The important question is should a wasted business opportunity (0.003 BTC to be made if the collateral had been sent) be construed as having faced 'damages'?
If yes, type 2 flag is correct. Otherwise type 1 flag is more fitting IMHO, at least for the time being with how the flags work.
Topic: Trust flags - page 6. (Read 12939 times)
I think it was a violation of textual contract. They both came to this agreement that send the collateral and take the loan. But the collateral sending never happened so contact was broken.
In another angle, This is a clear scam attempt. There will be no excuse. So, in my opinion the flag was right.
In another angle, This is a clear scam attempt. There will be no excuse. So, in my opinion the flag was right.
What if someone tries to scam, but the victim notices it on time and doesn't get scammed? That happened here.
The (potential) victim created a type 2 flag, but that flag says violating an agreement resulted in damages. There are no damages here, but it doesn't feel right that the flag can only be created after someone else falls victim to the same scam.
The (potential) victim created a type 2 flag, but that flag says violating an agreement resulted in damages. There are no damages here, but it doesn't feel right that the flag can only be created after someone else falls victim to the same scam.
~snip~ "Anyone" is not the same as "everyone". For example "everyone please give me $10" and "anyone please give me $10".
It does sound ambiguous in that context though, I agree with that. It should be clarified.
It does sound ambiguous in that context though, I agree with that. It should be clarified.
Thanks for the example for Alts.
When I read the wording I take it as "someone" could get scammed, and may not have worded the interpretation I had seen correctly. It does however show that the wording is not defined well enough. Even in your example of "anyone" and "everyone" - Anyone please is still all encompassing in the opportunity being presented or available. Either way just wanted to see how others were seeing this. Fun with Words
~snip~
Thanks for finding the quote and the example.Suspected alts NO.
ACTUAL alts yes...
Were I to flags such alts, the one that scammed me would get the Red Flag and the actual proven alts would get either an implied contract flag or more likely I would give them a Cautionary Flag.
ACTUAL alts yes...
Were I to flags such alts, the one that scammed me would get the Red Flag and the actual proven alts would get either an implied contract flag or more likely I would give them a Cautionary Flag.
Well I try not to jump the gun on accusations, and don't actively track or hunt Alts. I do like this way of doing it as well, especially in the future if the scammed party is no longer active. The cautionary flag could be used by anyone on a proven alt.
So 25 bucks to tag and ban 15 Senior and above accounts?
Sounds like a good deal to me.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
No one gets a tag (see above).
And no one gets a ban. Bans are not related to this at all.
No, poor choice of words, in this context I meant "identify" with this use of the tag adjective (or is it a verb:I hate english
. 
Not sure if this came up and I missed it but I've been thinking about what to do in the case of an Alt. If a user gets flagged with a scam flag, and they have suspected alts. Can the alts have a flag opened against them as well? If so, how would you like the reference thread presented
Suspected alts NO.
ACTUAL alts yes...
Were I to flags such alts, the one that scammed me would get the Red Flag and the actual proven alts would get either an implied contract flag or more likely I would give them a Cautionary Flag.
Not sure if this came up and I missed it but I've been thinking about what to do in the case of an Alt. If a user gets flagged with a scam flag, and they have suspected alts. Can the alts have a flag opened against them as well? If so, how would you like the reference thread presented
Here's how I did it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51453017
I'm quite certain that's sufficiently obvious for anyone looking at the flag.
Also wouldn't mind peoples opinions on my previous post as well. Might have been buried in some other discussions
"Anyone" is not the same as "everyone". For example "everyone please give me $10" and "anyone please give me $10".
It does sound ambiguous in that context though, I agree with that. It should be clarified.
Not sure if this came up and I missed it but I've been thinking about what to do in the case of an Alt. If a user gets flagged with a scam flag, and they have suspected alts. Can the alts have a flag opened against them as well? If so, how would you like the reference thread presented
1- Same thread as the main account, with an edit/notation in the OP about their alts linking to the posts linking the accounts
2- New thread encompassing the scam, and the connection between alts
Also wouldn't mind peoples opinions on my previous post as well. Might have been buried in some other discussions
1- Same thread as the main account, with an edit/notation in the OP about their alts linking to the posts linking the accounts
2- New thread encompassing the scam, and the connection between alts
Also wouldn't mind peoples opinions on my previous post as well. Might have been buried in some other discussions
I've been thinking on this flag a bit the last couple weeks. The wording "I believe that anyone dealing with [---] is at a high risk of losing money" seem to be a roadblock for Flag 1 warnings; and could be replaced by something less universal. This currently gets read as absolutely everyone would need to be at risk of being scammed walking into this situation. Where something like "Users dealing with [---] may be at a high risk of losing money" is less encompassing. It gives the desired effect of warning naive users without having to tick the box of an experienced user falling for the same trap.
The situation that got me thinking about this has been resolved and was clarified shortly after a flag had been created but the questions lingered with me.
On a similar line of thought regarding warning flags (Type 1). If we believe that in the future someone will redeem themselves, but you currently view them as a risk. Should you create a flag, or limit yourself to using the feedback system?
The situation that got me thinking about this has been resolved and was clarified shortly after a flag had been created but the questions lingered with me.
On a similar line of thought regarding warning flags (Type 1). If we believe that in the future someone will redeem themselves, but you currently view them as a risk. Should you create a flag, or limit yourself to using the feedback system?
Nice explanation.
Can reports to moderator statistics be shown to public also, optionally?
Can reports to moderator statistics be shown to public also, optionally?
90 % or evenv more of this forum users do not know, how to add someone to their trust list.
Possibly true, but that doesn't mean we should take the option away from the other 10%. If anything we need to encourage more people to use custom lists.
On which note, I'll crosslink this thread about adding buttons on users' sidebars to make that easier.
If you didn't touch it.. then yes only DT1 / DT2 count.
90 % or even more of this forum users do not know, how to add someone to their trust list.
Possibly true, but that doesn't mean we should take the option away from the other 10%. If anything we need to encourage more people to use custom lists.
If you didn't touch it.. then yes only DT1 / DT2 count.
90 % or even more of this forum users do not know, how to add someone to their trust list.
Yes, it is a scam service. But if the system works like that, then anyone's support or opposition means nothing, except of DT members opinion. Disabling the support or oppose button for regular users will be a good idea, since it it worthless for anyone except DT members. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
It is not worthless.
No one said that only DT votes count.
Votes count from anyone who is in your trust list. If you didn't touch it.. then yes only DT1 / DT2 count.
However, if you include other people, their vote counts too (for you).
It is stated in the OP:
~snip~
Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.
~snip~
Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.
~snip~
This service is either a scam, or worthless.
Yes, it is a scam service. But if the system works like that, then anyone's support or opposition means nothing, except of DT members opinion. Disabling the support or oppose button for regular users will be a good idea, since it it worthless for anyone except DT members. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
I was thinking about 5 DTs supporting a flag and 30 random nobodies opposing it. At least that's how I interpreted mosprognoz's post.
Oh.. that makes sense now.
I somehow didn't get the context to that specific post. I don't know why i kept thinking you are referring to the original post bringing up this service.
Whatsoever.. this service is either a scam, or worthless. I hope no one falls for that.
Anyone falling for such stupid things is just encouraging others to create more similar scammy 'services'.
The flag would still be active and visible on threads, which is its main purpose.
I don't think so.
I was thinking about 5 DTs supporting a flag and 30 random nobodies opposing it. At least that's how I interpreted mosprognoz's post.
The flag would still be active and visible on threads, which is its main purpose.
I don't think so.
~snip~
A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it.
[...]
A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.
[...]
Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.
~snip~
A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it.
[...]
A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.
[...]
Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.
~snip~
The flag would be only visible to the people who explicitly included the (worthless) senior account into their trustlist.
And i doubt that the accounts used for such a service (if it exists at all) are in anyones trustlist (except maybe the one from their alts).
So 25 bucks to tag and ban 15 Senior and above accounts?
Sounds like a good deal to me.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
No one gets a tag (see above).
And no one gets a ban. Bans are not related to this at all.
Anyone can support/oppose flags.
However, only the trusted votes count.
And trusted votes are defined by your trust settings.
If you didn't touch your trustlist (which you definitely should do), DT1 and DT2 votes count only (big bold font).
However, only the trusted votes count.
And trusted votes are defined by your trust settings.
If you didn't touch your trustlist (which you definitely should do), DT1 and DT2 votes count only (big bold font).
I saw a scammy service in telegram, offering opposition for flags. $25 for 15 oppose notes from senior members and above. I just wanted to mention that scammers can use that service.
So 25 bucks to tag and ban 15 Senior and above accounts?
Sounds like a good deal to me.
Yes, but as I mentioned "For newbies who do not understand how the trust system works (It's quite complicated) that may cause some confusion" For example: 5 support votes from DT members and 30 from high ranked accounts not DT members. That will look very strange for newbies and even for other members who are not familiar with the system and who does not know what is DT. There are a lot of such profiles here.
The flag would still be active and visible on threads, which is its main purpose. The support/opposition lists are visible only on the trust details page, which is not much different from how untrusted feedback shows too. If someone gets confused by that and doesn't even bother to read the referenced thread - tough shit. Not sure what else we can do to "enforce" due diligence. The info is there one click away. Although I would prefer to have a short comment on the flag itself like we have with trust feedback.
Jump to: