Self-Vouching Punishment Reform?

After the first offense, what's the likelihood of the same person committing the same offense again?

 

There is more cases than something like Nate's, which is why there should be multiple punishments. The current one which is used mostly, and then a lesser one for people that the staff think just messed up and are not malicious. The lesser punishment isn't really important as long as they can come back and continue trading if they wish.

 

If its a scammer, they would scam or just make a new account. If its a legit person they wouldn't do it again. :/

 

Correct you are. Obvious scamming is obvious. Some situations could be possibly treated a little bit differently.

 

Yeah, I guess I agree with you on the part where the punishment and ban time is shortened down if it's not for a scamming intent or anything malicious. My idea for the shortened ban time would be a ban of 1-2 months, a permanent TWC, and a market ban.

 

Why a market ban? If the person wasn't trying to scam then they were just trying to get trusted so they could use the market. Banning them from the market would just cause them to vade and eventually make them end up permed which is what we don't want.

 

Exactly. People could just dispute the perm ban if they are legit. Scammers won't bother most of the time, unless the account is high trust which would cause the mods to dig deeper anyways.

 

Just because you had a relationship (dont take it that way, i mean friendship) With nate, you had to go and do this, Finn, Sythe, what has happened

 

Perhaps a market ban for a certain amount of time? I mean come on now, we can't possibly take this issue lightly. Self-vouching does fall under the category of scamming, for good intents or bad.

 

Its not scamming if the user only wants to be able to trade legitly. The way I see it is that most users caught with fake vouches once they are trusted (Like Nate), aren't going to scam. They would have already, for the most part. Users who are new, if they are going to scam they won't want an account with a TWC so they will just make a new account. Thus the people that come back after a month or two with a TWC will be legit. But, if its too long the patience will run out and they will ban evade. Thus, the lesser punishment can not be that harsh.

 

I do not want to change the rule.

I am just saying that only the certain case of nate, should be dealt with differently. He's the only case that I believe should be an exception to the rule, or at least suffer a temporary ban, maybe 3 months or so. Other than nates, I believe that the rule should stay the way it is. Sorry if I'm sounding a bit on nates side, but he in my opinion was very sincere and was able to deal with the situation in a mature and positive manner, and tried to erase his mistakes (deleting the posts), which is why I believe he should be the only exception.

I would also like to add that reducing the ban length to three months, in my opinion, will increase more self vouches. Some would take it as that if they are caught, they have nothing to worry about because they will be unbanned in a couple months.

 

Yeah at the end of the day i believe when it gets to staff / Omm / trusted it should be on a person by person basis, and yes he did that but his intentions were different in which a different basis were to be taken he would suffer different less harsh consequences IMO this is blown way out of proportion.

 

3 months in some cases. I don't see why staff are so reluctant to give long temp bans to trusted members who got found out months or even years later.

 

I think self vouching should result in a 1 month ban, followed by a permanent if any more occurs.

 

I don't think a ban is necessary really, if the person is trusted it's obviously something they did when they were a noob. So it should be a TWC and a 30 day ban or so.. Who agrees?

 

Posted this in a similar thread that SuF did:

Self vouching can be used to facilitate trades, but also to facilitate a scam. No-one can know if Nate was actually doing this for the first reason or for a huge scam, so I probably think that the staff didn't go for the risky choice to leave him unbanned.

I think self-vouchers should stay banned. We all want plznate unbanned, but the rules are the rules.

 

Which is what this thread is about, possibly changing the rules.

I've said it before, and a lot of people don't seem to get it, so I'll say it again. It should be MODERATOR'S DISCRETION.

 

But that takes away the one right we have here, equality.
Imagine if the US was like this. The president was pardoned for shop-lifting etc.

 

Since this changes won't be retrospective, I think it should remain a permanent ban or a 3 months ban with a TwC after. Less then that is just too lenient for an offence like this.

 

If someone is not willing to earn a vouch, odds are there heart isnt in the forum for the right reasons and they are just looking to make a quick scam.

I believe it should be a short term ban, say a month, followed up with a permanent TWC.