Quote from: Steamtyme on Today at 09:55:25 AM

Quote from: ETFbitcoin on October 05, 2020, 10:01:03 AM

I didn't know theymos become grandfather at age of 29¹ Shocked

Just refers to allowing something that has been in place pre-change (Law, rule, qualification), to remain in effect despite being sub-par by new (build/hiring) requirements.

For OP, you are mistaken

Quote from: theymos on June 12, 2019, 03:41:08 AM

Quote from: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 03:39:50 AM

How are the existing ratings converted into the new flags?

They're not. I decided that too many negative ratings aren't flag-worthy, and there's no way to automatically determine it. If you believe that a past negative rating is flag-worthy, you'll need to create a flag.

If you are just complaining about ratings in general having been grandfatheres then there is nothing more to discuss. A tweaked system didn't automatically negate anyone's feedback. It actually diminished the "power" of the previous DT grouping. So now if someone constantly remains neg'd it's because a larger percentage of the population here agrees they exhibit, let's say "Shitty" behavior.

You can also read the OP. of that quote. The need for flags was to allow more freedom in specifically targeting trade risks, and separating them from more personal opinion ratings. Which of course anyone can use as they see fit.

So to be clear you are saying that a persons threads do not have a financially dangerous or scammer warning at the start of them without them having a flag?

I am sure that if you have more negatives than positives before flags came in then you got one of these false and defamatory warnings.
Unless this has been changed.

Are you saying this had been changed?

I mean even a type 1 flag can be given for any reason. There is no requirement for their to be any evidence of scamming , attempting to scam or any financially motivated wrong doing of any kind. You can give it people for whatever?
This is a different point but equally as strange. There is no point of a type 1 flag it can be given for any reason.

But let's tackle the first point. Why are the abuses that inspired the need for the flagging system grandfathered in.
If they were given for any other reason that scamming attempting to scam or some form of financial wrongdoing they should not bet there. So for the forum software to convert you drink lemon tea into you are a scammer is ludicrous.

Are you sure this doesn't happen? Some may say well only people with less than 10 days login time or whatever see those warnings but still that is quite a bit and it's defaming members that have never even thought of scamming.

We can discuss the level 1 flag requirement also. Let's clear the original point up first.

Constantly remained tagged now is different because you only have to not like the individual. Previously it was for proven scamming or strong evidence of scamming, attempting to or setting up a scam.

How does the forum excuse telling new members that all threads started by a member that maybe was here 8 yrs with no evidence of any financially motivated wrongdoing is a scammer or guilty of financial wrong doing.
Needs to be fixed unless you believe indisputable defamation or deliberately false accusation is sensible.

I mean even the new type 1 flag is almost as bad. That should not have any financially dangerous or misleading bullshit warnings when there is zero evidence of any scamming or financially motivated wrongdoing in years of being a member.
That should just say some twat DT scum don't like this person for some reason that has nothing to do with financially motivated wrongdoing or scamming. Totally bogus nonsense the forum tells about members ? Wtf?