Solution To Scamming

I considered writing a back-story regarding this, but I'd rather get to the point.

Here are the current rules in relation to vouches:

• Requiring Vouches: You may not promise/require a vouch in the market. Vouches are given when the user you're dealing with feels you deserve a vouch, and no one is obligated to vouch under any circumstances.
• Self / Fake Vouching: If you fake vouches, steal vouches or in any way attempt to pass of illegitimate vouches as legitimate you will be banned for 2 weeks and be given a TWC. A second offence will result in a permanent ban.

Solution: Make amendments to the Sythe "constitution" and add the listed below.

Amendment #1
Return Vouching: When trading another user in the absence of a middleman, only the person who went first may vouch the other user. There may be NO return vouch given, as only one user was responsible for delivering goods/services as promised.
Amendment #2
Vouching (in general): All vouches either given or received must be posted in the Vouches Forum, found here: Vouches Forum. Any vouches found outside this forum (ex. Market, Middleman Forums, etc.) will result in deletion and possible infraction.

How will this help?
For a long time I've seen users criticize vouches and their usefulness. There are obviously mixed feelings about, but I question what the state of the market will be with the above rules/amendments implemented.

• The rule on return vouching may increase the activity/demand for middleman to be used, which in return can improve the safety of trading.
• The rule on vouching placement will help keep the forums more organized and have them used for the purpose they were intended (market for trading, vouches for vouching).
  • This may lead users to investigate a users vouches on a thread prior to engaging in business with them, as it will be against the rules to have users spam vouches on their market thread to represent credibility.

Thanks,

 

I dont like how you can't be vouched if you didn't go first. Highly trusted members would never gain vouches. And then they must waste their time finding a middleman, which is hard enough in itself.

Amendment 2 seems fine to me, but @#1 Sorry, but im against this idea.

 

I agree with #2 but not with number 1. I don't like the idea of vouches only going one way.

 

I don't like the return vouches idea, however.... I do feel that OMM's/MM's should not be allowed to vouch for trades they handle.

Vouches are supposed to be given as a show that the user receiving the vouch was trusted. OMM/MM's of a trade don't trust the traders with anything. They're there to mediate the trade, and they're the ones being trusted. I stopped giving vouches for trades I MM YEARS ago, and I refuse to ever give them, as the parties involved are undeserving of a vouch in such an instance. All it leads to is inflation of vouches, and I've personally seen MANY users abuse and scam using vouches from MM's/MM'd trades.

 

In response, highly trusted members do not have a great need for vouches and should be supporting others to use middlemen and request a private message.

Without the first amendment it makes it incredibly easy for non-trusted (or non-reputable, rather) members to gain vouches easy to a point where they look credible. They can simply go first to others (especially reputable members) and gain a false reputation and sense of credibility that was not earned. These trades could even be for low amounts.

I feel there needs to be some sort of guidelines set for vouching to help fend off some of the scammers on the site. Making it more difficult for them to gain a reputation may cause them to push their agenda to scam, hopefully ending up empty handed (and banned, of course).

I began doing this as well. I believe a thread may have been made in the private forum- I can't recall.

The middlemen in a trade trust each party with nothing as they only mediate a trade between two (or more, depending).

 

I'm not too sure if I support this point, especially vouches on MM threads. Can you further elaborate on your reasoning for this, besides the point that it will keep the forum more organized?

Edit: n4n0 brought up a good point on the post below this.

Oh, and this isn't really a "solution" to scamming. It might reduce the number of scams, but people will still scam nonetheless...

 

One thing this does show though, is that the user is capable of completing trades. This idea will only make gaining a foothold in the market that much harder, and will ultimately deter new users from using the market.

IMHO - It's a terrible idea.

 

Amendment #2 though - I don't see a problem with. Too many users abuse vouches to bump their thread pre-maturely to gain an advantage in the market sections, and I agree this should be stopped.

 

Middlemen threads should only be used for requesting trades/service and/or recommendation(s) required for the process.

Requiring vouches to be posted in only one place (in a section that was created specifically for vouching), will make certain that each thread pertaining to the market will follow their intended purpose. Market threads will involve business-only posts and middleman threads will include posts regarding the service.

It may or may not. However, if it deters new users from using the market, I would hope it to do the same for scammers as well.

A lot of users struggle getting their feet set on this site, but for those who are determined, they find a way to accomplish the task.

I understand what you're saying, however. I'm more intent on the second amendment than the first.

 

If scammers want to scam, they'll do it regardless of any guidelines we put in place. There's nothing that can or will stop them. You of all people know this as well as I do, which is partially why I find it hard to believe that you honestly think that this is a good idea.

 

Yeah, you're right. The more I think about it, the more it does make sense.

Exactly my case and point.

 

Ok, so heres the issue, but what about the solution? We need to find a solution, and i think this is what Unb4nn3d is trying to get at..

 

For amendment 1, I don't see how that will change any scamming? Hypothetically speaking, If that change were to be implemented, what happens to all the current "return vouches"? Personally, I believe this would be way too complex to regulate.. Although, majority of the community will report said vouches, you will never catch them all.

Amendment 2, I cannot agree more with you on that one, I see those chinese and many others abusing that so bad, just to pull their thread back up to the top, whilst my thread (and many others) slides down like an avalanche.. This should be stopped, and anyone who abuses this system should be heavily infracted. There is a vouches forum for a reason..... Technically, I believe it's already against the rules and should be classed as spam - if you taken into account:
The gold selling/buying section is obviously for buying/selling, So users may post in threads here with regards to someone whom is buying and/or selling gold.. nothing else. So how come it's allowed at the moment?

I asked prod a few weeks back about that, and he did say it was allowed and there's no problem with it, so I guess it is OK. But it should be changed accordingly.

There is no solution, that's what N4N0 is trying to get at.

 

Why not? The other person has done noting that should help earn them trust, yet they get a vouch, and most people trade based on # of vouches and not quality.

Personally speaking, I have only a few vouches, but they're for huge amounts and worth a lot more than the 100's of "vouches" users have from trades where they go first, or don't provide anything of much value or added trust factor.

Therefore, I support both ideas. I'd say about 80% of the "vouches" people currently have are absolutely useless.

 

Amendment 2 is fine with me. I don't think I agree with 1 as there are definitely legitimate reasons to vouch someone who didn't go first (they're paying with PP for example). I think it's just an issue of people needing to examine vouches more carefully. I know that when I was deciding whether or not to trust someone, I pretty much exclusively looked at vouches where they did not go first as those are the ones that show trust.
My vouch thread was also organized according to this idea with vouches where the counter-party went first near the top and then they were sorted roughly by value.

 

Amendment 2 is a good idea, but a lot of users vouch in your service thread even though you have yet to link then your vouch thread. I've probably only got 20-30 not in vouch threads, but that's mainly from OMM app.

The return vouch ideas not very good though. You're saying that newcomers pretty much can't get vouches, as the MM can't vouch them, the other person can't and the sellers when they go first can't. No support.

 

i think a return vouch should be given because it proves that the user really is willing to buy / sell gold and that he is not just a guy that visits Sythe only to get some free gp.

 

But what users most often turn out to be the ones that are scammers? The ones that accumulate tons of vouches for going first, and then turn around and scam the first time someone trusts them with a few mil/$. That's how Sythe has been FOR YEARS. Vouching someone who has not shown they are trustworthy is pointless.

VOUCHES are meant to show a trust factor, not that someone is making trades. Therefore if you weren't trusted with anything in a trade and simply were a party to the trade, you don't deserve that respect.

There could be another section, say 'compliment' or 'feedback' section, which is what those 'vouches' are. It can't possibly be a vouch for someones trust if they were never trusted with anything.

 

Don't really like the no return vouch idea, and would never support it. I don't trade anymore, but still dislike that idea completely.

No support really. As others have stated, if someone is bent on scamming, there is little one can do to prevent them. It's down to ones vigilance and trade awareness.

 

NO SUPPORT FOR THE RETURN OF VOUCHES!
If a new person registers on Sythe with the intention of becoming a reputable member, their chances of doing so are significantly hindered as they will have to persuade the person they're trading to go first.
Silly idea.