Topic: Trust flags - page 3. (Read 12967 times)

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.

(Hopefully I've attributed the quotes correctly, please advise if the attributions are incorrect)


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 doubt it, but you can always suggest it to him.


I don't know where I read that, but it makes sense that "the accused" must have a platform (the thread) to respond to the accusation made against them.  Surely it follows an unlocked thread that is referenced in the Flag is that platform?  And, the only way to guarantee a thread remains unlocked (without admin/mod intervention) is for the thread to have been created by the one who creates the flag, not another person.  (Otherwise, accusers would probably just start one thread and dump all their accusations in that thread, or, another thread started by someone else where Flags and accusations would get mixed up) - (One Flag|One thread) * (where "one" could be a group accused of the one Flag/Flag type)


Thanks for clarifying that, at the time I wrote my comments I felt your flag type 3 for the same person at (notionally) the same time overrides the type one flag?  But then you have now posted this:



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.

I'll quote it here:
I'm pretty sure the requirements apply for creating the Flag. There's no way as a user to guarantee a Mod won't lock the thread later. I would Oppose Flags if the Reference topic doesn't exist, not when it's created by someone else.
If theymos intended the Flag system to have a consequence when the topic gets locked, he would have automated it.

I can't find it either. When creating a Flag, it only says it shouldn't be self-moderated.

There was more time between creating those Flags. BPIP doesn't update real-time.

That's quote is about type 2/3 Flags, type 1 Flags can be created by anyone.

Just in case my post in the *cough* "uncensored" betking.io thread ^{(with at least two posts deleted by the creator of the flag)} ... would someone in this thread like to have a look over my discussion in that thread as I feel it should probably be ported to this thread.

If a website that has an ANN-thread on Bitcointalk scammed someone, it deserves a red scammer Flag. But if the ANN-thread was created by a user who is no longer active, and the site is represented by a different user, can the thread creator still be flagged? I can argue the thread creator is innocent, but that means the thread won't get a scam warning.

I'm asking because I found what looks like a loophole:

Update: user eGoldgg came back online and locked his thread. I'm not sure if that's an admission of guilt.

Excluding this user works like any other username: add ~ in front of the username.

Only for including this user you need to do something different:

Can somebody remind me again how I can default distrust someone who already has a tilda in their user profile name?  If you can post it with the code tag so that it doesn't get muddled in the copy and paste I'd appreciate it.

If the topic is locked after creating a topic then it might be almost same as self moderating topic. But anyone who will see the topic is locked will be able to know that there is no post which has been deleted. And support/oppose of the flag. But I think if topic is locked after the creation of the topic then we should avoid supporting the flag.

What about if the topic is not true and is locked by creator? Can anyone reply to the locked topic? What is a difference when 'not true' post is locked for reply or is not locked but replays are deleted by creator?

The topic must not be self moderated because anyone may create a topic which is not true and replies of that post might be deleted by the post creator. So, the post should not be self moderated and the reply cant be deleted by the topic creator.

Do you need counseling or will you be able to get through this horrible experience on your own?

Stop being (or pretending to be) an utter idiot FFS. Of course threads can be trashed for being shit or otherwise disappear. If you think the reference doesn't adequately support the flag, including but not limited due to being:

• Deleted
• Locked
• Empty
• Irrelevant
• Created by korner
• Written in Comic Sans

OPPOSE THE FUCKING FLAG AND MOVE ON.

I don't see any logic in this.
Perhaps I don't know English well, but our textbooks say something like this:
must to - is saying when want to say "either you do as it is written or you will be shot". This is a binding order.
should - is a binding order too, but sometimes it is allowed to cheat without health consequences

If flag is must to be created with a topic then very strange when I see a flag without the topic   

I can't read that topic, so I can't comment on that case. But in general, it would depend on each case whether or not I'd support a Flag with a locked Reference topic. Locking the topic might be useful against spam or trolling, or just long after the Flag was created.
There's also not really a solution: topics sometimes get locked, either by the creator or by a Mod. That doesn't necessarily mean the Flag itself should be invalidated. Many Flags don't even have a Reference topic anymore.

This is your point of view

Another:


Who is right?

Is new topic for reference only or must be free for discussion and may be for appeal too? May be theymos explain something here?

One-sided threads are not something that would be good for evaluating truth, especially when it comes to supporting a flag which brands a user's account.

Threads also create a more streamlined setup than a singular post: authoring a new topic can allow for much better organization of the events as you can always add relevant details to the initial post as necessary. It allows for replies to the flag content itself rather than possibly being confined to a separate thread (where the flag details may be off-topic)

OK.
Why the topic must not be self-moderated?

When creating a flag, this message pops up in one of the pages;

It's self explanatory why a topic is needed; if you're going to create a flag against a user, there should be intent, so you have to create a thread in which you would outline your concerns. If you just link to a post, it could be deleted by the OP, an archived link could solve that, but there would be no new arguments for users to follow and choose to support or not .

Take your time to read on the flag and trust system without bias to understand how it works.

What is the point, then, in a rule that user must to create a new topic for a reference?



Why is the topic needed? Why we can't just leave a link to a post?

I don't think it has any vulnerabilities. It is working properly. The topic which will be created to create a flag will be used as reference. Someone will support or not by checking the reference. And in this way if anyone think the topic is not trustworthy then the person will not support the flag. As a result the topic will be valueless.

So it seems that the flag creation algorithm have some vulnerabilities.
Despite of terms that flag-reference topic must not be self-moderated, users can make censored topic instead. That because OP just can close his topic and no one except OP can write there. Technically the topic will not self-moderated, but by-the-fact it is under censored.