Trust flags - page 8. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Steamtyme

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 2037

Quote from: theymos on June 12, 2019, 11:35:22 PM

Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe:
- Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
- Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.

Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.
~snip~

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?

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: xtraelv on July 07, 2019, 04:42:03 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on July 07, 2019, 02:25:46 AM

Quote from: xtraelv on July 07, 2019, 12:54:54 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 10:47:23 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

It appears that you are supporting a flag created by someone that appears to have violated the specific conditions of the alleged agreement. (i.e. trying to sell a hacked account)

The agreement is not alleged, the screenshots posted by bob (who is the accused) document him agreeing to purchase the forum accounts in question upon receipt of a PM, which he received. Bob has confirmed that he had no intention of completing the purchase despite his promise to do so. The account that is "hacked" has not proven to be hacked, nor was it part of the specific agreement bob violated.

In that case show me the specific accounts that he bought and show the proof. Because if you read the thread I quoted I showed why I believe there was no agreement and that one of the accounts the seller tried to sell is hacked.

First, if you are not familiar with the thread and situation, I don't see how it would possibly be appropriate to have a stance on the flag one way or another.

The evidence is in this post.

I have copied a portion of the screenshot linked in the above referenced post. If you review the screenshot, you will see that bob123 said he will buy [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659] Ntrain2k upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see in the below image that bob123 received a PM from ntrain2k:

You can see above the copied portion of the conversation that bob123 was offered a "green hero" for $550, and also that bob123 asked for PMs to be sent to "alice321" which they were.

Further, you can see this portion of the conversation posted by bob123:

Above you can see that bob123 agreed to purchase a legendary account for $600 upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see from the above screenshot of PMs posted by bob123 that a PM was sent from narousberg, which is a legendary account.

Further, you can see based on bob123's actions that he did not have any intention of actually buying the accounts up for sale, despite making the representation that he wishes to do so, which is a breach of an implied agreement.

I would have to scrutinize the details further to find additional agreements that bob123 broke, however the above more than demonstrates a breach of agreement(s), and as such proves the flag is valid.

Timelord2067

legendary

Activity: 3696

Merit: 2219

💲🏎️💨🚓

Quote from: theymos on June 11, 2019, 10:13:36 PM

...

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. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.

...

PM me if you find bugs.

Eleven out of thirteen Flags ~ 85% of Lauda's Flags are inaccurate when you look right into it: Lauda creating flags against random people linked to threads not related. [Archive]

korner has created dozens of flags that link to locked threads with no proof offered.

Feel free to PM me if you'd like clarification.

[Archive]

xtraelv

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1926

฿ear ride on the rainbow slide

Quote from: Quickseller on July 07, 2019, 02:25:46 AM

Quote from: xtraelv on July 07, 2019, 12:54:54 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 10:47:23 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

It appears that you are supporting a flag created by someone that appears to have violated the specific conditions of the alleged agreement. (i.e. trying to sell a hacked account)

The agreement is not alleged, the screenshots posted by bob (who is the accused) document him agreeing to purchase the forum accounts in question upon receipt of a PM, which he received. Bob has confirmed that he had no intention of completing the purchase despite his promise to do so. The account that is "hacked" has not proven to be hacked, nor was it part of the specific agreement bob violated.

In that case show me the specific accounts that he bought and show the proof. Because if you read the thread I quoted I showed why I believe there was no agreement and that one of the accounts the seller tried to sell is hacked.

malevolent

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 1724

Quote from: xtraelv on July 07, 2019, 12:54:54 AM

He may be a no-body but the way the DT system is currently working he may be DT in no time. There have been quite a few dubious users promoted to DT since the new system was introduced.

The other issue that occurs is that he appears to be randomly tagging people with flags while also randomly giving positive trust to others.

I wouldn't worry too much, it's enough if more DT1 members distrust him than trust him: http://loyce.club/trust/2019-07-06_Sat_10.00h/1096223.html

If that magically doesn't suffice, theymos may also blacklist him from DT1 selection in the worst case.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: xtraelv on July 07, 2019, 12:54:54 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 10:47:23 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

It appears that you are supporting a flag created by someone that appears to have violated the specific conditions of the alleged agreement. (i.e. trying to sell a hacked account)

The agreement is not alleged, the screenshots posted by bob (who is the accused) document him agreeing to purchase the forum accounts in question upon receipt of a PM, which he received. Bob has confirmed that he had no intention of completing the purchase despite his promise to do so. The account that is "hacked" has not proven to be hacked, nor was it part of the specific agreement bob violated.

xtraelv

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1926

฿ear ride on the rainbow slide

Quote from: malevolent on July 05, 2019, 09:43:46 AM

Probably the same as with Trust feedback? Either never removed or only if used to spam the same user with the same feedback. Korner is a nobody so it's not like his feedback/flags matter at all anyway.

He may be a no-body but the way the DT system is currently working he may be DT in no time. There have been quite a few dubious users promoted to DT since the new system was introduced.

The other issue that occurs is that he appears to be randomly tagging people with flags while also randomly giving positive trust to others.

e.g. Cryptodevil he gave positive trust "friendship". I'm sure he is not Cryptodevils "friend".

While he also has tagged most of the DTs with flags

But he also tagged some scammers with flags.

While the known people will probably have their flags opposed - it is the lesser known people that may not get any support or may even get their flag supported in the confusion.

Likewise some scammers may get their flag opposed because they got flagged by a troll.

I personally received one of his flags. While I don't take ist seriously - he blatantly lied in the reason he gave.. I am not and have never been a merit source.

Which is not surprising from an account that is evading a ban and impersonated a moderator.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1096223

Quote from: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 10:47:23 AM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

It appears that you are supporting a flag created by someone that appears to have violated the specific conditions of the alleged agreement. (i.e. trying to sell a hacked account)

Quote from: xtraelv on July 04, 2019, 09:52:54 PM

Quote from: zackie on June 25, 2019, 03:04:44 PM

Quote from: LoyceV on June 25, 2019, 02:56:22 PM

Quote from: zackie on June 25, 2019, 02:52:14 PM

As I said, that proves nothing because of VPNs. I could do whatever you or anybody else here wants, there will always be somebody saying: "But this is still no evidence, do this and do that!" This will be a
never ending story. I'm the real zackie and this account is not for sale. Believe it or not, I don't care.

Have you checked https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php ? You have only 30 days to see the account thief's IP address.

Holy crap! Thanks for that link. Here is the result:

2019-06-25 18:52:29   2019-06-25 19:53:15   xx.xxx.xxx.xx   XXXXXXXx, Germany
2019-06-24 22:00:53   2019-06-24 22:01:56   xxxx:xx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx   XXXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-24 20:03:48   2019-06-24 20:52:38   xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx    XXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-19 09:38:21   2019-06-20 14:02:48   42.201.183.65   Karachi, Pakistan

Indeed, somebody from Pakistan used my account!

But hey, you know.... I could have used a VPN....

We are talking about trying to sell a hacked account.

The claim from the OP was:

Quote from: SeW900 on June 23, 2019, 10:10:58 PM

He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.

IMadeYouReadThis

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 14

GROW THROUGH, WHAT YOU GO THROUGH

Quote from: LoyceV on July 05, 2019, 01:22:46 PM

~

Thank you LoyceV for this effort of highlighting this abusive flags, also it's great to see DTs taking efforts in opposing those, its an hell lot of work really !

Quote from: suchmoon on July 06, 2019, 06:29:43 AM

korner's been (temp?) banned.

That sound's better, I also think the above flags started by him should be deleted by administration manually as said, the flag are not visible on the profile to the DT members to be opposed.

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

korner's been (temp?) banned.

Veleor

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1655

Rêlêå§ê ¥ðµr MïñÐ

Quote from: LoyceV on July 05, 2019, 01:22:46 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on July 05, 2019, 09:05:13 AM

What's the policy on trust flag spam? This user seems to be determined to test it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1096223

He's been busy Shocked

He's even spamming Archival with Flag topics. <...>

"The most compelling arguments" for flags I have ever seen. Roll Eyes

Quote from: korner on July 05, 2019, 07:09:06 AM

Flag for Trollface

Reason: Troll

Quote from: korner on July 05, 2019, 06:51:28 AM

Flag for Skammer

Reason: Scammer

Flags #386, #379

Quote from: suchmoon on July 05, 2019, 07:23:41 PM

IIRC there is strong circumstantial evidence but not 100%. Theymos and/or cryptios might have more to go on. <...>

Taking into account the user's own confession and dates of passwords changes, I believe that proof of ban evasion is 100%.

1. korner admitted in the Russian section that he used a banned profile wex.nz:

Quote from: ?? on ??

<...> Кaк клaccнo я пoвeceлилcя и пoyгapaл c вac изoбpaжaя "wex.nz". <...>

(Archive)

Translation:

Quote from: ?? on ??

<...> Я тyт вcex пpeдyпpeждaю o гoтoвящимcя cкaмe aж в 2017

Quote from: wex.nz on November 15, 2017, 12:04:01 AM

Дoнocим дo вaшeгo cвeдeния чтo пpoизoшeл идeйный pacкoл в кoмaндe WEX

<...>

(Archive)

2. Both profiles have the same dates of changed passwords:

korner - Security/Moderator Log

Code:

08/25/2018 9:04:57 AM password changed
10/27/2018 5:08:48 AM password changed

wex.nz - Security/Moderator Log

Code:

08/25/2018 08:32:37 AM password changed
10/27/2018 05:28:53 AM password changed

I believe that another alt of korner is user CKAMEP which confirmed in Russian as well that he owned the banned account wex.nz.

The original message of CKAMEP has been deleted, therefore a quote is given:

Quote from: power123456 on February 15, 2019, 06:59:35 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

<...> Ктo нe вepит - мoгy дoкaзaть и зaлoгинитcя в wex.nz (зaбaнeн), пишитe в л/c <...>

<...>

Translation:

Quote

<...> Who doesn't believe - I can prove it and login to wex.nz (banned), write a PM <...>

CKAMEP also has changed the password at the same day with korner and wex.nz.

CKAMEP - Security/Moderator Log

Code:

10/27/2018 7:41:01 AM password changed

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: malevolent on July 05, 2019, 06:28:36 PM

If these accounts can be confirmed to be his alts with 100% certainty then maybe that qualifies as spam worthy of being removed, maybe theymos could chime in.

IIRC there is strong circumstantial evidence but not 100%. Theymos and/or cryptios might have more to go on.

Quote from: TryNinja on July 05, 2019, 06:50:23 PM

On a side note, does this really matter when his flags will never get activated since he's not on DT, and even if they are supported by anyone, they can simple by removed from DT?

This already happened all the time in the old trust system.

Kinda sorta. With this new lottery-based DT1 you never know when someone might include him or one of his (possibly not yet known) alts, and the flags aren't as visible to regular DT members as the old red trust used to be - merely a "#" next to the trust score. So I went through those garbage flags and opposed them all just in case, and Foxpup did the same.

TryNinja

legendary

Activity: 2758

Merit: 6830

On a side note, does this really matter when his flags will never get activated since he's not on DT, and even if they are supported by anyone, they can simple by removed from DT?

This already happened all the time in the old trust system.

malevolent

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 1724

Quote from: suchmoon on July 05, 2019, 10:39:48 AM

Well, it's your fault now for giving him the idea Wink

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2544811
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2618696

Creating bogus flags with alts.

Well, shit Embarrassed

If these accounts can be confirmed to be his alts with 100% certainty then maybe that qualifies as spam worthy of being removed, maybe theymos could chime in.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

362 Insufficient support. korner flagged markiz731 (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon, Last of the V8s[/size].

363 Insufficient support. korner flagged Harlot (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon, Last of the V8s[/size].

364 Insufficient support. korner flagged VyachikO (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

365 Insufficient support. korner flagged Last of the V8s (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

366 Insufficient support. korner flagged boltalka (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by nobody.

367 Insufficient support. korner flagged Piston Honda (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

368 Insufficient support. korner flagged LeGaulois (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon, Last of the V8s[/size].

369 Insufficient support. korner flagged blurryeyed (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

370 Insufficient support. korner flagged franckuestein (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon, Last of the V8s[/size].

371 Insufficient support. korner flagged power123456 (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by nobody.

373 Insufficient support. korner flagged WEX_OFFICIAL (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup[/size].

374 Insufficient support. korner flagged Sakasara (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

375 Insufficient support. korner flagged Kryptoart (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

376 Insufficient support. korner flagged ~~anna.mayzus~~ Banned! (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

377 Insufficient support. korner flagged Sara Parker (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

378 Insufficient support. korner flagged Scamer (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

379 Insufficient support. korner flagged Skammer (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

380 Insufficient support. korner flagged CKAMEP (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

381 Insufficient support. korner flagged WORLD_EXCHANGE_SERVICES (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup[/size].

382 Insufficient support. korner flagged wex.com (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup[/size].

383 Insufficient support. korner flagged ~~WEX-UNOFFICIAL~~ Banned! (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by nobody.

384 Insufficient support. korner flagged ~~btc-e.nz~~ Banned! (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup[/size].

385 Insufficient support. korner flagged novacoin.org (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

386 Insufficient support. korner flagged ~~Trollface~~ Banned! (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

387 Insufficient support. korner flagged ~~wex.nz~~ Banned! (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by nobody.

388 Insufficient support. korner flagged ~~cashberycoin.com~~ Banned! (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

389 Insufficient support. korner flagged Werosim (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

390 Insufficient support. korner flagged BitcoinFX (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

391 Insufficient support. korner flagged ~~Zloy~~ Banned! (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

392 Insufficient support. korner flagged Lex Voland (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

393 Insufficient support. korner flagged Already exist (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

394 Insufficient support. korner flagged wex.link (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by suchmoon[/size].

395 Insufficient support. korner flagged ya-just (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

396 Insufficient support. korner flagged NOWEX.NZ (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

397 Insufficient support. korner flagged chimk (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon, Last of the V8s, witcher_sense[/size].

398 Insufficient support. korner flagged Vadi2323 (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

399 Insufficient support. korner flagged esmanthra (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

400 Insufficient support. korner flagged klarki (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

401 Insufficient support. korner flagged marlboroza (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

402 Insufficient support. korner flagged xtraelv (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

403 Insufficient support. korner flagged o_e_l_e_o (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

404 Insufficient support. korner flagged taikuri13 (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

405 Insufficient support. korner flagged Rooivalk (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

406 Insufficient support. korner flagged 3meek (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

407 Insufficient support. korner flagged deisik (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

408 Insufficient support. korner flagged Noads (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

409 Insufficient support. korner flagged researcher194 (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

410 Insufficient support. korner flagged liquid55 (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

411 Insufficient support. korner flagged becool (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

412 Insufficient support. korner flagged recusant2000 (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

413 Insufficient support. korner flagged prizrak73 (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

414 Insufficient support. korner flagged viktor.alekseevich.1979 (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

415 Insufficient support. korner flagged Cryder (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

416 Insufficient support. korner flagged The0ldl_lser (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

417 Insufficient support. korner flagged Bazillio (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

418 Insufficient support. korner flagged FAN (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

419 Insufficient support. korner flagged alpet (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon[/size].

420 Insufficient support. korner flagged babo (type 1, see why). Supported by korner. Opposed by Foxpup, suchmoon, babo[/size].

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: suchmoon on July 05, 2019, 09:05:13 AM

What's the policy on trust flag spam? This user seems to be determined to test it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1096223

He's been busy Shocked

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: malevolent on July 05, 2019, 10:21:12 AM

True, it was probably introduced to cut down on spam. Best the could do is keep creating alt accounts if he's that bored.

Well, it's your fault now for giving him the idea Wink

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2544811
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2618696

Creating bogus flags with alts.

malevolent

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 1724

True, it was probably introduced to cut down on spam. Best the could do is keep creating alt accounts if he's that bored.

suchmoon

legendary

Activity: 3654

Merit: 8909

https://bpip.org

Quote from: malevolent on July 05, 2019, 09:43:46 AM

Probably the same as with Trust feedback? Either never removed or only if used to spam the same user with the same feedback. Korner is a nobody so it's not like his feedback/flags matter at all anyway.

There is a time limit before you can create another flag for the same user, so that kind of spam won't exist with flags... I guess korner is gonna have to slow down at 98 (current activity).

Quote from: theymos on June 11, 2019, 10:49:12 PM

- Per 180 days, you can only give 1 flag of each type to a given user. So you can't give someone multiple written-contract-violation flags in 180 days, for example.
- Globally, per year you can only create 1 flag per activity point you have, but at least 1/year.

malevolent

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 1724

Probably the same as with Trust feedback? Either never removed or only if used to spam the same user with the same feedback. Korner is a nobody so it's not like his feedback/flags matter at all anyway.

TMAN

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1808

Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do

Quote from: suchmoon on July 05, 2019, 09:05:13 AM

What's the policy on trust flag spam? This user seems to be determined to test it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1096223

Brilliant. That’s some determination there for a pajeet. Just another example of how the system is pretty shit

Topic: Trust flags - page 8. (Read 12952 times)