
Only a flag would be important to them for buying their gift card. Then they will get a red warning to help them.
The only people who will benefit are THE ENTIRE BOARD that are not scammers. Well done sandy.
If a person posts their scam solicitation post in a thread they did not start, and all they have is a newbie warning flag, all anybody will see is a # sign and perhaps an indication that a negative comments was made. This is like having a toy poodle act as a guard dog.
A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean. I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google.
IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake. The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers. LOL says someone who obviously does not have a college degree.
They don't need to know that that score means because it means NOTHING.
Only a flag would be important to them for buying their gift card. Then they will get a red warning to help them.
The only people who will benefit are THE ENTIRE BOARD that are not scammers. Well done sandy.
If a person posts their scam solicitation post in a thread they did not start, and all they have is a newbie warning flag, all anybody will see is a # sign and perhaps an indication that a negative comments was made. This is like having a toy poodle act as a guard dog.
A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean. I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google.
IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake. The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers. LOL says someone who obviously does not have a college degree.
They don't need to know that that score means because it means NOTHING.
Only a flag would be important to them for buying their gift card. Then they will get a red warning to help them.
The only people who will benefit are THE ENTIRE BOARD that are not scammers. Well done sandy.
If they need to study another 4 years to read some feedback they are like unable to operate a gift card.
Is a non-victim creating a flag also considered to be abusing the system?
Is someone who supports an 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?
It seems odd to defer the system to the principle of acting reactively rather than proactively. Removing the ability for those that are not involved in the transaction or contract means removing the potential for a flag (apart from newbie flags) to be placed on a high-risk individual before they scam.Is someone who supports an 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?
Yeeee-ahh! This should satisfy everybody. Joking, of course, but I am glad that Theymos is making distinctions between things. I definitely think that's a good idea, because as much as I don't trust members who sell accounts....not all of them are really scammers, but a negative trust (unless you read what it says) does not make that distinction.
All of these big changes seem to be made while I'm asleep. I wake up and there's a merit system. I wake up again and there's a 1-merit requirement to become a Jr. Member and a bunch of members are now Newbies again. I wake up and now there's flags. None of these were bad changes, I might add. Thank you, Theymos.
All of these big changes seem to be made while I'm asleep. I wake up and there's a merit system. I wake up again and there's a 1-merit requirement to become a Jr. Member and a bunch of members are now Newbies again. I wake up and now there's flags. None of these were bad changes, I might add. Thank you, Theymos.
Is a non-victim creating a flag also considered to be abusing the system?
Is someone who supports an 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?
It seems odd to defer the system to the principle of acting reactively rather than proactively. Removing the ability for those that are not involved in the transaction or contract means removing the potential for a flag (apart from newbie flags) to be placed on a high-risk individual before they scam. Is someone who supports an 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?
A newbie warning flag will also give a nice banner to guests and accounts less than 7 days old, on each thread the potential scammer creates. Only problem with the flag is that you need to reference a thread that is not locked. So if you want to warn newbies about someone who uses locked threads to sell their goods, you will need to open a thread stating your case and then flag them using your thread as a reference. I guess theymos figures that by day 8, a newbie should figure out that # means there is a newbie warning flag on the user.
I believe it's 7 days online, which could be far more than 7 days old unless they spend 24 hours a day on the forum.
for guests and for users with less than 7 days of login time
(emphasis mine)
A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean. I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google.
IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake. The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers. A newbie warning flag will also give a nice banner to guests and accounts less than 7 days old, on each thread the potential scammer creates. Only problem with the flag is that you need to reference a thread that is not locked. So if you want to warn newbies about someone who uses locked threads to sell their goods, you will need to open a thread stating your case and then flag them using your thread as a reference. I guess theymos figures that by day 8, a newbie should figure out that # means there is a newbie warning flag on the user.
We just presented observable instances of lauda lying and scamming.
You presented nothing. And as marlboroza mentioned for scammers like you nothing changed. Only color. Now instead of red scammer you are orange scammer
Here is your trust page. Anyone can see it.Yes when you are low functioning it is easy to be confused.
You see when I said present evidence of us scamming you must of conflated that with present evidence of your puppet masters trust abusing the old system to hide their own scamming?
Have another try fool. Not just present a wall of blatant trust abuse and observable garbage.
Please do it on a scam accusation thread and not derail this thread which is regarding removing the power of your masters whom you like felching to trust abuse whistle blowers like us.
Feltch your masters in private please not here.
Now look back a few pages and you will see we on the other hand presented an observable instance of lauda lying for financial gain. That is scamming.
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
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?
A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean. I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google. IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake. The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers.
IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake. The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers. You nailed it!
legendary
Activity: 1919
Merit: 1230
AKA Ms-overzealous-condecsending-explitive-account
A new user logging on is going to need a 4yr college degree to figure out what all the =+#-1=2 mean. I REALLY think this has been overthought and overly complicated especially for someone just logging in to buy a fake gift card from a scammer who they found on Google.
IMO only (no personal offense intended to anyone) I think this is a mistake. The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the scammers. Jump to: