Bump Rule Infractions

EDIT: The suggestion is mainly in regards to the market sections where things are bought/sold. Places like the MM section, where there's no post count like IDB mentioned, isn't where I want this implemented.

EDIT 2: Just so everyone is clear, the main suggestion and what I want discussed is:

~~~

Make it an infraction offence when users by-pass the eight hour bump rule by:

1. Posting part of a conversation/proof it's you.
   My reasoning behind the above:
   • Scenario A - The user you're dealing with is a Sythe user, who requests you post the conversation/proof it's you. Solution? Send him a PM. Full inbox? See Scenario B.
   • Scenario B - You're inbox is full/the user specifically requests you post on your thread. Solution? Edit your first post/last bump and direct him to the edited post.
   • Scenario C - The user isn't a member of Sythe and asks you to post. Solution? Even though Scenario B would be perfectly acceptable, you really should be making them join and then sending a PM. You're doing a disservice to Sythe by letting non-members reap the benefits without joining, the fact you're not actively trying to make people join the site which is helping you make money is questionable. Also, you have to consider by asking them to join on the spot, the majority of previously banned scammers won't be able to make a Sythe account as quick as they'll need to find a proxy to make an account. So in turn it's also helping fight the sale of stolen goods by asking them to join, as scammers won't be able to sell as easily if they want that post with "part of a conversation/proof it's you."
   
   So I personally don't see why there should ever be a need to by-pass the bump rule by making a new post including "part of a conversation/proof it's you". Hence why I feel it should be infraction worthy, but if you disagree please tell me where you feel it's justifiable to do so when you know by posting you're breaking the bump rule.
   
   
2. Posting a vouch for someone else on one of your own threads. From what I gathered it's currently allowed as long as it's requested, this really shouldn't be allowed period. If someone wants a vouch, they should either make a vouch thread or link you to one of their threads. You shouldn't be posting the vouch on one of your threads and in turn by-passing the bump rule.

 

The only section that the bump rule in these cases should be broke in is the MMing section, where you quote both users posts, and confirm you are MMing, as it's easier than editing multiple quotes (well takes less time), and there is also no postcount in that section, and people are always gonna browse through MMs anyways so the bumps don't make too much difference.

 

As a regular market user, I see these techniques used and abused too often.

I support.

 

Great suggestion IMO. I am guilty of a number of those things, never thought of doing it as an edited post, but great suggestions!

Support.

 

I like the first idea and i support it too

 

Although I see what you are talking about abused a lot, it would discourage people from using these precautions to make sure they are trading the right person.

 

This^

The average Sythe user is fucking stupid.
They'll likely completely forget about safety in order to trade quicker.
I personally don't care about peoples post count and if people want to conduct their trades like that, then so be it.

 

I fail to see how it will discourage people using these precautions/how they'll forget about safety. The only thing that it's changing is if someone requests confirmation it's you, instead of making a new post and bumping your thread early, you should either send a PM or edit one of your previous posts (if they specifically request it on your thread).

 

Sometimes I have users vouch my servicing/questing thread, so for customers to see directly how many services I have done right away, to know if it's the right place to be. However it does seem like a great idea. So I'd not support I meant lol.

 

If everyone can do it, it's fair. I don't see a problem with our current rule.

 

I like how it works currently.

Also, took me like 10 mins to read your post, distracting sig -.-

 

Lol silly art
On topic: I also like how the bumping rules are now...

 

I think you misunderstood the second instance. Taking your case as an example, let's say you do a quest service for me, what I'm saying is you shouldn't be allowed to post on your service thread saying "vouch, Lazy23 paid me 10m to do some quests." That vouch should only be allowed to be posted in one of my threads, not yours so you can bump early.

Example: http://www.sythe.org/12561215-post348.html

Just because everyone can do it if given the chance, doesn't mean everyone is going to have the chance to do it.

If you take a close look at it, the majority of people who do it are the larger traders. Not only do they already have an unfair advantage due to getting more posts/vouches on their threads, meaning generally they're already nearer the top, but because most of them use live chats and have a large non-Sythe client base it means they continuously post live chat convos before the eight hours to bump their threads. Having them edit their last bump, instead of making a new post, would if anything make an unfair situation slightly fairer imo.

At the end of the day for me personally I'll most likely never have the chance to bump my thread early like mentioned above as I'll never deal with non-Sythe members and definitely won't be using a live chat, however all the large traders will have numerous occasions due to the nature in which they conduct their business. So to put it frank I personally don't find it fair that I'm at a disadvantage due to the way I conduct my trades, and the fact the solution is as simple as making it that you have to edit your last post instead of making a new post really grinds my gears.

 

While I try to avoid the 8 hour by-pass on my threads, I don't see it needing to be a punishable offence. The current rules work just fine, as it stands I don't see this happening too often. Sythe has rules against replying to people in your thread with posts like "pm'ed" or "added." I think punishing people for posting legitimate replies to posts by other users is unnecessary. However I agree with #2. Vouching for other people in your own thread is greedy and spam worthy.

Sadly, No support :/

 

I notice the mass chinese flippers tend to get people to post vouches on their threads, to bump them back to the top.. This is abuse of the current system, so it doesn't work fine to those who are saying so. There needs to be firm rulings implemented.


I support.

 

well yeah ofcourse it's some sort of an abuse to get free bumps up without risking an infraction but that wouldn't really solve the case because people still would post on thread what they wanna buy, payment methods, skype,msn etc..

it might reduce the abuse or however you want to call that but not the whole case

no support from me (but open for more ideas)

Edit: don't blame it all on the chinese, matter effect every goldseller does it anyway. even the people who do support it

 

I could go for now allowing vouches in non-vouch forum threads, but not allowing someone to confirm on their thread is ridiculous. Of course users will be punished if they abuse this, but there are often times where customers do not have sythe accounts.

 

The current rule says you can't double post within 8 hours. If you get a customer to post, your thread gets bumped. Larger traders get more customers so they get bumped more often. We can not change that. The way the rule is right now is as fair as it is going to get. We have talked about the bump rule more than any other rule in existence. There is absolutely no way to make it "fair". No matter what it is, it will be "abused" by someone. It isn't going to change again.

 

In regards to vouches in non-vouch forum threads, I agree it's pointless/impossible trying to restrict it. However, I was specifically talking about vouching for someone else on your own thread, if someone wants a vouch they should either link/make a vouch thread or ask you to post on one of their threads. Using the example I linked before, http://www.sythe.org/12561215-post348.html, Divica could have easily told the user to make a vouch thread and then vouch them. Instead, they saw an easy way to get free bump and agreed to do it.

As for the confirming on ones thread, I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to confirm on their own thread, all I'm saying is they could just as easily edit their last bump or a specific previous post and then link that to the user in question. The only downfalls of doing this would be the trader wouldn't gain post count and their thread wouldn't be bumped early, so I fail to see why everyone is so adamant against it.

I agree you can't control the customers posting, my suggestion doesn't even mention customers posting. My suggestion is specifically directed at traders posting confirmations on their thread. Just so we're clear what I'm suggesting is:

I understand you can't make it 100% fair, but sure as hell can make it fairer. If anyone can actually provide a solid argument why editing ones previous post is so troublesome, I would love to hear it...

 

The current system seems to work fine as it is.
If we threatend infractions for something that makes trades safer people would likely stop making such precautions in some circumstances.
Also, if someone is paying for a live chat I think they deserve a greater share of the business.

If it isn't broke don't fix it. No support.