[DENIED] Allow staff to "head hunt" ban evaders

Headhunt most likely not the right term,
but guessing I'll go into detail what I mean,

I asked a few staff members who I private messaged who I will not leak but none could actually give me a reason behind it.

Here My Guess: (This may be wrong)
Essentially Sythe staff are meant to be court and not police and are not meant to "headhunting" because they could show biased in a report?

But here is the caught with the logic I just outlined,
The Sythe staff aren't allowed to deal with the report they posted or reports on themselves, all reports on them have to deal with the administration team and all reports they post have to be dealt with by another staff member.

Here suggestion simple and clear,
Can we simply allow staff to headhunt ban evaders and only ban evaders?

Ban evaders shouldn't be on the site either way. so they shouldn't have the right

People are completely misunderstanding this suggestion (or may be my bad wording),

Currently, staff are not allowed to single aim and hunt single individual,
They have to turn a blind eye if they are singly hunting person as they are not allowed headhunt, some these vaders couldn't be found without staff powers of ip or whatever,

This suggestion is simple to allowed staff headhunt or hunt a single individual if they please.

Nothing to do with banning them or dnting them! allow them to report them simple as. I know it sounds stupid but there not allowed to headhunt or aim to find a certain individual

 

[Fear]

To be honest this should be in the staff input rather than suggestion, because people can't make staff do things since they're volunteers and it's upto the team's discretion.

 

To be honest this should be in the staff input rather than suggestion, because people can't make staff do things since they're volunteers and it's upto the team's discretion.

Think ABM's point here friend is so staff able to handle report themselves not have to wait for other staff to handle after they already do research and find match. Maybe is this way for second opinion in case of mistake made?

 

Allow staff to ban evaders when caught

similar thread with a lot of overlapping content.

 

Yes to allow it. Or set up some kind of team where this can be worked on, practiced, and taught to less-seasoned members. I know Gladiator and Wortel really do a load of work catching ban evaders, they could head up this hypothetical team.

 

I think that the mod reporting the person can temporarily place a "DNT" would be sufficient enough until another mod reviews it and turns it to a perm ban.

 

Community wants it, staff doesn’t. They’d rather see a million of useless stickies instead of actually being able to do something about it. It has gotten me demoted, approving this will confirm that they were wrong in doing so.

 

[FireZ]

Waste of moderator time as they are going to keep evading no matter how many times you ban them its like chasing your tail around in a never ending cycle

 

Waste of moderator time as they are going to keep evading no matter how many times you ban them its like chasing your tail around in a never ending cycle

With this may as well just allow vading then..

 

[S]

Community wants it, staff doesn’t. They’d rather see a million of useless stickies instead of actually being able to do something about it. It has gotten me demoted, approving this will confirm that they were wrong in doing so.

Let’s be real – it’s evident you being demoted was not solely due to you ‘head-hunting’ or for only one reason. You’re quite arrogant, defiant and condescending (it may be completely unintentional, and if so, you need to be more self-aware...cause we all know you're at heart a nice lad), not to mention defiant of Admins telling you not to do something multiple times. Regardless if a user is a scammer or not, you need to maintain a level of professionalism, and understand who your audience is, and how to communicate with said audience. Not constantly let your emotions override any sense of pragmatism when tending to reports/pardons/etc. Essentially, being a staff member requires a level of professionalism, which you need to work on dude.

Since your demotion, all I’ve seen you do is bicker and rant about how unjustified it was, and how the staff are biased. Instead, try improving on what I’m sure they asked of you, and not constantly, publicly, continuing the rhetoric that everyone is wrong, and you are right. Cmon dude, you're a smart chap, you know what you need to do!

Look, everyone knows you had an immeasurable work-ethic, and were extremely active, and also an asset. However, you need to understand that how you engage with users and how the staff are perceived is important as well. You essentially need to work on understanding how to communicate with the different type of audiences that this website pulls in, and not be driven by your emotions 24/7. I've got nothing against you man, and you're a good bloke - but perhaps make an attempt to change.

Regarding this suggestion, refer to @WantaCookie post, which includes many arguments for and against this proposed suggestion. I, myself, support staff being able to ban users themselves, provided the relevant and required proof is present. Previously, this was never a point of contention and was allowed. Staff would ban users themselves, and post said proof/report within the staff lounge. I also understand the need for transparency, so potentially a middle ground solution is to let staff ban users themselves provided reports/proof are posted publicly within the anti-scam forum.

 

People are completely misunderstanding this suggestion (or may be my bad wording),

Currently, staff are not allowed to single aim and hunt single individual,
They have to turn a blind eye if they are singly hunting person as they are not allowed headhunt, some these vaders couldn't be found without staff powers of ip or whatever,

This suggestion is simple to allowed staff headhunt or hunt a single individual if they please.

Nothing to do with banning them or dnting them! allow them to report them simple as. I know it sounds stupid but there not allowed to headhunt or aim to find certain individual

 

[FireZ]

It is too much time wasting thats the main problem with it

 

[S]

It is too much time wasting thats the main problem with it

I don't think this is relevant JT.

If a staff member wants to spend their own free time on finding and banning scammers/vaders/whatever, then that's entirely up them and their prerogative.

It's not required nor compulosry for them to do the above, so the concept of it wasting time is irrelevant.

 

[FireZ]

The entire point is you ban and ban and ban and they just keep coming back. And 2 months later for example you wasted all this time banning away and your still right back at square one. They still have an account and you accomplished nothing and they wont stop.

Id rather see staff in the dispute forum and account recovery then wasting time on evaders.

 

[Yuri Boyka]

Waste of moderator time as they are going to keep evading no matter how many times you ban them its like chasing your tail around in a never ending cycle

I mean yeah they're going to keep evading as long as it's easy to vade and escape punishment like it is right now. Put proper thought into it and implement things like OPs suggestion and I guarantee you the number of evaders goes down.

Of course it never will stop because you have unemployed people with no other form of income like Chris Kane needing to scam for money, but the rule is there for a reason. I'm not really sure what you're suggesting, because some evaders are persistent in their practice, we should stop trying to look for them? If the community wants better enforcement in place to keep Sythe clean, then implement it.

 

Waste of staff time and resources. There are hundreds of vaders and staff will be banning the same people over and over again. If a ban evader gets caught and banned, all they have to do is create a new account and we’re back to square one. The only way to combat this is educating new users on how to trade safely; which we’ve been trying to do for awhile and I’d like to believe it’s somewhat working.

I do see both sides of the argument however, so I’ll keep this open for further discussion.

 

What about idea to stop so many Vader's. Require newcomer account to enable 2FA for access to market section, or require newcomer to post on specific thread that take them straight to Sythe rules page first and click I accept to all rule. Just ideas.

Understand drawback to make newcomer do specific thing just to trade, if want to keep Sythe safe make every new account post to new thread that have sythe rules, can see visibility of all account and research if vading from there, discourage vaders from extra time it take to make account and higher chance to get caught. Sure we can think of something here friends.

See below post too,
@Gen @video @Pendulum @Jason @Gladiator @TySimpson @ABM @Azie @Zero @SellerMan @Wortel

 

Personally I like how it is at the moment

Would stop user like this nonsense from happen at least, where Vader can't make accot immediately and spam other Vader account thread, break operation at source, easier to find account, less staff time taken, more time for Vader to spend try to vade and make fake thread and account to spam Sythe with, maybe help new user educated on scam that can occur, encourage more use of MM, I have few more good idea if staff want hear them?

 

What about idea to stop so many Vader's. Require newcomer account to enable 2FA for access to market section, or require newcomer to post on specific thread that take them straight to Sythe rules page first and click I accept to all rule. Just ideas.
[/USER]

i dont know if you've ever heard this but free market

 

i dont know if you've ever heard this but free market

Posting on thread to acknowledge rules has nothing to do with this .. very funny. I want to help, maybe you can come up with idea instead of bash it and do same and contribute to thread in positive way