Quote from: Lauda on June 12, 2019, 07:19:56 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 07:05:46 PM

Quote from: morvillz7z on June 12, 2019, 06:57:15 PM

As to bitchpoint 2 I would love to see something like this implemented. It could easily save me and others hours of unnecessary work.

I also want to make one more thing clear, we can still use the old trust system to leave feedback in regards to marking scammy ICOs, correct?

Yes, and the guidelines have been relaxed in that you no longer need to strongly believe the user is a scammer, merely that trading with user is high-risk. I think both red trust and yellow box would fit most ICO scams.

This is not entirely correct. The guideline has been further relaxed to the point that you're allowed to leave negative ratings for a single instance of lying (at least on a flag). It is probably relaxed to the point that you can leave negatives for anything (as they are more or less irrelevant) This was confirmed by theymos today, look in my profile. This also confirmed my very early statement that the requirement for scamming is gone.
On the plus side: All non-scam related negative ratings are fully within guidelines now. Thule and cryptohunter can't be complaining any more. Cheesy

This is nonsense. See the description of the most broad flag:

Quote

Due to the factors mentioned in the above topic, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on any mere disagreements I may have with the user.

The threshold is that:
*you believe *anyone* trading with the person had a *high risk* of loosing money
*The conclusion is based on a set of circumstances that *any* knowledgeable and reasonable forum member would agree with
*The flag is not based on a disagreement with the person.