Trust flags - page 23. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Steamtyme on June 12, 2019, 02:48:17 AM

Let's not forget these are complementary systems. It's just like having more signs on the highway. The old system is still there with the ability to leave feedback. So really there is no need to go back over everything in the past.

Quote

Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.
Neutral - Other comments.
Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.

The ratings are still there and moving forward the flags can be applied as needed.

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.

TheBeardedBaby

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 3134

₿uy / $ell

I can put a flag on my own account. This should be disabled as before.

Edited: Seems like I can also Support or Oppose the flag myself.

Steamtyme

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 2036

Betnomi.com Sportsbook, Casino and Poker

Let's not forget these are complementary systems. It's just like having more signs on the highway. The old system is still there with the ability to leave feedback. So really there is no need to go back over everything in the past.

Quote

Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.
Neutral - Other comments.
Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.

The ratings are still there and moving forward the flags can be applied as needed. You really only have to go back to flag cases you think are still active. Which is why my previous mention of something indicating a banned user or preventing a flag from being created can prevent unnecessary flags.

I created a flag for an implied contract for ky94PjDw I made it for 3 years and 1 month. So I'm wondering how it gets handled, right now it appears:

Despite the 3 year limitation it can be created
If made active, will it immediately disappear due to the time limitations on these?
Is there a permanent record of previous flags for which the time has been served?
Edit:
So this received enough support to but remained as expired, it does still show up under " inactive flags".

theymos can you elaborate on the whole concept of these flags disappearing. In the case of the newbie warning flag, if all supporters and the creator of the flag remove their support on that does the flag and it's warning dissapear?

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2870

Merit: 2298

Quote from: JayJuanGee on June 12, 2019, 02:43:14 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 02:37:28 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on June 12, 2019, 02:27:10 AM

Quote from: mightyDTs on June 12, 2019, 02:20:00 AM

Quote from: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 02:09:00 AM

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 Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given). They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer.... I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).

The purpose of the new system is to demonstrate that there is consensus that someone is not safe to trade with. The ability to one person to label a person as a scammer is being removed, which is a good thing.

If it is clear a person is a scammer, this should be a nonissue, but controversial ratings will be more difficult to backup.

Yes... overall I get the purpose as you describe, which seems quite legitimate, but I still stand by my earlier post concerning some of the seeming problematic transitional work aspects.. and seemingly even some necessity for repeated work that might not take get carried out because frequently people do not like to go back and repeat work that they have already done.. and that would have been more fresh in their mind when they had done it earlier, as compared to now or after the passage of time.

Negative ratings still exist and show up as having unique negative ratings on their trust number.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3710

Merit: 10196

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 02:37:28 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on June 12, 2019, 02:27:10 AM

Quote from: mightyDTs on June 12, 2019, 02:20:00 AM

Quote from: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 02:09:00 AM

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 Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given). They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer.... I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).

The purpose of the new system is to demonstrate that there is consensus that someone is not safe to trade with. The ability to one person to label a person as a scammer is being removed, which is a good thing.

If it is clear a person is a scammer, this should be a nonissue, but controversial ratings will be more difficult to backup.

Yes... overall I get the purpose as you describe, which seems quite legitimate, but I still stand by my earlier post concerning some of the seeming problematic transitional work aspects.. and seemingly even some necessity for repeated work that might not get carried out because frequently people do not like to go back and repeat work that they have already done.. and that would have been more fresh in their mind when they had done it earlier, as compared to now or after the passage of time. This will cause some members who deserve negative ratings to receive a blank slate that they might not deserve.. and that blank slate might not get returned to where it should be... but yeah, hopefully no babies die along the way... and during this transition period.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Two problems already:

Quote from: Quickseller on June 12, 2019, 02:37:28 AM

The purpose of the new system is to demonstrate that there is consensus that someone is not safe to trade with. The ability to one person to label a person as a scammer is being removed, which is a good thing.

If it is clear a person is a scammer, this should be a nonissue, but controversial ratings will be more difficult to backup.

Don't worry, you'll be flagged again.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2870

Merit: 2298

Quote from: JayJuanGee on June 12, 2019, 02:27:10 AM

Quote from: mightyDTs on June 12, 2019, 02:20:00 AM

Quote from: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 02:09:00 AM

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 Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given). They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer.... I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).

The purpose of the new system is to demonstrate that there is consensus that someone is not safe to trade with. The ability to one person to label a person as a scammer is being removed, which is a good thing.

If it is clear a person is a scammer, this should be a nonissue, but controversial ratings will be more difficult to backup.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: JayJuanGee on June 12, 2019, 02:27:10 AM

Quote from: mightyDTs on June 12, 2019, 02:20:00 AM

Quote from: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 02:09:00 AM

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 Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given). They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer.... I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).

In many cases it would require action from a total of 3 members per the tagged user. All in all, it's probably closer to 5k flags and at least 5k-10k support clicks. Who has time to do that? It's just not plausible (even though it would be worth it).

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3710

Merit: 10196

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: mightyDTs on June 12, 2019, 02:20:00 AM

Quote from: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 02:09:00 AM

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 Lauda makes a good point about how much redundant work seems necessary, especially if there is no algorithm or something that converts or counts past work.... or maybe a kind of transition period in which some of the past work would still have some kind of effect - though the raw data is still there (meaning the actual trust feedback(s) that had already been given). They just don't have a trust number affiliated with them, any longer.... I find it a bit confusing, at least at the moment... and I am not sure how much repeated work is going to be needed to be carried out by some of the red trust work horses of the past (including whether some of the work of the red trust work horses of the past is being thrown out the window through this change).

mightyDTs

newbie

Activity: 31

Merit: 0

Quote from: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 02:09:00 AM

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.

Good work theymos.

Good bye from mightyDTs

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5166

Merit: 12850

Quote from: LoyceV on June 12, 2019, 01:52:52 AM

Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io violated a contract, but BetKing Support, dean nolan and PocketRocketsCasino are his alt-accounts.

Yes, one of the victims can.

Quote from: bones261 on June 12, 2019, 01:58:20 AM

I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented.

Correct.

Quote from: bones261 on June 12, 2019, 01:58:20 AM

Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?

It's probably best if one of the victims makes a flag and the rest support it.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Have fun with the scammers being on a roll again. I ain't creating 5k flags.

BitcoinGirl.Club

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 2645

Farewell LEO: o_e_l_e_o

Quote from: bones261 on June 12, 2019, 01:58:20 AM

I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented. Correct? Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?

Each victim can make their own flag.

roosbit

member

Activity: 891

Merit: 43

Random coins :)

Quote from: theymos on June 11, 2019, 11:35:28 PM

Quote from: Steamtyme on June 11, 2019, 11:28:05 PM

I am wondering will users be able to remove a scammer flag early in the spirit of forgiveness. Do users in your trust network automatically support flags or do they need to take action?

The original accuser can withdraw their support, but they can't delete the flag. So other users could take it up even if they withdraw.

Flags need to be actively supported.

Here's a user with a flag that you could support/oppose:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=157669
And if you log out or use a newbie account, you can see the banner on their topic:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bounty-globatalentcom-1105000-to-share-sport-blockchain-revolution-2690003

Scenario one talks more of a flag being supported but in the event of the flag being outweighed by opposers does that mean the flag won't stand ??
And what happens in the case of a deadlock were support=oppose

Admin can we get a child board in meta for ~~all~~ FLAGS

BitcoinGirl.Club

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 2645

Farewell LEO: o_e_l_e_o

Quote from: LoyceV on June 12, 2019, 01:52:52 AM

Quote from: theymos on June 11, 2019, 11:13:36 PM

For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created.

Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io violated a contract, but BetKing Support, dean nolan and PocketRocketsCasino are his alt-accounts.

If there is a proof of connection (same person/company) then it should be practical.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2870

Merit: 2298

Quote from: LoyceV on June 12, 2019, 01:52:52 AM

Quote from: theymos on June 11, 2019, 11:13:36 PM

For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created.

Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io violated a contract, but BetKing Support, dean nolan and PocketRocketsCasino are his alt-accounts.

I would argue that if the flag is true in regards to a business, the flag should be applicable to agents or employees of the businesses in most circumstances.

If someone were to resign from said business, and they did not play a role in the underlying facts that cause the flag to be accurate, the flag would probably be no longer appropriate for the now former employee.

There might be other circumstances in which a flag might not be appropriate, for example someone being hired by a business to clean up the mess surrounding the scam that resulted in the flag.

Quote from: bones261 on June 12, 2019, 01:58:20 AM

I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented. Correct? Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?

Each person can create a flag, however it will probably be redundant to to create more than a handful.

Also, if a person exit scammed, they generally will not continue trying to trade. If they never login again, getting the person flagged is probably redundant, if they try to continue trading, they should be flagged.

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1826

I gather that if someone creates a flag and I support the flag, the person does not need to have scammed me as well, I just have to believe the evidence the flagger presented. Correct? Also, if exchange xyz makes an exit scam, is that considered one incident that can only be flagged once? Or can each victim make their own flag?

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: theymos on June 11, 2019, 11:13:36 PM

For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created.

Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io violated a contract, but BetKing Support, dean nolan and PocketRocketsCasino are his alt-accounts.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2870

Merit: 2298

Quote from: The Cryptovator on June 12, 2019, 01:37:38 AM

So for every red flags we need create thread so that other DT member will aware about flags. Also other members will aware by "#" symbol but need to enter on profile.

You need to create a thread and obtain support from others that the flag is accurate.

Each type of flags make very specific statements that articulate how/why a person is unsafe to deal with.

BitcoinGirl.Club

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 2645

Farewell LEO: o_e_l_e_o

Quote from: rhomelmabini on June 12, 2019, 01:32:52 AM

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.

Quote

And to create a flag will there be a specific board it will be posted?

No.

Topic: Trust flags - page 23. (Read 12746 times)