"Last of the V8s alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with realr0ach is at 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 the user's opinions."
You call it lies, this could simply be a difference of opinion. Furthermore nothing you are stating is at all trade related. This flag is 100% based off of his opinions, which is explicitly prohibited. It is not your job to judge who people should and should't trade with. You have a tool intended to warn users of potential fraud, you are using this tool to punish this user for words you don't like. That is not only counterproductive to the intended use case of the trust system, it is quite childish.
You seem to be cottoning on, if slowly. It's a subjective flag. Complain to theymos. If he tweaks the rules, I'll comply.
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.
The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.
There are clear lies in the op.
How can you trade with a liar? One who knows a bit about Bitcoin but insists it has no value and everyone should buy silver?
Where do I claim it's my 'job'? Don't put words in my mouth. It's the forum's job to vote on this advisory flag, though.
For the umpteenth time, it's not about his bigotry and what all else.
Take your 'childish' ad hom elsewhere. You are not coming off as 'knowledgeable or reasonable'.
"Last of the V8s alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with realr0ach is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so.
You conveniently left out the bold part. More subjective does not equal totally subjective. I didn't use any ad hominem attacks, I am characterizing your behavior and backing it up with logical arguments and evidence.
Separate the wheat from the chaff.
That sure sounds a lot like you think it is you who gets to decide who is wheat and who is chaff. I didn't put any words in your mouth. I am already convinced removing your exclusion was a mistake. I see you presenting ZERO EVIDENCE of shady trade related activity, your conclusions are based 100% on his opinions. This is absolutely an abuse of the flag system.