[Denied] Define "poor trading practices" and add to official rules

[President]

We should strive to be able to refer people to a specific rule when we punish them. Hence this suggestion

Two suggestions:
1. Add to official rules that poor trading practices may lead to TWC/DNT
2. Define poor trading practices
2a. My definition of PTP:
2a1. PTP: deceptive and fraudulent business practices.
2a2. A non-exhaustive list of examples is: ambiguity about fees, bad PMs, ignoring/ghosting during service, unrightfully withholding deposits, referring to the wrong discord UID on Sythe, dissuading to start a dispute on Sythe, and so forth.
2b. Consequence of breach:
2b1. PTP, in principle, leads to a TWC.
2b2. However, staff has the discretion to settle a PTP with a warning.
2b3. Cumulation or excessiveness of poor trading practices may lead to a DNT.

From rulings, we know that poor/bad trading practices can lead to a warning, TWC, or even DNT. Right now it's undefined within the rules. It serves basically as an umbrella concept.

Yet, because of the severity of the consequences that breaching PTP can have, a basic explanation of poor trading practices should be there. Whether something falls within the scope of PTP shouldn't be left to the intuition of staff. An explanation can be simple. For instance, a list of (non-exhaustive) examples can be given, with the remark that this list is non-exhaustive. Sanction and conditions for that breach should also be added. Doing this will combat the idea of arbitrariness and legitimize dispute-rulings. Moderators will be able to use the definition to more easily motivate their dispute rulings. Lastly, there will be more clarity over what does and does not fall within the scope of PTP and whether the sanction is justified. It's a simple thing to implement and will help out a lot.

 

This is such a case-by-case basis that it would be near impossible to define for a specific rule so I don't see this being something I can support or the need for it.

Every trade/scenario has different terms of service, different payment methods, and different outcomes.
Most of the time it's pretty straight forward what is shady & borderlines TWC reasoning - the one-offs the person can certainly reach out to that specific moderator to get more information on.

 

[President]

This is such a case-by-case basis that it would be near impossible to define for a specific rule so I don't see this being something I can support or the need for it.

Every trade/scenario has different terms of service, different payment methods, and different outcomes.
Most of the time it's pretty straight forward what is shady & borderlines TWC reasoning - the one-offs the person can certainly reach out to that specific moderator to get more information on.

No, PTP is not some big vague thing. If you google PTP Sythe, you'll find relatively straightforward disputes that are very categorizable. They concern fees, bad PM's (there are explicit rules for this nevertheless), ignoring/ghosting, withholding deposits, etc. The big ones can easily be cataloged (but that's a thing for the future). So I'll repeat, it's an umbrella-concept, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have written rules about it and leave everything to the imagination.

Hence why I suggest mentioning the 'categories' as examples to a non-exhaustive list (keyword!)

As to your point on "what exactly is shady?" That's exactly what my suggestion helps to tackle. The list of examples will give a seller a good idea of what isn't ok to do, even if not explicitly mentioned on the list. And yes, there will be a grey area, but the core of this suggestion is to thin out the grey area.

It therefore also serves as a preventitive mechanism. For instance, take a look at "Locked account resolvement."; I'm 100% sure that @Spya would not have sent that message, had he known that incentivizing someone to not start a dispute is disallowed (it's disputable if that message even does that btw).
Edit: question to the mods: if the Spya message is considered a PTP, is having a term in ToS that exonerates Sythe from being the rightful platform in case of a dispute also a poor trading practice? So if I say, for instance, that "all disputes will only be handled on Osbot", Im actively dissuading customers from starting a dispute on Sythe. Is that not allowed as per the current ruling?

 

No, PTP is not some big vague thing. If you google PTP Sythe, you'll find relatively straightforward disputes that are very categorizable. They concern fees, bad PM's (there are explicit rules for this nevertheless), ignoring/ghosting, withholding deposits, etc. The big ones can easily be cataloged (but that's a thing for the future). So I'll repeat, it's an umbrella-concept, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have written rules about it and leave everything to the imagination.

Hence why I suggest mentioning them as examples to a non-exhaustive list (keyword!)

As to your point on "what exactly is shady?" That's exactly what my suggestions helps to tackle. The list of examples will give a seller a good idea of what isn't ok to do, even if not explicitly mentioned. It therefore also serves as a prevention mechanism. For instance, take a look at "Locked account resolvement." for instance; I'm 100% sure that @Spya would not have sent that message, had he known that incentivizing someone to not start a dispute is disallowed (it's disputable if that message achieves that btw).

What if a new/unique scenario comes up that's not on this 'non-exhaustive' list? For example, if Spya's scenario of sending that message (basically incentivizing someone to not start a dispute) is not on this list of examples would that give them a free pass & we then further need to expand this list of examples? Or are we back to where we started here where the mod is making that judgement call & applying a TWC without this clearly defined in a rule?

I like the thoughts behind it it just seems way too complex to capture every specific scenario - I also again think most people know what's right or wrong & the <1% of one-offs can be clarified more if it is needed.

 

[President]

What if a new/unique scenario comes up that's not on this 'non-exhaustive' list? For example, if Spya's scenario of sending that message (basically incentivizing someone to not start a dispute) is not on this list of examples would that give them a free pass & we then further need to expand this list of examples? Or are we back to where we started here where the mod is making that judgement call & applying a TWC without this clearly defined in a rule?

I like the thoughts behind it it just seems way too complex to capture every specific scenario - I also again think most people know what's right or wrong & the <1% of one-offs can be clarified more if it is needed.

New situation = grey area. Currently grey area = 100% of situations, because there is no definition. We also don't differentiate what sanction justifies what situation. It's pure arbitrariness. We can do better. My suggestion will thin out the grey area. I'm not suggesting for every case to be defined within the definition. There will still be a grey area. Just much more narrow. And a definition bears all the benefits I already mentioned. So the question really isn't why should we implement this, but why not?

Edit: This is a meta discussion btw: I will add a definition later and allow for the suggestion to be about that specific definition
Edit2: Tried to give a Sythe-proof definition (@Kanye ), see OP!

 

[tendyies]

If anyone remembers that ironman that got "cleaned" a few months ago I think should we have had rules that outlines in a general sense of what should have been done. A good step would be set of precedent and not each report being handled completely separate and the outcomes presented by mods either directly referring to those "example cases". This I feel protects both seller and buyer as similar cases with similar outcomes were referred and the punishment was presented fairly. Similar to real law, not every law is going to cover every scenario that will ever occur. However a baseline should be set. For eg. if a user obviously deletes/edits messages to fit a certain narrative or to conceal evidence it should be grounds for xxx result. If a user knowingly withholds information to fit a certain narrative should be grounds for xxx.

 

I've added a line to the rules that states bad trading practices may result in a TWC.

However the rule will remain at that since it covers many different situations and listing them all would superfluously clutter the rules thread.