Increase Middleman Utility

Well i don't always use a middleman, and that's why i don't agree.
The problem with this suggestion:
I tell someone i'll go first.
I scam.
No mm? They can't report, i'm effing unbannable.

 

So if it's really hard to find a middleman currently online, and the buyer needs to buy something asap, and the seller has like 300 vouches, so the buyer just goes first, the seller can just scam knowing he won't get banned.

There is not enough middlemen, active enough all the time, to monitor every single trade that goes on the site, so not everyone will not be able to find a middleman, so in trades people will just go first due to vouches, and he could purposely scam knowing the scam report won't be valid.

Maybe you can have a rank, on which moderators consider the people considerably trustworthy (and won't scam), and buyers / sellers can go first to them, without a middleman, but if they do scam, the report WILL be valid.

However, i support the middleman should be forced to be used, if both members are new, no vouches, so on

 

Here's the thing, you'll still be taking a risk.

Members will report even if they didn't use a middleman, but this is basically establishing a new policy in saying that "If we don't see a middleman being used in your trade, we probably won't do anything because you didn't do anything to help yourself."

However, you're a well known member, if someone files a scam report against you, or someone like Finn, and a middleman wasn't used, that report will be looked at regardless. This isn't taking away the ability to file reports, it's giving staff a new stance in saying that if we don't want to handle your report because you didn't use a middleman, we don't have to.

In the event that a member is well known, everyone will see the report if a middleman wasn't used, and I'm sure it won't go unsettled. Establishing this rule, however, will convince people that they need to play it a little safer, because there's a good chance their report will just be locked and ignored if they don't use a middleman.

 

I've been a middleman before, at various times of the day, and competition is always stiff. There is ALWAYS someone on willing to middleman, and this will increase demand for them, thereby increasing supply.

 

I very much agree and support, everyone should be using a Middleman. <3

 

I support this but it needs some improvment. And I like the idea of maybe having a junior-OMM or something below a OMM that would do free mming or something.

 

Completely respectful here, Finn, but have you put any work into the middleman system? I really don't know what you focus on in your administrative duties, so I honestly don't know. But I can't believe you would say that they should be assisted when scammed when you know how much work has been put into it.

They shouldn't be punished further, I agree, but they certainly shouldn't be offered retribution because of their own mistakes. Them being assisted in any way is telling them that you, the staff, are willing to mop up their mistakes and continue to protect them. Sorry, the system doesn't work. The site sees countless scams, and I'm not saying this is going to prevent them.

This is going to force users to start taking responsibility in ensuring their own well-being, and not requiring the mods to serve and protect those who won't even do so for themselves. This decreases the work load by using an effective system already in place, and decreases the scam potential by injecting an additional unbiased party with ulterior aspirations (such as achieving official middleman).

No one is safe, I did just cover this though. Members will still file reports regardless, it's just like you can't stop them from filing text logs, you can only remove the thread after they've done so. However, if a report against a wellknown member is filed, or multiple reports against someone is filed, there will be someone who is willing to take the time to punish that member. Especially if using a middleman becomes required. The report will still be there, people will still see it, and action will be taken purely because someone will step up to the plate.

But irregardless of those circumstances, policy should be to require the use of a system which many people have put so much effort into.


Everyone says when a person gets scammed "you should have used a middleman", so... make it, "you use a middleman, or you lose your right to seek retribution".

If a middleman scams, so be it, file a report .

 

I like the idea but I don't think it could ever be fully implemented. The idea of a middle man is to help you not get scammed, and if people started using middle men for the purpose of being able to report a scammer it would basically contradict itself. If people think they are going to be scammed they shouldn't do the trade at all. So there would be no purpose in this.

 

Ok well what about trades that can't be MMed?

Player A is transfering 150m from two of player B's accounts.

How do you MM that for example? There are a great deal of trades that can't be MMed as well.

 

Think about.

Guy with 100 vouches tell someone with none to go first, he says 'i obviously wont scam you, look at my vouches'... he scams him.
but now he could just get away with it?

 

Your thinking is a little off. People don't wear seatbelts so they are safe when they get in a car accident. They wear it because A) they're used to wearing them, and they're used to it because B) it's usually against the law to not do so. Simple as that.

Why is it required by law in most states to wear your seatbelt? Because no insurance company will cover you if you get into a wreck. If you get into a wreck and it was your fault, and no insurance company will cover you, and you don't have the money to pay for it, then the person you got into a wreck with won't receive retribution for whatever.

Middlemen are like seatbelts. If you don't wear one, we're not going to help you get retribution for being wronged. Maybe if you had used a middleman, you wouldn't be in this situation. Middlemen are there to prevent this situation, if you don't do everything in your power to prevent that situation, you're at fault, not the scammer.

Why is Player A transferring funds for Player B? Can Player B not transfer their own funds?

If a trade cannot use a middleman, and in no way is it feasible, this will be noted during the scam report. As I said previously, we can't fully prevent a person from filing a scam report, it's just not possible. The scam report will have to be looked at regardless, but determining whether actions should be taken will be so much easier if it is obvious that a middleman was not present.

I did think about this. I replied to that point. Many times. Read the thread and you will see my replies. I covered this in detail .

 

This is by far one of the dumbest ideas I've ever read in the past 7 years.

There's 4 main points that make you and your idea look very foolish.

1. If ALL trades were required to have OMMs you'd literally have a backlog of days if not weeks for trades to go through. Hundreds of trades occur here at sythe weekly, if not thousands, there's no way that the current system would hold up under that pressure.

2. You're basically giving any member who has someone else go first a free pass to scam at will, without any punishment. This reason alone is good enough to close this thread and just change your user title to NOT SMART ONE.

3. Even if you implemented a JMM rank and usergroup, you'd have people knocking the doors down to get approved/accepted to become one just so they could scam.

4. At the same time, what happens if the OMM scams now? What happens if an OMM is doing a trade, does he have to use a second OMM? What if the person tries posting proof the OMM scammed? The fact is, the current system is far from perfect. Trusted members, staff, and OMM have scammed in the past, and to be honest, some current ones have probably scammed without getting banned. If you think OMMS or anyone for that matter are above scamming, they aren't, especially when they know they can get away with it.

 

I highly doubt you have the slightest right to say your opinion is more valuable, but I'll play along and demolish you. Monsieur Chip.

These 4 points you've posted actually make you look more foolish than the idea itself, haha.

There's already a huge backlog of trades to go through. This will not increase the workload, in fact, it will lighten the work load as the presence of an MM in a trade is easy to determine. And it's not required to have OMM's, it's required to have MM's, whether they're going for official or not.

If you didn't insert your ridiculously idiotic insults into your points, I might actually give you a longer answer. I've answered this before, reports will still be filed, this suggestion will not prevent users from reporting, but it will let users know that the staff will most likely not follow through with reports in which a user does not try to ensure their own safety.

Yes? So what? That happens now with other ranks, I see nothing wrong with users going for a rank like that. I never suggested that, however, so it's not a negative point for my suggestion.

If an OMM is doing a trade, yes, he has to use another MM. You would know all about OMM's scamming, wouldn't you? . I never said a person must use an OMM, I said a middleman. However, a lot of people would use OMM's more than non-officials.

Just because a person is an OMM doesn't mean they're completely trusted. If they have no personal interest in a trade, the likelihood of them scamming is much less than if they are personally involved.

Stop trying to create drama, and take your vader ass elsewhere, please.

 

A chip is always wiser than a mere man. Remember this, and you will go far.

Not really, they are all valid points.

It wouldn't lighten the workload at all. Your idea (working as you intended it too) would make it so more people used MMs, which would obviously increase the workload for said MMs.

You'd also have people then MMing their own trades, just for the fact that they would seem to be taken more seriously in that case. Honestly, this idea doesn't add anything new to what has already been said in the past.

This pretty much negates the point of your suggestion in the first place. If that's how you feel about it, then it is perfectly fine how it is now. In other words, this change (if they did approve it) would simply be a reminder to use a MM, it wouldn't actually affect anything. Scam reports that don't prove anything are already ignored, and the ones with valid proof taken into account, I fail to see why you purposing this idea.

You're going to draw more scammers out of the works (not as if there aren't enough already, but you know fair well what my point is here).

I do, as well as several current staff and OMMs (but it isn't polite to name names).

Very true, I actually agree with you on this point.

What better things do I have to do on a Monday?

In my opinion, your suggestion adds nothing new. You first say that peoples' reports won't be read at all, then you say they will only look at legit ones and ignore most of the rest. DING DONG! We have a winner, that is exactly how the current system runs at the moment.