[Denied]Fix DNT/TWC and enforce/use it properly as intended originally (no business usage, home IP.)

Below are a few things I pulled from various threads regarding staff discussing TWC and DNT. I also want to mention that I was one of the people that originally pushed for the DNT concept and helped implement it to some degree.

References:

• Understanding the DNT (Do Not Trade) rank
  
• No Home IP - Trade with caution (TWC)
  
• Trade With Caution rank: Dispute template
  
• READ THIS FIRST! Pardon Rules and Template

Key points:

• DNT is supposed to be a more severe version of TWC.
• DNT is supposed to be able to both be requested, and automatically given instead of permanent bans.
• TWC is supposed to be given as a result of sketchy behavior.

How they are being misused:

• I have seen @BlackBlasses give someone a DNT quickly, and remove it as quickly, as a "precaution" when it's supposed to be a more severe version of TWC only given in case of permanent ban. This was before a decision on the ban.
• TWC is now being used in an easier-to-get form if someone doesn't use a copper/fiber line going straight to their house from an ISP considered as "home" internet but staff completely misunderstand how the internet works. It's also fully rejected/unappealable in some cases which would make it potentially more severe in some aspects than the DNT.
• Businesses can hire someone with a DNT as long as the person with DNT paid someone back, but if they paid someone back, it's already able to be pardoned, and if pardon fails then staff are saying they do not trust that person.
• DNT users aren't supposed to trade, or communicate to anyone about trading without a temporary ban, but by contacting someone to work for them, they are communicating, and by working for someone, they are essentially trading with them so it's contradictory to have a rule allowing businesses to hire them.
• DNT is supposed to specifically be pardoned. @Andy 's sticky, perhaps from a misuse of the English language, is basically stating that the pardon section is NOT for disputing a DNT. I believe what he means is requesting a DNT, but it's written incorrectly, otherwise if it's written correctly then it's wrong and it's clearly confusing people as most people call it a "dispute" and some also post in the wrong section to appeal their DNT.
• If a business trusts someone enough to accept liability for them and that's the reason DNT users can work for people, then that's not fair to the business owner. Remember, DNT is there to protect the community. The business owner should also be protected and not allowed to conduct business with this user, otherwise, what's the point of DNT? Just remove the DNT if business owners trusting the user is allowed and them accepting liability makes it safer, at least then business owner can post a pardon and state they accept liability so it's explicitly written.
• Staff don't seem to be handing out a DNT instead of a temporary ban and DNT as intended, automatically. Requesting a DNT was only supposed to be the first step so staff didn't retroactively have to go and unban and DNT everyone in the past. For everyone in the future, staff are supposed to highly consider doing this as people are banned, so adding DNT, and giving a temporary ban (of a month, a year, whatever) where it auto-expires and the user comes back as DNT automatically without having to post a request.

Some more information, if you have time to read it.

Regarding home IP:
I've seen people's disputes be rejected because they use mobile for internet. This is not unheard of and pushes away legitimate users from using this website because of their bad experience/being labeled as risky when this does not even realistically add to the risk. With 5G becoming more widespread, and carriers providing higher limits unless someone specifically wants good ping it's very possible for households to use 4G/5G instead of wired internet. There are equipment specifically for this as well, such as 4G LTE routers from NETGEAR and other reputable brands. Ban evaders can EASILY mask their IP with residential IP addresses and the fact that staff are incorrectly using this because they do not understand how the internet works is a huge problem. Users also have VPNs for privacy, I'm on one most the time. I can understand how ban evaders can be a bigger problem if we don't label people who ONLY use VPNs, so it's fine if people can appeal it, but what's not fine is [A] defining a VPN incorrectly, and not allowing users to submit information in certain cases that staff incorrectly believe to be riskier. So for VPNs, there are other factors involved that staff are not even checking that any other basic anti-fraud system would and I won't get into this, it's just wrong. Staff are missing an entire spectrum of VPNs because they do not understand how IP address geolocation and classification works, and I'm not saying they should, but they definitely shouldn't implement these policies without understanding it. And again, I want to re-iterate how dumb this is, ban evaders can just use residential proxies, you're just mostly punishing non-ban evaders. If it's effective then why isn't this account TWC: BlackBlasses' Feedback Thread -- there is a way of doing this correctly but I don't trust the staff to implement/enforce it correctly so I won't even bother explaining it. Side note, it's insanely dumb to not allow mobile IP, and no resolution for it and then allow school IP if you show an internet bill, etc. Why couldn't they show their phone bill? And to close this off: remember, TWC is supposed to be a less severe DNT but you can't tell me at this point it's not easier in some cases to have your DNT removed than DNT.

Business owners hiring DNT:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume the logic behind allowing DNT users to work under someone else's business/name is that the business owner is liable for what they do, right? Would this DNT person not be receiving money from the business owner and giving a service of their time, and therefore be trading? Aren't DNT members supposed to not trade with anyone? Even if they are allowed to work for someone under the sub-rule that was added, wouldn't they still then be trading and receiving further temporary bans at the very least? DNT is stated as being for the protection of others, why would others not include the business owner trading with this DNT user? And how is a DNT user supposed to find work in the first place without contacting the business owner when they are not supposed to PM other users, or attempt to trade? I'm not even going to bring up how its unfair to the people using that business or say that the business should be required to disclose it. All I'm going to say is if they can work for others then at least just lift the DNT then since they're effectively at least trading with one person. How hard is it to just have them pardon before they work for the person and have the fact that they're going to work for someone be a part of their pardon and perhaps have the staff consider a removal since it shows that a business owner is willing to trust them, and they already repaid their debt? This could also be the chance for the business owner to formally vouch/assume liability for this user since it's a big part of their pardon.

DNT/TWC in general:
DNT was meant to be a more severe version of TWC, and that a DNT has to be pardoned. But then on this thread for pardons our lord and savior has a sticky saying the forum is not for disputing a DNT. Going back to the DNT explanation thread, people are supposed to generally start receiving DNT + temporary ban instead of a permanent ban, don't really see that being done a lot. So it's cool the thread for requesting a DNT is still there but how this was supposed to move forward is that for future cases it's supposed to happen automatically. To wrap up my point here, DNT is supposed to be BEFORE a repayment/pardon, so why is it disallowed in the pardon section? I'm assuming that's just bad wording as I do see pardons for DNT, but I also see DNTs being removed WITHOUT a pardon. @BlackBlasses here handed out a DNT for a "precaution" so I'm assuming this is actually done by other moderators? So that means DNT is being used as TWC? DNT is only supposed to be for permanently banned users, see above explanation thread. TWC requires 5 votes to go through which means DNT should be stricter, but it's just applied/removed more easily than TWC it seems in these cases where it's actually not being treated correctly as an addition to the pardon system. Then there's now TWC for no home IP, and people can just bypass the votes and everything? To immediately reject it or accept it as one person?

Conclusion:
So I guess my suggestion for this part... is to, also enforce the rules correctly? I guess that's not really a suggestion since it's already supposed to be done, so I guess it's for it to be more explicitly written to where staff can't do weird offshoots from these concepts and have it be handled incorrectly to various degrees. And for it to be contradicting itself in several areas.

It's just rules being written/enforced terribly. Maybe that's the suggestion, rewrite everything.

 

I agree. Consistency is power so the rules should be enforced the same way every time.

 

We are a marginalized population regularly subjected to hate threads such as this and entire forums such as 'report a scammer'. I demand we receive representation on this vote and further votes affecting the DNT+ community going forward. We will not sit idle as we see our community sit us out and discriminate against us in employment opportunities.

 

In most states you are allowed to vote during the presidential election even if you are a felon. In prison, your employment opportunities are limited. I like to view DNT as prison for scammers.

When its misused, it becomes a problem.

 

I still say they should also ban them from the Discord or create a separate list for them cause they're still very visible in the Discord as they sit above other members and can still advertise.

 

Agreed!!, the automatic DNT used to be used to prevent massive exit scams after 2 or more reports on the same user showed up. I've seen it issued automatically during the investigation which is unwarranted as it may not be a legitimate report and being used to attack someone in a false report to get them DNT'd.

No system is perfect though so a lot is overlooked but it has gotten a little bit sloppy with too many exceptions such as DNTs taking work. The biggest problem I see with it is that it makes whichever staff put these rules into place look suspicious as they may or may not have friends who have a DNT, we know this community isn't as big as it looks, but users need to feel safe trading on Sythe.



"so I guess it's for it to be more explicitly written to where staff can't do weird offshoots from these concepts and have it be handled incorrectly to various degrees."

The only problem is that I think it's written in the rules that staff are allowed to use personal judgement and when given an inch.... but in a community full of shady people that is the way it is now I think the rules need to be scrutinized. So I definitely agree with you Grave!!! Great suggestion!!