Self-Vouching Punishment Reform?

[SuF]

I just made a suggestion about this....

Basically my thought was that the staff should be able to perm ban them, or go with a month (or longer) ban with a TWC. That way, obvious scammers could still be banned but people that just messed up can come back.

 

[Jimmy]

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.

No.

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

This poll is not about nate staying banned, it's about reforming a rule.

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.

I agree, but practically this does not happen.

 

[jacob310jacob]

lol hell no wy would anyone change this a fake vouch is fake... your fault should of done it enouf said bye

 

[Shin]

Sythe 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.

Whether is was for corruption or scamming, it doesn't change the fact that it was intentionally done. It may alter the seriousness of the ban in comparison with other bans that have been given the same punishment, but it's a known rule, and one that I think people would abide by.

Therefore, I think all users violating this rule should be given a permanent ban. However, if it is decided upon that those who self-vouch will be given a 3-month ban, then I may support if those violating are given a permanent market ban and TwC.

 

[SuF]

lol hell no wy would anyone change this a fake vouch is fake... your fault should of done it enouf said bye

It should be changed so that when people make a mistake, they can be forgiven without people crying "SPECIAL TREATMENT! SPECIAL TREATMENT!".

 

[itsboom]

I say it should be a 1 month ban and a TWC if the user comes forward with the fact they have self-vouched, otherwise I feel it should be perm.

 

[Rhodesy]

It should be incontestable on when it transpired. For example, if someone self vouched at the start of their account to gain trust they would of exercised the trust to scam many months ago. However, I'd advocate another thing. Perhaps a month ban and 10% of vouches deleted. What about the rule on getting vouched for nothing, will they differentiate if this one is implemented?

 

[i noob killer i]

Id say perm Twc and market Ban .But thats Not going to happen i dont think.

 

[ConJacKed]

If they havn't done anything wrong, only did the vouch to get their business started. Then I don't think they should be banned at all. Its unfair getting perm banned just for trying to get some trust here and start a business.

However if someone fake vouched just to scam someone, then they should be perm banned...

Just my opinion... Troll all you want

 

[Deacon Frost]

Is this really what sythe has come to?Your trying to change a rule so nate is not perm banned?He deserves to be banned just like anyone ells who self vouched.He is a troll o wait.This is pathetic grow up don't make rules then change them to accommodate staff members or well known members it is just sad.

Did you not read? Finn said that Nate will not be affected by the decisions made here.

 

[Tmoe]

Option #3.

If a new member comes in, and fake vouches multiple times he should be banned. He hasn't done anything for the community etc.
While in Nate's recent case, he was an OMM, Official Guide Verifier, and had over 500 vouches. He had helped the community a lot.
Severity should help decide on it as well. Ex: Even if they have done a lot for the community, if you have more then 1-2 fake vouches they should be perm banned.

So
Doing nothing for community - Perm Ban
Multiple offences - Perm Ban
Done a lot for the community - Possibly a 3 month ban, un-ban with TwC etc.

Fake vouches don't really show someone they're a corrupted person. Someone may have lost their patients and wanted a quick vouch in order to get business up and going.


Edit~ After reading some other opinions, I've decided to stay with the Perm Ban. No need to make exceptions because of status. As well, it is normally a sign they're a scammer >.<

If someone could please change my vote from #3 to #1 I'd appreciate it..

 

[RossDuggan]

In my opinion it should remain perm.

A fake vouch means the user wants to gain trust easily without doing anything. Most of the time this is to scam or in nates case, to sell more guides (I think the reason was).

Either way it is a form of deception and that is why i believe it should remain perm.

 

[Spyike]

Perm. Ban.. I've seen far too many members pay increased prices and/or have been scammed into thinking a member is legit due to Self-Trading/Vouching. In the end, the community is the one that suffers.

 

[woahnaynay]

Honestly, if you don't ip ban him he's just gonna come back. And hes not gonna be happy when he does. And with all his knowledge im sure he could scam a lot of people, since he won't have anything to lose.
Let him back with perm ban from any trading whatsoever. he should be able to talk to the community as that has nothing to do with vouches.

 

[Itz Me]

If it's a LEGIT trader that self vouches, then it should be a 3 month ban. However, if it is someone that has scam reports against him then it should be a permanent ban.

On a related note: Plznate should have a 3 month ban if that is put into effect. He middlemanned my trades, sold me pins, never once tried to scam me. He was one of my favorite people on the forums.

 

No, if you're self-vouching then there's the potential that you have the intention to scam, and we ban people for having the intention to scam.

 

[RSBMFTW]

I voted other because I think there are a couple factors to consider.

A) Who the person is.

B) How many times it happened.

C) How long ago did it happen.

D) Did they abuse the self vouches? I.E use the vouches as a scamming tool.

E) How did we find out? Did they admit, or did someone bust them. And after it was brought to your attention, did they admit guilt and confess, or did they try to lie or deny their way out of it.

These are just a few factors I think should be taken into consideration.

 

[woahnaynay]

I think in any case the user should be perm banned from any trading whatsoever, not banned from communicating on the site.

Simple suggestion :

Ban the user from even seeing the market section and only allow them to talk to the community. Because honestly, self vouching is a market crime and should be treated as such. I see no way a person (such as plznate) could cause any problems with self vouch when all they are doing is posting.

 

[SuF]

I say it should be a 1 month ban and a TWC if the user comes forward with the fact they have self-vouched, otherwise I feel it should be perm.

That is very limiting. Just let the staff make their own calls. Give them an opinion of punishments and let them choose the best one. Don't be like. Do this if this and that if that. Let the staff choose on a case by case basis.

It should be incontestable on when it transpired. For example, if someone self vouched at the start of their account to gain trust they would of exercised the trust to scam many months ago. However, I'd advocate another thing. Perhaps a month ban and 10% of vouches deleted. What about the rule on getting vouched for nothing, will they differentiate if this one is implemented?

Vouches aren't really official so removing them is dumb. Just remove the fake ones.

Id say perm Twc and market Ban .But thats Not going to happen i dont think.

If you do that, then it assumes that they were just going to scam and should have been permed anyways.

If they havn't done anything wrong, only did the vouch to get their business started. Then I don't think they should be banned at all. Its unfair getting perm banned just for trying to get some trust here and start a business.

However if someone fake vouched just to scam someone, then they should be perm banned...

Just my opinion... Troll all you want

So basically, each case should be treated differently, which is good.

Option #3.

If a new member comes in, and fake vouches multiple times he should be banned. He hasn't done anything for the community etc.
While in Nate's recent case, he was an OMM, Official Guide Verifier, and had over 500 vouches. He had helped the community a lot.
Severity should help decide on it as well. Ex: Even if they have done a lot for the community, if you have more then 1-2 fake vouches they should be perm banned.

So
Doing nothing for community - Perm Ban
Multiple offences - Perm Ban
Done a lot for the community - Possibly a 3 month ban, un-ban with TwC etc.

Fake vouches don't really show someone they're a corrupted person. Someone may have lost their patients and wanted a quick vouch in order to get business up and going.

That isn't fair at all. Everyone should be treated the same no matter what they have done. What they have done could be used to see what punishment should be given but not as a basis for a punishment.

In my opinion it should remain perm.

A fake vouch means the user wants to gain trust easily without doing anything. Most of the time this is to scam or in nates case, to sell more guides (I think the reason was).

Either way it is a form of deception and that is why i believe it should remain perm.

But people mess up. Many of our users are young and make mistakes and they should be allowed to be forgiven.

Perm. Ban.. I've seen far too many members pay increased prices and/or have been scammed into thinking a member is legit due to Self-Trading/Vouching. In the end, the community is the one that suffers.

Not at all. There are cases where the self voucher is an innocent that just doesn't know the rules and banning them just hurts them as their only intention was to be trusted to have a legit business. Each case should be treated differently.

Honestly, if you don't ip ban him he's just gonna come back. And hes not gonna be happy when he does. And with all his knowledge im sure he could scam a lot of people, since he won't have anything to lose.
Let him back with perm ban from any trading whatsoever. he should be able to talk to the community as that has nothing to do with vouches.

This thread isn't about Nate.

If it's a LEGIT trader that self vouches, then it should be a 3 month ban. However, if it is someone that has scam reports against him then it should be a permanent ban.

On a related note: Plznate should have a 3 month ban if that is put into effect. He middlemanned my trades, sold me pins, never once tried to scam me. He was one of my favorite people on the forums.

Again, you are trying to be the judgement. Thats the staffs decision. This thread is about what punishments should be used.



6000th post.

 

[OldFinn]

No, if you're self-vouching then there's the potential that you have the intention to scam, and we ban people for having the intention to scam.

Everyone has the potential to scam. Those who self-vouch don't necessarily have the intention to scam -- Nate most certainly didn't seem to.