Self-Vouching Punishment Reform?

[OldFinn]

Hi guys. After discussing self-vouching with Sythe, he has asked that I create this thread to see whether the community thinks the punishment for self-vouching (corruption, but not scamming) should be reduced from a permanent ban to a lesser punishment.

We will most likely use the verdict of the poll to solidify the way we respond to incidents of self-vouching. The poll will be open for two days. Please vote.

 

[video]

Will our vote in any way affect Nate's ban?

 

[Sanctuary]

If the vouches were pretty small and insignificant, I don't see why it can't be forgiven, given how long ago the vouch was. So if I vouched myself back in 07, and was caught now, a perm ban is way too extreme.

EDIT: I think a 3 month is fine. A perm TWC also seems a bit extreme, but I guess it depends on who does it, what kind of vouch, and when.

 

[Necromancer24]

Yes, it should be changed to a temporary 1 month ban with a permanent TWC (The one that cannot be taken off) or a Market Ban.

 

[OldFinn]

Will our vote in any way affect Nate's ban?

No.

If we decide upon an amendment, the amendment won't be retrospectively applied.

 

[Magic Arrow]

Will our vote in any way affect Nate's ban?

I too would like to know this before voting.

 

[Rohail]

Yes, it should be changed to a temporary 1 month ban with a permanent TWC (The one that cannot be taken off) or a Market Ban.

I say stay with a perm ban becasue rules are rules but at LEAST I agree with Necro's idea of a market ban or a permanent TWC and 1 month ban.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

Well, if you guys start doing market bans again, and I mean PERMANENT market bans, then I wouldn't mind that to be the punishment of self-vouching, along with a permanent TWC. However, if you don't, I'd prefer if self-vouchers were perm banned.

P.S.: Thanks Sythe (and Finn) for making the community more active in decisions on sythe.

 

Though I liked Nate, I really hate this situation.

I think that some people still use self-vouching to scam others. In the very few instances like this, it's still considered corruption, which has zero-tolerance in mostly every formal, well-ran "government".

I think you should lower the punishment to a 1 month ban, 3 months market ban with a permanent TWC. Then people would get a second chance, but won't be stupid enough to repeat the action.

 

[Magic Arrow]

I can't edit my post for some reason or another, so I'll post my reasoning. I think it should remain a permanent ban, as the user is using deceit in hope of gaining false trust. Whether or not the user intends on scamming is irrevelant, it is basically a form of fraud

 

[goku usa]

I do feel that we could change the rule to a lesser charge, but it should not remove any bans that were issued prior to the release of the new rule. People knew the consequences and they decided to break the rules anyways. What I'm saying is if you do change the new rule to make the punishment less severe, it should be for all the FUTURE offense not the past offense.

 

[Necromancer24]

I say stay with a perm ban becasue rules are rules but at LEAST I agree with Necro's idea of a market ban or a permanent TWC and 1 month ban.

I said what I said because I will not accept a guy who has the slightest potential of being a scammer back into Sythe without precautions. Fake vouching can create false trust and will falsely lead people to believe you're more trusted than you actually are.

By the way, my opinion is only for those contributing members like plznate (even though I know he won't be unbanned). I don't give two hoots about those idiotic leechers who faked vouches. They should be removed immediately.

 

[Jimmy]

I agree with a temp. ban for self-vouching (and a perm. if it happens more then once) because ill-informed people occasionally make the mistake of doing this without any intent to scam. When this happens, we loose a member of the community despite the fact that their actions wronged nobody and they weren't a threat whatsoever.

I say stay with a perm ban becasue rules are rules but at LEAST I agree with Necro's idea of a market ban or a permanent TWC and 1 month ban.

I don't understand how this makes any sense. You're saying "we should stick with the current rule because it is the current rule"?

 

[DrDeath]

I think it should be changed to a lesser ban, but only for cases like Nate's. He did it 2009 early 2010? Probably only did it so he could trade more easly since no one trusted him. Since then he gathered 500+ legit vouches and never scammed..

 

[Rohail]

I don't understand how this makes any sense. You're saying "we should stick with the current rule because it is the current rule"?

Yes because I don't see why we should consider changing the rule because this one member is getting special treatment in some sorts. Others have gotten perm banned and he should too.

 

[Burnley]

I say stay with a perm ban becasue rules are rules but at LEAST I agree with Necro's idea of a market ban or a permanent TWC and 1 month ban.

i agree with Rohail on the perm TWC + possible market ban

 

[Lucster]

Honestly, i've been thinking deep into this because he is a good friend of mine and i tried to think of a situation that would some what be able to compare to this and when i woke up i thought. President Obama was put out there for smoking weed back when he was young which is illegal but it was when he was unaware of the consequences and it was still over ran by the people who ellected him because he showed at the time he could manage to run the government well. (wether he did/does is irrelevent).

 

[blindkilla]

Self vouching can be pretty insignificant. I think the punishment should depend on the amount of vouches.

If someone gave themselves one vouch, I'd say nothing longer than a month ban would be a fair punishment. But if the person went on a self vouch spree, thats when I would consider a longer ban, and even maybe a permanent one.

 

[Deacon Frost]

I'm not up for seeing a change in this. While I don't particularly trust vouches, I do consider them when trading with people, or deciding to help people. I like to know what others think of someone, I like to get to know the person I'm trading with. If someone vouches themselves, then I can't be sure who I'm trading with, I can't know exactly what others think of them.

And there's only one intent behind self-vouching, and that's the furthering of oneself. A greedy, and selfish act that should be punished irregardless.

A case by case basis, I believe, is acceptable, but the rules and grounds for punishment should not be changed simply for this. The rule remains the same, exceptions are permitted. It's no question that this whole thing is coming up because of Nate's contributions, but I really do believe that you have to consider his self-vouch before all of his other contributions.

What if all his fantastic contributions to the site are in conjuncture with his self-vouch? What if he is just trying to get to the point where he's trusted with enough people that he can freely scam without much scrutiny or suspicion? What if all the other people who have been banned would have contributed the same as Nate, or more?

These rules protect buyers and the website as a whole. While less strict punishments may be appropriate on a case by case basis, there is no doubt in my mind that the normal punishment should remain a permanent ban.

When it comes down to it, however, I support a 3 month ban, permanent market ban, and a very lengthy TWC... for exceptions only.

 

[goku usa]

I agree with a temp. ban for self-vouching (and a perm. if it happens more then once) because ill-informed people occasionally make the mistake of doing this without any intent to scam. When this happens, we loose a member of the community despite the fact that their actions wronged nobody and they weren't a threat whatsoever.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. When you buy something you've never used before, you read the manual first. Similarly, when you come to sythe, you should read the rules first.