Another feedback
I have over 1000 Negative feedback sent to abusers and with the new limited feedbacks for page on trust profile https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1339716 is a nightmare to navigate them.
Can you please rollback this page as it was before?
For people with a lot of feedbacks is impossible so search something there.
Topic: Trust flags - page 22. (Read 12746 times)
I deleted my support as I was just testing the flag system, but if someone flags you over the self escrow ordeal I will support that and keep it there.
It's a shame that we cannot use self-moderated and/or locked threads as references for flag. What about archives ? They prevent some posts from being edited.
This thread & msg wouldn't work but is highly relevant : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12421096
For example Lauda left a flag (that is labeled as inactive) to quickseller (reference: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/quickseller-vs-cleaning-up-the-forum-5152349)
What do you think about it?
I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this:
What do you think about it?
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.
Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2.
What do you think about it?
I think I should be blacklisted as the victims are gone or afraid to speak out, and acting on their behalf is against the format. 
More projection I see.
Still reading this thread and new system and seems like a lot of extra work but it does force a user to show their work so to speak. Should we go through all our previous feedbacks left and flag users for scam activities? For example, in my case I have a few bounty cheaters and signature campaign cheaters?
1st feedback is visual
I think the code of trust score should be Bolded on the profile to be more effective
Before talking more on it, I need to study it see u later.
I think the code of trust score should be Bolded on the profile to be more effective
Before talking more on it, I need to study it see u later.
This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.
I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags. Craig Wright is pretending to be Satoshi and he plagiarized the Bitcoin whitepaper. There are countless of examples shown here: https://stopcraigwright.com. Anyone actively supporting BSV is claiming that it is Bitcoin. BSV is a scam.
If you have technical arguments as to why BSV is inferior to bitcoin, or other altcoins, you should make them. While I acknowledge you are incapable of making a well rounded argument, about anything, I do not doubt that others who are smart can make arguments against BSV, and people can judge for themselves if they want to buy/use it.
This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.
I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags. Craig Wright is pretending to be Satoshi and he plagiarized the Bitcoin whitepaper. There are countless of examples shown here: https://stopcraigwright.com. Anyone actively supporting BSV is claiming that it is Bitcoin. BSV is a scam.
Well to be entirely fair, there are a decent number of scammers who support you on DT, so blacklisting these people would not be all that bad.
Yawn. Is this all you got? You got a dose of hopium, thinking you'll get back to scamming again just before I flagged you again. 
Looks great to me. Most of your threads are fraudulent, and it should be shown as such.
For example Lauda left a flag (that is labeled as inactive) to quickseller (reference: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/quickseller-vs-cleaning-up-the-forum-5152349)
What do you think about it?
I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this:What do you think about it?
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.
Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2. 
Direct link to flag is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35.For example Lauda left a flag (that is labeled as inactive) to quickseller (reference: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/quickseller-vs-cleaning-up-the-forum-5152349)
What do you think about it?
I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this:What do you think about it?
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.
Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2. Direct link to flag is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=35.FYI, BSV has already been handled. Next is HostFat and Bcash.
For example Lauda left a flag (that is labeled as inactive) to quickseller (reference: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/quickseller-vs-cleaning-up-the-forum-5152349)
What do you think about it?
I think this is a good opportunity to test theymos' credibility when he said this:What do you think about it?
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.
Those supporting those type of flags should very clearly be blacklisted from the trust system, both on DT1 and DT2.
What do you think about it?
I think I should be blacklisted as the victims are gone or afraid to speak out, and acting on their behalf is against the format. More projection I see.
This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.
I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags. Let Lauda bury themselves... they are now fighting an uphill battle.
What do you think about it?
I think I should be blacklisted as the victims are gone or afraid to speak out, and acting on their behalf is against the format. 
For example Lauda left a flag (that is labeled as inactive) to quickseller (reference: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/quickseller-vs-cleaning-up-the-forum-5152349)
What do you think about it?
What do you think about it?
This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.
I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags. This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags.
I think these are examples of people the trust system upgrade is intended to protect -- those who have disagreeing opinions from those on DT (and in power) -- and who should not be receiving flags. I wanted to know it as well because for flag there's only "Support" and "Oppose" options and there's no such thing as neutral. What is it really meant to those italicized member on the flag?
They are not in the DT network. Their vote do not count.
Please check it there: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1520746
As iasenko suggeted, users should not be able to flag themselves. Maybe it is a bug.
I can put a flag on my own account. This should be disabled as before.
I can put a flag on my own account. This should be disabled as before.
I opposed it, nothing but slanderous lies
A negative rating right now is completely useless and will be disregarded by the supermajority of the users (the same way that neutral ratings always have been). I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.
That's unfortunate then. It still shows up right there on any board that displays it, just as visible. The only change there is that there isn't a trust score which I felt was less informative than a tally of all feedback left. I do think I'll still be leaving a healthy mix of them all, just going to be a while figuring out when to use what. I still like the idea of using the negatives because there is no guarantee that they'll be activated in a timely fashion, so it's a good back up.
This reminds me that the prime time to tag HostFat/Bcash/BSV with new flags. Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.
Is anyone asking you or you are asking to change the system in your favor? Whatever it is, good luck. I told you all that a change is coming. Enjoy it.I think that is kind of the point, that people who make an industry of leaving negative ratings aren't incentivized to do so any more, leaving the task to those directly effected. You personally have done more to bring about this change than anyone. I won't hold my breath for the sky falling, but you feel free to.
A negative rating right now is completely useless and will be disregarded by the supermajority of the users (the same way that neutral ratings always have been). I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.
That's unfortunate then. It still shows up right there on any board that displays it, just as visible. The only change there is that there isn't a trust score which I felt was less informative than a tally of all feedback left. I do think I'll still be leaving a healthy mix of them all, just going to be a while figuring out when to use what. I still like the idea of using the negatives because there is no guarantee that they'll be activated in a timely fashion, so it's a good back up.
I don't think it will be possible to weaponize the trust system anymore. Or at least it will be much more difficult to do so.
I can put a flag on my own account. This should be disabled as before.
I opposed it, nothing but slanderous lies
A negative rating right now is completely useless and will be disregarded by the supermajority of the users (the same way that neutral ratings always have been). I'd actually advise against leaving them to save yourself the time and trouble; just skip straight into scammer flags.
That's unfortunate then. It still shows up right there on any board that displays it, just as visible. The only change there is that there isn't a trust score which I felt was less informative than a tally of all feedback left. I do think I'll still be leaving a healthy mix of them all, just going to be a while figuring out when to use what. I still like the idea of using the negatives because there is no guarantee that they'll be activated in a timely fashion, so it's a good back up.
Jump to: