Topic: Trust flags - page 9. (Read 12952 times)

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

I don't care about your joints if you don't use them to scam other people 
If you don't harm other people and don't provide things which others can use to harm other people.. whatever   

He'll turn you in to the police in no time. Don't share your joints with Bob123.

Sorry bob no cigs for you.

Edit:fixed, he didn't say that.

@Eddie I will try to do my best to answer your questions, sorry for late response.
It was unethical. I don't like sting operations.
It does not. There was no contract.
I can only say that I would not share any info with bob. I also think it is good that some accounts are exposed, especially that account with green trust.

Hm....can you understand this?

I think it's like that by design:


I can envision a scenario where the accuser is bribed, threatened or extorted to remove their feedback/flag before someone supports it. Or users supporting a flag may face pressure or fiduciary encouragements to withdraw their support of a flag. If original flag posters can only withdraw their support for a flag on a scammer's profile, but without being able to remove the flag themselves, there's still always a trace left on the scammers profile to keep eyes open/lurk moar about the person one would be dealing with.

Suggestion: Automatically delete flags which don't have any Support. For example: 37, 38, 85, 251.

Some flags can be created as a result of mistake or a test, therefore it should be possible to remove them from users' profiles.

positive/neutral/negative from DT member
positive/neutral/negative from Member ,Full Member , Sr. Member ,Hero ... ( no Newbie , Jr. Membe , person got negative from DT )

+0/ =0 / -0 from DT
+0/ =0 / -0 from member

you see shorena leave negative for Lauda and Lauda get back negative for shorena

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/shorena-181801

Decide from DT member is exact 100% ?

There check quickly from all member on forum , not DT member.The most general review to check account.Sure 100%,individuals should read through both the trusted and untrusted feedback to get a general composition of the profile’s trustworthiness

The number of positive/neutral/negative rating you see are based on your Trust network. If you do not create your own (which is what the vast majority do), you will see the number of DT ratings with regards to the depth level you have established.
If you create your own Trust network, then the ratings will be based on those you trust, and not DT.

In any case, regardless of the numbers you see in the positive/neutral/negative rating counts, it is always wise to look deeper into the profile and read both the Trusted Feedback, and the Untrusted feedback (which in your case is abundant).

What I figure is your point is that, in your particular case, you’ve got tons of untrusted feedback which does not reflect on your scores. That’s how the system works, and that is why individuals should read through both the trusted and untrusted feedback to get a general composition of the profile’s trustworthiness, and how he gained it specifically.

Hi Admin. you should change
distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters
become
distinct positive raters by Dt1 member / distinct positive raters by member / distinct negative raters by Dt1 member

because dt1 member only who leave positive is unfair with other member.newbie see mark from distinct positive raters by member and review this member trusted or not.

distinct positive raters from Dt1 member are inexactly.

If you sent someone a link to malware via PM or a message on the open forum, you will be permabanned if the victim reports it to staff. Issuing a flag to a permabanned account is a bit redundant.

Also, issuing a red flag is rather punitive. Theymos set the bar high to issue this flag since it is very harsh. Please see the following thread for the full impact of a red flag. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/0007-loan-by-tomorrow-122019-evening-utc-5104698 We must ask ourselves if the infraction merits an account being subjected to the red flag for 3 years for level 2 and 7 years for level 1. Sometimes a yellow flag and/or a negative trust comment is more appropriate.

Use the following to red flag someone that malwared you.
This user violated a casual or implied agreement with me, resulting in damages.

It is an implied agreement between decent people not to steal from one another, so you can use the above.  IMO.  
(You do need to be able to prove the theft occurred and the other party was responsible. )

I'm not making any assumptions, I'm reading directly from Bob's post. Bob's post is more important than the information SeW put forward because Bob was only able to operate with the information they had at the time. They claimed they were all the same person, not me. I'm not searching for additional details unless the story doesn't mesh between the buyer and seller. If Bob was mistaken and SeW and TrustedSeller are two different people, then SeW is an agent of the sale and is therefore still involved. Just like when you go to a car dealership, the salesman is involved even though they don't actually personally own the car they are selling you. There are lots of real estate agents popping up in the goods section, I guess they are free game to scam because the people they are selling houses for aren't members of the forums!

This is realllllllly simple. Bob's intentional action cost SeW money in a way that was expected. You can still be responsible for accidents, but things get a lot clearer when it isn't an accident such as in this case. This isn't a who's at fault for the sign falling off of a building onto a passerby tort. Its someone who damaged another person's property decreasing its sale value intentionally. There are strikingly similar court cases regarding social media influencer account sales where a party intentionally dropped the value of the account. This hasn't been a gray area since rulings on secondlife disputes came to exist.

If only the first two accounts were SeW's personally owned accounts, then they lost less money than if they are all SeW's accounts. If SeW and TrustedSeller are not the same person, than as TrustedSeller's agent, they lost less money than had they owned the accounts. I'm far less interested in the little technicalities of the deal that may exclude a flag from being placed based on who's lawyer reads the details of the description, and far more interested in the fact that an obvious scam is trying to be covered up. Whether it was SeW who was scammed or TrustedSeller that was scammed, the damage occurred and all parties were involved. Its absolutely ridiculous to claim innocence because another party was perhaps a greater victim than the OP.



*Edit*

Actually something good did come out of arguing with people of a mindset that I don't understand. I came to the realization, that if I (for the sake of example) sent someone malware and stole their Bitcoins off of their computer, they could not flag me. You don't enter into a contract to be one sidedly stolen from or financially damaged. There are currently loopholes for realistic scenarios that we should sure up.

He is trying to bring up information that does not affect his argument as a means to distract and discredit his argument. 

Do you think that he did anything wrong or just that it doesn't perfectly fit the definition of the flag?
Would you consider it untrustworthy behavior regardless of any technical flag language?

As I have already told you, I am not interested to listen to your assumptions neither I will respond to them.

Here you go, chat history https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/flagging-accounts-which-are-up-to-sale-dt-member-actions-needed-5157334:
These are not accounts Sew900 tried to sell! He tried to sell 2 accounts.

Read read read:


trustedseller =/= SeW900 according to SeW900


Again, what was part of agreement between SeW900 and Bob123?


Seems you didn't do research properly before placing that support.

Yes I can. Please note the "Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller"


Why are you so hung up me providing proof that SeW thoroughly proved to Bob that they owned the accounts, it is not in question whether they own the accounts the "Buyer" acknowledges right there that SeW has provided adequate proof. I don't need to find where SeW proved it, because its not a point of contention.

This is all really clear abuse, you found a target that you perceived as a second class forum user, so you managed to convince yourself that the basic definitions of financially harming someone doesn't apply because you don't like them. Thats not how things work, and it speaks very poorly to all of your characters. It feels like I'm in the flat earth thread. I post "did someone lose money as a result of another person's action" and the response is, PROVE THIS PERSON IS ROUND IF THE SUN IS 1000 MILES AWAY.

We aren't getting anywhere, everyone make up your own opinions.

The same question I have asked tecsare:

Can you list all accounts which SeW900 was selling?

After you are done, show me proof where SeW900 proved that they own these accounts, WHICH WAS PART OF AGREEMENT!

Person A can't start red flag type 2/3 because person B caused damage to person C!

And flag you supported are 3 unrelated instances. Just because bob placed them all in one thread doesn't make them the same. They are 3 separated cases.


No one abused anything you scumbag.

You can still create the #1 flag which will be visible to the guests and newbies.

Can a clown like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2634096 be FLAGGED per our new rules even though he has not scammed  me or anyone else (yet), probably really has nothing to sell but what he SAYS he is selling is a TROJAN (not that anyone here is going to pay 150BTC anyway).  It's just so low. Thread:  http://archive.fo/AIwKa.  This is what he claims to be selling:  https://www.symantec.com/security-center/writeup/2018-061412-5158-99  I did neg him but that is pretty useless these days.

Funny enough, selling fake gold falls under US Anti Money Countefeiting laws, and its not uncommon to receive life sentences for intentionally marking something with .999, "fine" or "pure" if it isn't. You are welcome to keep grasping at straws, but out of sympathy I'll just say that trying to defend counterfeit gold sellers probably isn't the direction you want to go with your argument.

Also, selling fake items is called Fraud.