An extra feature regarding Report A Scammer section

There should be an option to allow specific users to be able to comment on threads made in the RAS section (the person you're reporting, mainly)

This will save the need of mods jumping to conclusions and banning a member, only to find out the actual story a few days later when the member posts a dispute, and then end up unbanning them. It just wastes everyone's time.

I've seen this happen too many times, and in most of the situations the mod did not even bother to contact the reported user about his side of the story.

I don't really know how hard it would be to do this, but if there could be an alternative fix to these type of situations, that would be awesome.

 

Users can already submit replies in RASC that staff can just merge to the report

 

That isn't really obvious to newcomers, it would be way more convenient if you could just reply on the same topic.

Plus you guys would probably ban before you were to see those replies (based off what i've seen)

 

If somebody is banned, that's for a reason.
If there was no reason for a ban, they would not be banned.

If somebody wants to pitch in on a scamreport against them, they should handle the situation with the scammed person.

 

And what if the reason is wrong? but the mods only realize it later after a dispute is made? The dispute could've just been saved if the mods waited and heard a reply from the accused member, but of course that would only be possible if you you could actually reply on scam reports made against yourself

You just said you should handle a situation with yourself
A scam report against a person, is the person who got scammed

Obviously you meant handle the situation with the person posting the scam report, but in that case that wouldn't be a very fair thing to do at all.
In the case where the reported person didn't agree with the persons reply at all, he wouldn't really add to the thread and the mods would never hear of his reply, when in reality he could've been telling the truth

 

The problem with this is that users don't know they've been reported. Reported posts go into a hidden section for staff to handle, and aren't visible to everyone until they've been handled and merged into the archive.

 

He's referring to rasc, not rasp.

 

What could be wrong about evidence? That's what I don't get.
If let's say somebody is scammed for a GP sale, and the victim reports the scammer.
If the screenshots are valid and correct, we ban the scammer.

If it's an account sale, and the report is not clear, or the situation is unclear, it is cleared up by PMing the 'scammer' and giving them 24 hours.

Neither situation would benefit from the update you propose.

If the 'scammer' wants to reply to the 'victim', why would that need to be on the scamreport per se?
That's my whole point.
If the 'scammer' wants to resolve or clear up the situation I don't see why a PM or a skype message wouldn't suffice.

 

Whoops my bad. Tired sything leads to misreading shit.

 

This. You're suggesting admins give higher usergroup permission to accusers which is inefficient, as that permission would have to be removed after the case is resolved. Automation of this sounds pretty complicated to code.

 

Sometimes the mods ASSUME the screenshots are valid enough, and after a dispute is made they realize they were wrong.

EXAMPLE #1
Ban:
http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer-archive/1802218-reporting-user-burntish.html

Dispute:
http://www.sythe.org/dispute-forum-archive/1802454-disputing-ban-behalf-burntish.html

He was unbanned, this isn't the first time this happened to him btw
Sellinanbuyinrsngold, same thing happened
I'm basically referring to every single ban dispute that was approved after that user was banned.
Those threads would be pointless if you could just clear up things right there and then

Of course it would benefit, the disputes wouldnt be necessary as everything would be handled on the thread

Why would someone who scammed you want to resolve a situation if it was in their intentions to scam in the first place? They'd obviously try to fuck each other over, and one of them would be bsing

 

I have been through this 2 or maybe 3 times now where I am accused and then banned without anyone even letting me know or asking me what happened. I would suggest a system where the people involved in a scam report get a pm so they are notified of it. And also they should then have a time period to tell their side of the story on the thread like slash has pointed out.

 

Then anyone can reply to any report and it becomes a normal section and is more hassle to moderate than the current system of just merging responses.

 

"There should be an option to allow specific users to be able to comment on threads made in the RAS section (the person you're reporting, mainly)"

 

Users are distinguishable by usergroup for that kind of thing, so it's impossible to implement without developing a whole new mod tool (where mods would have to input usernames allowed to reply). Which is a huge solution for a small problem.

 

Ah okay, any alternatives you think that could solve this?

If not, I guess we'll have to work with what we got (jack goff's post)

 

Pming or posting the reply in a seperate thread to have them merged is the only way possible at this time afaik

 

Would it be efficient to create a new usergroup which you can place accused users into, maybe called "Pending Scam Report" or something similar? That way without being banned they can be restricted in the market from trading, and would have the "privileges" to reply in the RaS section.

Powerbot does something similar, where they put users in a "Restricted" group which doesn't allow the users to access the Market sections of the forum, but allows them to respond to scamming threads.

 

Not gonna work :l

 

In the time that you add them to this usergroup via an Admin, you could check the report and contact the accused for a response if one is needed.

That's why it's most efficient to ban if you feel there is enough concrete evidence and let them dispute if they think they are wronged or to ask them for their side of the story/input if there isn't concrete evidence.