Topic: Trust flags - page 21. (Read 12746 times)

Where in the auction is it written that I'm supposed to ship to you after I take your money? Maybe I implied I will ship it to somewhere else regardless of who wins? Funny Swiss-cheese system this is.

Why would those not be considered "written"?

I thought "casual or implied" was something not specifically stated. For example you shipped me an item won in an auction but it got damaged in the mail. Neither party had said anything about insurance beforehand. I might have an implied contract claim against you because the sender is typically responsible for delivery.

But if you don't honor the winning bid, or don't ship after taking the money, or fail to do something else that's spelled out in your auction terms - that sounds like a written contract violation.

There is no requirement for one to be a scammer to receive a negative rating any more. I will not be participating in the flag games other than for a few notable cases/figures. Once more people start getting scammed because of a lack of victim-created-flags, then liberals might see why such a system is flawed. Then again, liberals like to be blind in spite of evidence. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's like you really are a cat; so afraid of a changing environment!

I'd be careful with taking a liberal approach towards the scammer flags. Your statement makes it sounds like you're just going to replace your previous usage of negative trust with scammer flags, at least that's how I heard it; can you please correct me where I'm wrong?


Negative ratings are far from useless, and it's almost like you didn't read the OP. If all you've gotten from this thread is "Negatives are useless, we use flags now", then you're in for a bumpy ride.

Side-Note: Any plans to have a "flag history" per user, those that they've created, supported and opposed?

Wouldnt it not be better when theymos makes an pinned thread in the reputation section and all can post there flags in there ?

So when we get this not every User has to do there one Flag thread and all flags are in one thread , and i guess this will also help to get maybe some support one some flags they where posted in there !

Dont know if this suggestion was posted already , when yes sry ! 

Nice idea, it would be useful also to add a counter in the flag page. Something like that:

You're always in your own trust network so your vote will show as trusted for yourself. The greyed-out ones are not trusted and don't count in the +1 or +3 thresholds for the boxes to show up.

Lauda by that logic you MUST have a scam tag.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6748208


Lying about the dark launch. THOUSANDS of members who purchased believing your LIES there was no premine because you WERE THERE  all those that were scammed into believing the initial distribution was legit.

By your own reasoning above YOU MUST have a scam tag.  For now I believe you can tag yourself. Get on with it.

The other ratings are now just what they always should have been : FEEDBACK that is to be read and examined not just taken at face value that the person has done something wrong.

When you started using red trust to silence and deter people from presenting observable instances of SCAMMING from your own past you ensured the trust sytem had to change. You tried to use the old system to facilitate and hide your OWN scamming. Now you are crying that is no longer possible.

A great day for bitcointalk. Satoshi is celebrating right now. Free speech is returning.

We notice lauda is already refusing to act within the guidelines let's see how long he gets away with it before being put in his place.



Already people are refusing to support his NEW abuse. Now they know their sigs are safe (if they are not scammers) you will notice more people standing up to these bullies.

The common good is getting rid of bullies like you Lauda. You had a good ride scamming, extorting, shady escrowing, top paid sig spots. Looks like soon you will need to compete on a fair level with every other member here not bully your way to extreme advantage.

This new system (if enforced) is HUGE step in returning free speech to this board.

Suggestion:
This could be more accurate by replacing "One" by "Three".

I can't link to the original thread; my flag is about the self-escrow, it just points out a flaw in the system.

Have fun doing that for several thousand people, three times.

Under sent feedback/comments it only shows "(Created flag)" in red.

Wouldn't it be better to have what regular trust feedback has, an option to make a comment?

Now you have to click a link and then click another link. I'd rather have a brief description of what the flag is for ^[1] and a direct path to the referenced topic.

[1] - Before and After

You can see how I set something up rather quickly to try it out. Here's the post  in this thread.

Generically link to where? A single reputation thread? That would be a much preferable outcome than having to create a single thread for every single flag for the same cluster of reasons.

On first thought, I would have said a "casual or implied" agreement would be something along the lines of winning an auction, buying an item, or taking out a loan, where as a "written contract" would be someone signing a message from a staked address, implicitly agreeing to a stated contract. This would mean the "written contract" flag would only be used very rarely, but I suspect that might be theymos' intention given his push towards a culture of forgiveness.

Agreed. It's no different to the threads I plan to generically link when I find Selfmod/locked sales topics with nothing more than an off forum communication.

---

Has anyone thought much about what they are considering a loose commitment and written contract. I'm guessing it should go further than the "typed word= written contract". What would the standards be for pushing towards a 10 year Flag versus a 3 year flag.

Red trust and a Newbie-warning Flag?

you win the internet prize for fast meme ever

rotfl

ot: big bag theory ROCKS

I'm curious as to what we should be doing about the obvious attempted, but not yet successful, scams. Things like:

• Promoting a doubler, "Send 0.2 ETH to get 2 ETH back", 20% a day ROI, that kind of thing
• Promoting obvious Ponzis, "HYIP", etc.
• Selling gift cards or codes at a huge discount from a locked/self moderated thread with auto-buy links
• Obvious sockpuppet accounts leaving fake vouches for any of the above

These are all blatantly obvious scam attempts to any experienced user, but can and do regularly fool newbies in to parting with their coins. Are we expected to create a brand new thread in Reputation for each and every one to link to with a flag? Is simply linking to the thread they started acceptable? What about leaving them red trust as well explaining the reasons behind the flag?

Also, do newbie-warning flags expire the same as scammer flags?

If Vod doesn't beat me to it, I'll cook something up when I have time. Don't expect it within a few weeks though.
Update: see LoyceV's Trust Flag viewer.

We need a log for all the flag activity now, all the created flags + those who support or oppose them.
I can change my support to opposition as many times as I want no restrictions there. I've tested it on my own Flag which I created.

Just a side note> I can create a new flag after 180 days of creation of the first one.
and the Trust feedback are rearranged from top to bottom- newest to oldest.

Neutral tags serve a purpose. Some examples from the feedback I left:

---

---

I'd like to see at least 1000 ratings per page, that's high enough to make searching easier, and low enough to load the page quickly.