Can someone clarify, why is it that a withdrawn flag still remains active?
The same rules still apply: as long as it gets enough Support, it remains active. In a way that makes sense: whoever created the Flag doesn't decide on his own. 
Topic: Trust flags - page 2. (Read 12939 times)
Can someone clarify, why is it that a withdrawn flag still remains active?
Sorry if this has been covered before in the past 25 pages, I ain't gonna read all that to find out!
It kinda seems like a bug to me either way...
Sorry if this has been covered before in the past 25 pages, I ain't gonna read all that to find out!
It kinda seems like a bug to me either way...
Red Box or red trust or something like that
You are not sure yourself what you are talking about.When I'm logged out, I can see a red box on a topic which I started, I can't see such a red box on other people with negative trust, therefore I'm asking if that's intentional or just that people with green trust can avoid having the said red message box?
@shasan, there are some new posts on "stake your address topic". Lol let me fix this bug on my profile.
Looks like a bug, not sure though, when someone has several negative feedback with no positives, you can see the red box emphasizing this person is believed to be a scammer, while members with green trust/ DT or not won't show anything. That would automatically creates a false sense of trustworthiness, which is a unsafe method IMO. Maybe I'm wrong. Also showing a large red box on the header is far from administration being unbiased.
Anyhow, felt there is something wrong and had to mention it.
So the red box above is just there by default on non-DT members but doesn't show on DT members? Viewing DT members as guest doesn't show that red box, they have negative trust though.
Red Box or red trust or something like that will be shown the same to all if anyone does not exclude those DTs from his/her default trust. And it is the same for all people whether that person is DT or not. So, you should not be worried to see to whom looking like, what!!
So the red box above is just there by default on non-DT members but doesn't show on DT members? Viewing DT members as guest doesn't show that red box, they have negative trust though.
How can I see who created and supported a flag on me?
If there is an inactive Flag, you can see this on the Trust page:Quote
Inactive flags
This user has inactive flags, which may be totally inaccurate.
If there's an active Flag, it's harder to miss. This user has inactive flags, which may be totally inaccurate.
So do I need to remove the exclusions on my trust page to see who posted, supported the flag? I didn't know I was such of a big threat to this community to have me red flagged during inactivity, or maybe it's recent? I can't tell because there is no time and date.
Anyways this is a sad development for scammers like me, no more shortcuts then. lol.
There is no flag against you. But you received several negative trusts from DT several years ago. You can see those from your trust page. You may remove them from your default trust but that will not help you cause others will be able to see your negative trust. There is no way to remove those except those who gave you negative trust. Anyways this is a sad development for scammers like me, no more shortcuts then. lol.
Is the above gigantic warning a default setting based on negative feedback? According to OP, one has to create a flag for the warning to show up, I wonder who planted that flag on my territory.🤔
Edit, couldn't see such red box on a DT member with several negatives.
It is not based on negative trust but it is based on the flag type as well as flag supporters. When any flag (flag type 2/3) is created and supported by 3 or more DTs. It shows on the profile "Trade with extreme caution" and the topic created by that person shows like the image you have mentioned.Edit, couldn't see such red box on a DT member with several negatives.
Anyways this is a sad development for scammers like me, no more shortcuts then. lol.
Is the above gigantic warning a default setting based on negative feedback? According to OP, one has to create a flag for the warning to show up, I wonder who planted that flag on my territory.🤔
Edit, couldn't see such red box on a DT member with several negatives.
It is not based on negative trust but it is based on the flag type as well as flag supporters. When any flag (flag type 2/3) is created and supported by 3 or more DTs. It shows on the profile "Trade with extreme caution" and the topic created by that person shows like the image you have mentioned. Edit, couldn't see such red box on a DT member with several negatives.
Hey boss😘😘. How can I see who created and supported a flag on me? With my account I couldn't find anything, as a guest I could see the following, with an imprisoned(newbie) account I can see the same with no links.
Is the above gigantic warning a default setting based on negative feedback? According to OP, one has to create a flag for the warning to show up, I wonder who planted that flag on my territory.🤔
Edit, couldn't see such red box on a DT member with several negatives.
Is the above gigantic warning a default setting based on negative feedback? According to OP, one has to create a flag for the warning to show up, I wonder who planted that flag on my territory.🤔
Edit, couldn't see such red box on a DT member with several negatives.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 6524
Fully-fledged Merit Cycler|Spambuster'23|Pie Baker
I will send you merit if theymos responds to you. 
He actually responded
Actually, in elevated English, there is the expression of two attributes of a same entity, tied up with the Latin term cum, which means "with" or "and". For example, in the extraordinary Wired article from 1993 named Crypto rebels, Stephen Levy, the author, named the Cypherpunks as "techie-cum-civil libertarians". This meant that Cypherpunks were both "techie libertarians" and "civil libertarians".
Indeed, this expression containing the Latin word "cum" is not very used. Mostly authors use it. But, coming back to naim's post, he said
I am a Moderator Cum Support agent
If we are to give him credit for no spelling error, then maybe he actually used also the Latin "cum" and if so, his statement means "I am a Moderator agent and Support agent (too)"
How do you ( LoyceV and or theymos) propose representatives of organizations (including, but no limited to Casinos) are vetted prior to planting Flags on people's front lawns?
With some subjective standard that we try to implement as objectively as possible, just like the regular DefaultTrust trust list.Only, flags are good because you can properly oppose/affirm individual feedback from users instead of having to include all of their feedback.
Where they aren't that great is in the limited usage of them being post-scam for the flags that can be displayed to most users (non-Newbie/7-day).
If you are able to pragmatically determine that a user is appropriately representing the will of some group, that's all. Though, in application, I would probably extend the threshold a touch more due to the nature of forum limitations.
With the "Bitcoin-SV" cluster of alts planting flags in rows across more senior ranking accounts without any checks and balances, how do you propose verifying that anyone claiming to be such a representative be vetted *before* being allowed to start waving their flags?
That's not necessary, those Flags are unlikely to receive support. A lot of incorrect Flags are created out of revenge too, and as long as enough people use a proper Trust list, they aren't visible.Except of course, for the "gang" members, or, perhaps even people who reside in similar geo/political regions who decide to close ranks and vote as a block to vote up or down a flag ...
If an organization is the victim, then anyone authorized by the organization to act on the organization's behalf in these sorts of things can create the flag.
Getting back to the topic that naim027 asked and my example given; "Bitcoin-SV" cluster of alts claimed to represent an organisation. How do you ( LoyceV and or theymos) propose representatives of organizations (including, but no limited to Casinos) are vetted prior to planting Flags on people's front lawns?
With the "Bitcoin-SV" cluster of alts planting flags in rows across more senior ranking accounts without any checks and balances, how do you propose verifying that anyone claiming to be such a representative be vetted *before* being allowed to start waving their flags?
That's not necessary, those Flags are unlikely to receive support. A lot of incorrect Flags are created out of revenge too, and as long as enough people use a proper Trust list, they aren't visible. Hey, theymos. I have a question. It seems Trust Flags Rules say that only a Victim can create a Flag. But, What about when it comes to a Company? For example casino. If Casino is the Victim. Who is able to create a Flag against scammers? Should Casino owners create a Flag because he owns the casino and he is the actual victim? If yes, I have something to tell you about this.
If an organization is the victim, then anyone authorized by the organization to act on the organization's behalf in these sorts of things can create the flag.
With the "Bitcoin-SV" cluster of alts planting flags in rows across more senior ranking accounts without any checks and balances, how do you propose verifying that anyone claiming to be such a representative be vetted *before* being allowed to start waving their flags?
Hey, theymos. I have a question. It seems Trust Flags Rules say that only a Victim can create a Flag. But, What about when it comes to a Company? For example casino. If Casino is the Victim. Who is able to create a Flag against scammers? Should Casino owners create a Flag because he owns the casino and he is the actual victim? If yes, I have something to tell you about this.
If an organization is the victim, then anyone authorized by the organization to act on the organization's behalf in these sorts of things can create the flag.
I will send you merit if theymos responds to you.
No victim creates flag = no scam happened. That's what the system is now.
But if you are not personally affected, you can create a type 1 flag. 
Hey, theymos. I have a question. It seems Trust Flags Rules say that only a Victim can create a Flag. But, What about when it comes to a Company? For example casino. If Casino is the Victim. Who is able to create a Flag against scammers? Should Casino owners create a Flag because he owns the casino and he is the actual victim? If yes, I have something to tell you about this.
I am a Moderator Cum Support agent of the casino. We got paid to work for the casino. I guess A Casino owner doesn't have that much time to operate every single thing. So, He might not be able to create a Flag that's why he hired us to work for his Company. In my opinion, The Agent should be able to create a flag because our staff is indirectly victims of the scammers.
I am a Moderator Cum Support agent of the casino. We got paid to work for the casino. I guess A Casino owner doesn't have that much time to operate every single thing. So, He might not be able to create a Flag that's why he hired us to work for his Company. In my opinion, The Agent should be able to create a flag because our staff is indirectly victims of the scammers.
I can see you've opposed about fifty of the Flags (about one in five Flags) listed on this page: https://loyce.club/trust/flags/personal/ReferenceTopicDoesNotExist.html (Flag 1264 that you support has had it's thread removed, so that might be a grey area). A few of those Flags are now neither supported nore opposed by anyone. Should those be opposed if the accused is NOT banned?
I added a comment with an archive link to my Trust list viewer to the one Active Flag without Reference link. I don't want to remove my Support for the Flag because user percenter isn't banned. In general, it's better to create a separate scam accusation thread to use as reference for the Flag.That's quote is about type 2/3 Flags, type 1 Flags can be created by anyone.
True, but if there isn't any accountability, then you end up with the shills and those with vendettas indiscriminately creating flags that will never fade away regardless of whether or not they then withdraw their support for those flags.IIRC, if a reference thread is locked, it is not possible for someone to add support for a flag, while you can oppose a flag that is referenced by a locked thread.
That's easy to test, and it's incorrect:I can Support and Oppose Flags with a locked Reference thread.
I can Support and Oppose Flags without a Reference thread.
Jump to: