Topic: Trust flags - page 24. (Read 12939 times)
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.
Lastly, what doest the meaning of smaller font size and grey color of supporters?
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?
And to create a flag will there be a specific board it will be posted?
Edit: I supported it, not sure if I'm in your network but that may have made it visible
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817;dt
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817
Both you and DS are not in my trust network yet.
You and DS are in DT, QS is not so he doesn't count. Your support minus DS opposition = 0, box not shown. Yellow box needs more supporters than opponents (at least one more). Red box needs three more supporters than opponents. Only users in DT (or your custom trust network if you use that) count as supporters or opponents.
I wonder can the user that received the Flag can counter it themselves?
Yes, it is possible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=32 but if user not in DT (well your trust network).. I guess it's equal to a new account opposing it.
Edit: DarkStar_ made it disappear.
So help me here:
This was supported by me and QS, opposed by DS but it's now inactive. So how many vote we need it to be active. Getting a bit confused.
You and DS are in DT, QS is not so he doesn't count. Your support minus DS opposition = 0, box not shown. Yellow box needs more supporters than opponents (at least one more). Red box needs three more supporters than opponents. Only users in DT (or your custom trust network if you use that) count as supporters or opponents.
Always archive if in doubt. But the concern I have is that as a supporter (or opponent) I have no way to attach the archive of what I'm supporting or opposing at the time. This might discourage DT members from supporting flags from less-known members even if the facts seem credible enough - because of the risk that the accuser might edit/remove the thread. Maybe that's the intent, not sure, we'll have to see how this develops.
Good advice. That's a good point you bring up. There isn't anyway to add in a more robust reference if the flag is direct linked in that manner. This is probably something that will have to be addressed, but I don't see it leaving many gaps of opportunity. Not sure the best workaround for that.
I wonder can the user that received the Flag can counter it themselves?
Edit: DarkStar_ made it disappear.
So help me here:
This was supported by me and QS, opposed by DS but it's now inactive. So how many vote we need it to be active. Getting a bit confused.
If you don't have QS in your trust network I believe their vote isn't included in the tally for this to be visible to you.
Edit: I supported it, not sure if I'm in your network but that may have made it visible
The yellow box flag (which confusingly has words "red flag" in it but I digress) is shown immediately, only needs one supporter (or rather more supporters than opponents).
The red box flag needs 3 more supporters than opponents.
Edit: DarkStar_ made it disappear.
Maybe you were wrong, both newsilike and SafeDice have enough supports for Active Scam Flag, but their Flag Boxes have different colors. It seems that the assumption of QuickSeller is right.The red box flag needs 3 more supporters than opponents.
Edit: DarkStar_ made it disappear.
The Yellow is for when someone is showing "red flags" of being a scammer while the Red box is when the person actually scammed someone.
Those are 2 different Flags - One is the Newbie warning and the other the is a contractual violation. I believe that they display differently on the page.
I'm wondering if people are linking to direct threads what happens if that thread is trashed? Is the forum archiving these or would it be best practice for people to archive first as opposed to direct linking. I was thinking about this with some of the Self mod/locked topics if they chose to trash them, or if for some reason a thread was reported to be trashed.
Always archive if in doubt. But the concern I have is that as a supporter (or opponent) I have no way to attach the archive of what I'm supporting or opposing at the time. This might discourage DT members from supporting flags from less-known members even if the facts seem credible enough - because of the risk that the accuser might edit/remove the thread. Maybe that's the intent, not sure, we'll have to see how this develops.
Edit: DarkStar_ made it disappear.
So help me here:
This was supported by me and QS, opposed by DS but it's now inactive. So how many vote we need it to be active. Getting a bit confused.
The yellow box flag (which confusingly has words "red flag" in it but I digress) is shown immediately, only needs one supporter (or rather more supporters than opponents).
The red box flag needs 3 more supporters than opponents.
Edit: DarkStar_ made it disappear.
Maybe you were wrong, both newsilike and SafeDice have enough supports for Active Scam Flag, but their Flag Boxes have different colors. It seems that the assumption of QuickSeller is right.The red box flag needs 3 more supporters than opponents.
Edit: DarkStar_ made it disappear.
The Yellow is for when someone is showing "red flags" of being a scammer while the Red box is when the person actually scammed someone.
What is difference between newsilike (Yellow Flag Box) and SafeDice (Red Flag Box)
They both get active flags, but one is in yellow flag, and another one is in red flag.
Their profile pages look different too:
Let me guess:
Yellow is for active flags.
Red: is for trust.
So, if someone got both red trust and active flag, their flag boxes will be displayed in Red.
Furthermore, Trust Warning is prioritised than flag:
If someone only get active flag: profile page will be shown with #, like newsilike.
But if someone get both red trust, and active flag: profile page will be shown with Trust Warning, there is no #, like SafeDice.
Lastly, what doest the meaning of smaller font size and grey color of supporters?
They both get active flags, but one is in yellow flag, and another one is in red flag.
Their profile pages look different too:
Let me guess:
Yellow is for active flags.
Red: is for trust.
So, if someone got both red trust and active flag, their flag boxes will be displayed in Red.
Furthermore, Trust Warning is prioritised than flag:
If someone only get active flag: profile page will be shown with #, like newsilike.
But if someone get both red trust, and active flag: profile page will be shown with Trust Warning, there is no #, like SafeDice.
Lastly, what doest the meaning of smaller font size and grey color of supporters?
Question: A bit confuse to see my flag in the active trust page without having support from enough users 🙄
May be I am the flag creator of that specific flag?
May be I am the flag creator of that specific flag?
The yellow box flag (which confusingly has words "red flag" in it but I digress) is shown immediately, only needs one supporter (or rather more supporters than opponents).
The red box flag needs 3 more supporters than opponents.
Edit: DarkStar_ made it disappear.
The other issue is that there is no good way to link to a specific flag from an accusation thread saying "if you want to support this accusation, go here". You can link to the inactive flag list or to the trust page, but the actual flag could be there or not, depending on viewing person's trust list. And if the scammer has multiple flags then extra steps will be needed to verify which one is the one you want to support.
I'm sure we'll figure it out but it seems a bit clunky and error-prone.
To test the flag with a the test account theymos mentioned here, I left a normal flag, not the "written contract" or the other one.I'm sure we'll figure it out but it seems a bit clunky and error-prone.
So I see the flag is visible to his trust page: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817;dt
Now if someone wants to support/Oppose it then they can and or the can support/Oppose the other flags for the same user: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817;page=iflags
Question: A bit confuse to see my flag in the active trust page without having support from enough users 🙄
May be I am the flag creator of that specific flag?
I'm wondering if people are linking to direct threads what happens if that thread is trashed? Is the forum archiving these or would it be best practice for people to archive first as opposed to direct linking. I was thinking about this with some of the Self mod/locked topics if they chose to trash them, or if for some reason a thread was reported to be trashed.
Always archive if in doubt. But the concern I have is that as a supporter (or opponent) I have no way to attach the archive of what I'm supporting or opposing at the time. This might discourage DT members from supporting flags from less-known members even if the facts seem credible enough - because of the risk that the accuser might edit/remove the thread. Maybe that's the intent, not sure, we'll have to see how this develops.
A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.
It means if someone received 4 scammer supporting flags, while only get 1 scammer opposing flag; the account will be flagged as potential scammer (based on your clarification above). But I have a curious that it means the flag system does not account for weight of user trust. Everyone has same weight with their flags, only one per user. Do I get it right?What is difference between (Yellow Flag Box)[/url] and (Red Flag Box)
The Yellow is for when someone is showing "red flags" of being a scammer while the Red box is when the person actually scammed someone.
I'm wondering if people are linking to direct threads what happens if that thread is trashed? Is the forum archiving these or would it be best practice for people to archive first as opposed to direct linking. I was thinking about this with some of the Self mod/locked topics if they chose to trash them, or if for some reason a thread was reported to be trashed.
Also just to clarify does this show up !!! for all scammer flags regardless of whether they have Negative feedback? (Assuming it's active)
Edit: Can there be a note or inability to create a flag placed on Banned accounts. This could save people some work if there is nothing left by the account they feel could result in a scam.
Also just to clarify does this show up !!! for all scammer flags regardless of whether they have Negative feedback? (Assuming it's active)
Edit: Can there be a note or inability to create a flag placed on Banned accounts. This could save people some work if there is nothing left by the account they feel could result in a scam.
The other issue is that there is no good way to link to a specific flag from an accusation thread saying "if you want to support this accusation, go here". You can link to the inactive flag list or to the trust page, but the actual flag could be there or not, depending on viewing person's trust list. And if the scammer has multiple flags then extra steps will be needed to verify which one is the one you want to support.
I'm sure we'll figure it out but it seems a bit clunky and error-prone.
I'm sure we'll figure it out but it seems a bit clunky and error-prone.
I actually did link to the flag in my SafeDice thread because when you create the flag you go to something like: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=30 (eg a direct link.)
If you want to get it from the trust page, you would have to figure out the ID by hovering support/oppose/delete and make the link - but not that easy.
edit: actually that link is also the reference link for "(Created flag)" at "Sent feedback" - so easy to get there.
The other issue is that there is no good way to link to a specific flag from an accusation thread saying "if you want to support this accusation, go here". You can link to the inactive flag list or to the trust page, but the actual flag could be there or not, depending on viewing person's trust list. And if the scammer has multiple flags then extra steps will be needed to verify which one is the one you want to support.
I don't think the intention is for people to be leaving knee-jerk reaction support/opposition to flags. If you are going to support/oppose a flag, you should read it, check the thread that it is referencing, and check to make sure the OP listed in the flag matches the OP of the thread in question.
The other issue is that there is no good way to link to a specific flag from an accusation thread saying "if you want to support this accusation, go here". You can link to the inactive flag list or to the trust page, but the actual flag could be there or not, depending on viewing person's trust list. And if the scammer has multiple flags then extra steps will be needed to verify which one is the one you want to support.
I'm sure we'll figure it out but it seems a bit clunky and error-prone.
I'm sure we'll figure it out but it seems a bit clunky and error-prone.
I see, now I get it. Though it looks fancy 😂, so we need to work with those flags again to see Reds on the previous users who has it, am I right? So vicious spammersand newbies that asking for loans will lost their current tags? They might see this unnatural and it may be ignored for some reason?
It is not appropriate to use a flag on a spammer. I also don't think it is necessary to create a flag on a newbie account created to try to get a loan, as I don't think many are going to fall for this scam, and the negative rating will still be there. As I've seen some of the users that commited scams doesn't have any Red as of now, and from ehat I'm seeing is that once they have also got a few positive feedbacks they'll have green ones.
All in all, I just still like the previous one
Now -9999 Trust Scores won't be seen anymore
All in all, I just still like the previous one
Now -9999 Trust Scores won't be seen anymore
With an active flag it becomes a bit more clear: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/safedice-396610
Curious indeed how it looks if flag but still few (old) positives.
Basically it will take some time for all flags to be made, but should be fine in long-run.
Going with the flow takes time really... I just hope this would have a great result for the community.
Now I'm about to be curious on what will happen to Lauda's Trust Feedbacks coming from the pajeets 😂
I'm starting to dislike that the flags have lots of words in them but no facts (you have to click links to see the supporting info). Not sure how it's gonna end up looking like in the long run but someone with multiple flags might be confusing to figure out. And what if the accuser ninja-edits the thread, that might cause trouble for the supporting DT members.
The purpose of the trust system is to be a tool for others to gauge the ability to trust someone. If a person is not doing their own research on a person to the extent they are not even willing to click on a few links, they will soon be parted with their money. I also don't think it is necessary to support/oppose a flag immidiately once created. There can be some time for a person to respond, and others to review and discuss the evidence before a decision is made to support/oppose a flag. Theymos said in the OP that you should be removed from DT if you support inaccurate flags, even temporarily, so you should confirm that you agree with the flag, and confirm there isn't any good counter-arguments before supporting a flag.
I created flags for the person I believe to be a serial scammer listed here.
Jump to: