Mandatory OMM

But we'd be resulting it in less scammers, and better transactions for the players/community. If they read the stickies, they would know how a OMM is chosen, etc.

 

I like the idea but at the same time I don't. Having to wait for a OMM can be time consuming at times. I personally don't mind using a OMM if the other person pays fees though so this really won't change much as far as my trades go at least.

I'll vote yes for it.

 

If I got a global to pull up the ban list for suspicious activity bans related to refusing OMMs and getting banned for scamming, and correlated that against the likelihood of an OMM scamming, then came up with a percentage of how much more likely you are to not get scammed by using an OMM, then the facts would speak for themselves.

While the above cases are true on very rare occasions, I doubt either one of you would refuse a person requesting to use me as OMM for a larger trade?

The point is an OMM would not be required, you could convince them that you are trusted, show them trading history, etc, however if all else fails and they require the use of an OMM, and are willing to pay fees themselves, then I highly doubt you would deny them. Plus the kids who would require an OMM are few and far between, as I doubt they would have any issue going first to most of these "more trusted than an OMM" normal users.

 

1. It'd be rather insulting to traders like R2p who've handled more than most OMM's in the first place.

2. Although there's no shortage of them now, there are certainly times when only one or two OMM's are truly active. In addition to the backup of trades this would cause, the active OMM's also often end up being the newer ones, so traders may be more hesitant to use them for large trades anyway.

3. It discourages new members from using the market. Tell them that (if requested) they "have" to pick one of a handful of people to trust on a $600 trade when they've never used the site before, good luck.

 

I would not refuse an OMM for a large trade, but i would be put in a situation where i cannot deny the trade. Lets say I don't have time for the trade, and i respond, " sorry not interested." or " i cant do it now, gtg in 10 minutes." That would look pretty fishy on my part. I believe that the seller/buyer should have the right to deny an official middle man, if they chose to do so. Like i said, i can pick out a bunch of OMM who have not done as many large trades as me or other members, and i think that denying an OMM is something that shouldn't be looked upon as a terrible thing. Of course i understand that a user with 5 vouches who denies an OMM should be looked as a threat to the community, but the more experienced users, ones with lots of vouches, should not be treated the same under the same conditions. Pretty much if the seller/buyer who does not wish to use an OMM, has a legit argument on how they are trusted/more experienced than an official MM, they should not be banned or given a TWC for denying a middle man.

 

All valid points, however point 1 I doubt Will would have any problems with someone making him use an OMM (his rep speaks for itself), point 2 is not really valid currently as there are almost too many OMMs competing, and point 3 is true, however I would estimate that a much higher percentage of new users feel more secure using an OMM backed by the site than those who would not.

The suggestion is naturally not going to be suitable or pleasing to everyone, in this case I am supporting it in the effort to do avoid the most fraudulent trading possible, as I think it is logical to assume that more people would be saved from getting scammed with this than be an inconvenience for those who didnt wish to.

Valid point, however I again would refer to the idea this this suggestion would do more good for more people then would be an inconvenience to legit traders like yourself. Additionally, like everything else on the site, some cases are judged on a case by case basis, so I doubt I would give you the ban hammer when I see the report against you for saying "brb" when an OMM was requested for a small trade.

 

Point 2 is absolutely valid, since it takes as much to get a rule added as it does to get it removed. It's a waste of effort, and will only cause confusion, if it's not going to endure.

And new traders probably won't find someone willing to go first with them, and they may end up using an OMM anyway, but they'll feel more comfortable doing so when it is their choice.

 

Just because a suggestion is difficult to get implemented doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it if it has the possibility of bettering the site for traders, no?

And again, I concede your second point; I still maintain that the inconvenience it would be to a miniscule amount of traders would be negligible compared to the amount of safer trades and reduced scams it could potentially negate.

 

Brilliant idea.

Support from me.

 

Exactly what nate said, support.

 

No support. This directly eliminates the choice that the other trader should have.

 

I think you misread it. He said that OMM should be mandatory if the other person agrees to pay the fees. Not everyone wants to pay fees, so not all of your trades will have an OMM involved.

I'm confused here. What do you mean by this? People always have to pay a fee to use an OMM.

 

I misread the first post, my mistake.

 

I often reject the use of an OMM on a large trade if I have not previously used the OMM they want to use. I believe that I am more knowledgable and arguably as trusted as a decent amount of the OMMs so I definitely do find myself denying the use of some of them.

On the other hand, I have no problem using one of the handful of OMMs who I've used before and I would have no problem using them--provided that one of them is online. However, I do have many people talking to me at once and I do find OMMs often to be an unnecessary hassle on most small trades.

 

I'm not sure whether to support this or not. I must say in all honesty, after 6 years of trading on sythe it has never come to a point where I have needed to use an OMM.

 

I don't understand why this is getting so much support. Yes, I want safe trades and less scams on Sythe, but why are we supporting to take away options while trading? I tried to highlight a few points earlier, but they seemed to be ignored. Sin brought up a couple more glaring problems if we were to in fact put these 'mandatory OMM' propositions in place.

I already talked about point one which basically shows how bad this rule would be for the more trusted members here.

I'd say I trust all of the current OMMs, and have dealt with a majority of them. The problem with the proposed rule is that there are simply too many trades for a handful of people to middleman. Even when the site is not very busy, it can be hard to find an OMM as they are usually flooded with trades. There may be competition between them, which makes them more active, but the ratio of trades to OMM is ridiculously high already. Making OMM mandatory if one party offers to pay for an OMM is only going to make it worse. There are a multitude of threads out there that offer to use OMM but in the end, they don't get used. Making it mandatory in those situations (one party offering to pay) is just preposterous.

People deserve the right to trade how they want. If they don't want to use an OMM, why should they be labeled with a TwC, or even more extreme, a perm ban? Am I saying that all people who refuse to trade with an OMM are legit? Not by any means, which is where I can see the supporters are coming from. If I'm a seller and someone won't go first or use OMM and they aren't trusted, forget it. I'll find somebody willing to comply and enjoy my rights to trade how I wish as other should as well.

 

I like the idea but I don't support, OMM can also scam and I'm sure members don't trust or don't feel safe with all the OMM. I myself wouldn't mind using any OMM for trades under $100 but over that I would only use an OMM of my choice.

 

I don't mind the idea but not letting traders trade freely isnt going to help the market.

 

They are free to both not use an OMM if they do not wish to, but this would just give safe traders an opportunity to... well, stay safe. I don't think it will negatively affect the market in any way as most of the trades that are eliminated are the high risk scammer-friendly ones.

 

I think it's a nice idea, but I don't think it's 100% fair to some users. People shouldn't be punished for not agreeing to use an omm, as they haven't done anything wrong at all.

It's like trying to ban someone without any legitimate proof at all, and just because it may seem fishy doesn't mean exactly that they will scam.