Integrating trustwho.com into sythe?

However, that's worth it for people who are active traders....and it's cheap($10)

 

Why should a new trader who is legitimate have to always go through an OMM to insure that they are safe. Doesn't constantly paying a middleman defeat one of the major bonuses to using a black market? Isn't that the main reason people here don't use eBay for nonvirtual items?

If this is an easy system to implement, you can't possibly have a reason to oppose it. If you don't want to be involved in it, then don't be involved in it. Don't simply oppose it for the fact that you don't want to be involved in it.

 

I like this... There are way to many scammers on this site already, and this would just help separate scammers and non-scammers.

I support

 

For a start, they don't need to use an OMM. Secondly, what I meant was that I was confused why people bother with stupid free services and so on, when they could just use a middleman.

I'm not opposing it. If someone wants to get it voluntarily, they can feel free. But implementing it site-wide would be impossible, because most people don't want to spend $10, not to mention the scammers who will refuse to do it.

 

I actually support this, and might get it done personally. It would make trades go 10X smoother knowing the the person you are trading with is legit. Also it is any ones call to trade, or not trade, with someone who wouldn't be verified. If this was site-wide, it would make trading a whole different experience.

Common sense also plays here. @Angelmax - If the person you are buying from has 5 post counts and is not verified by TrustWho, what decision will you make? Same if it is 25, 50, or 100 posts. You have to be completely aware of everything going on. I am pretty aware of everything in a trade, but if someone is verified by TrustWho, there is basically no worry, no frustration, no scamming.

 

i have liked markeedragon for years. (they own trustwho)

and i would love to see this on sythe.

 

Spyike has spoken


And anyways I agree it would be a good idea, although it wouldnt cut down much more on scammers, it would make trades much easier, and harder for people to scam

 

Not sure if this was directed at me, if not disregard the following.

I was making an example. I've been on accounts with 500M+ and have done a few thousand in transactions. I can assure you that money is not an issue. Last time my number got out I had to change it, I lose my email monthly now too. I don't want to be added to mailing or phone lists either.

Well I don't want anyone having an advantage over me either. What's stopping people from putting down fake information? and you pulled that statistic out of your ass.

I do however like the paypal idea, and potentially a wait to add/change paypal accounts.

 

I dont support.

Some people arent 18 or older and some parents dont want their information out on the internet.

 

I didn't realize you were suggesting that people simply use a -free- middleman to do trading with. I think that's quite funny, actually. With the amount of free middlemen that pop up in the middleman section all the time, you can't possibly believe there is anything that stands to make them prestigious. I understand why you are backing the free middleman option by reading your signature. I'm sorry though, but if you are suggesting that using a free middleman is a safe alternative of the same caliber as the service being suggested, then you are extremely gullible.

Not to put the spotlight on you or anything, but a majority of the people in the middleman forums have credibility much like yours, where a majority of the vouches are a combination of instances in which you went first, someone mm'd a trade for you, or you bought/traded a $3 runescape pin. Sorry, but that's the quality level of most of the free middlemen, and that isn't very assuring.


A large amount of the dissent for this suggestion is coming from people under the assumption that they will be forced to use it. You should know better. (I don't think that's even a feasible option, use some common sense.)

 

RSCA, aka, rscheata is actually doing this for trades, as like s1,s2, and s3.

 

What do you mean by that?

 

They have like stage 1, where you need to pay $5 per a year as a start up fee. Then to sell stuff, you need stage 2, which is phone verification. Then for stage 3, they verify where you live by sending a mail to you, though they will only do this to people whom lived in the US.

 

I've gone through the process of TrustWho, and it is pretty fast. They had me verify my location by sending them photos of my id/passport. And a little bit later called me and asked me some questions about local stuff in my area(I think they required a land line).

I did it for markeedragon forums while they were still around

 

Yeah, I think I would support. But I mean, a pm is just as easy imo.

 

This is exactly like playerauctions, I believe scammers are the only ones who would not verify, perhaps being verified would be like a donation rank.
It would count much more then vouches as well.

 

I support. atleast we can try and get all trust to here

 

Exactly, hardly any scammers would use this so it would differentiate the scammers vs non-scammers.

 

Personally i think this should only be used for people selling and big buyers, as someone who is going to only maybe do a few $5 dollar trades wouldn't want to waste $10 on a verifier, and the person who buys the occasional thing can just use a OMM ( the reason I'm saying this is because you sound like anyone who doesn't buy this is a scammer, and you think that there instantly one, but there's reasons i can think that some people don't want to buy this), anyways i also think there will come( if this goes ahead) a time where people will only buy/sell from people who are verified and the non-verified are going to be left out because they can't trade but don't want to verify for reasons( e.g not wanting to pay 10 bucks, or give out personals)

 

Support your view on the members who are high volume buyers/sellers. However, I do not feel this decision should be based upon the concern on new members being "left out".