Allow staff to ban evaders when caught

[Shin]

Just out of curiosity then, do you allow Scam Reports assisted by moderator tools to be actioned on? Seems slightly like a double standard.

Yes, of course. They're adjudicating a case presented to them with the use of staff tools (if necessary). There's a difference when users are being hunted by staff on their own volition. Every user on the site has a target on their back at that point. It's no different than moderators having a personal dislike for someone, looking into their posts, and bombarding them with infractions. Something like that should never be allowed.

Mods are promoted based on their perceived ability to look after the sections for which they have have permissions in. If that particular mod is using them to attempt to rid the market of vaders then I see that as their own personal choice, as long as evidence is available somewhere to present to the banned user and bans aren't handed out without sufficient evidence. Again, sufficient evidence has always been a subjective matter based on the individual. As long as individual tasks like this don't stop the mod meeting a quota or whatever the system is that you now use, I see no reason to make a headache out of this situation.

As I said, this has been one of the many issues surrounding this form of policing. When users try to ask for evidence, some of the time staff members will be combative and withhold the information. Other times, staff don't have more information than a hunch or a single IP match. We haven't used modscore for over a year and a half now and use a peer review system instead, although many staff dislike the current system and want to focus on their modscores instead. The modscore system from vb3 never fully implemented with the port over to xf. There was something standing in the way of this which we were going to add in, but realized it was more work than it's worth as modscore quota continued to be more and more outdated. There were security issues surrounding the implementation as well.

Maybe the vaders will return, maybe they wont. Maybe the mod is wasting their own free time, so what?

If a staff member is wasting more time and site resources than fulfilling their duties/responsibilities, one can argue they're better off as a community member again. I will say this lightly, however, for now.

I agreed strongly with this when I was staff for sure, preventative materials are worth way more than banning repeat vaders. But hey, personal choice again.

I don't think 'personal choice' is a sufficient argument for wasting time.

I feel like a staff poll is best for this situation. It looks like it needs to be set in stone one way or another.

Since a change would affect the entire community, I think this is the last thing staff should be able to make the sole decision on.

 

some of the time staff members will be combative and withhold the information. Other times, staff don't have more information than a hunch or a single IP match.

Well put a stop to this, then? Give clear guidelines of what is and isn't considered enough.

If a staff member is wasting more time and site resources than fulfilling their duties/responsibilities

Well.. obviously if they're doing jack shit as a mod and chasing vaders I see your point, aye. However, Wortel for example is one of the most active mods, no reason why he specifically can't also spend his OWN free time hunting vaders is there?

I don't think 'personal choice' is a sufficient argument for wasting time.

Of course it is, every mods time is their own. It's up to them how they spend it and up to you if you want to dismiss them for lack of moderator activity, which they're all well aware of - it's up to them how they prioritise.

That's like saying you can't play RuneScape while you're on Sythe as it detracts from your mod duties. Lol.

Since a change would affect the entire community, I think this is the last thing staff should be able to make the sole decision on.

Hardly. Doesn't effect anyone if repeat vaders are being banned or not besides those being scammed by them. So only benefit is seen as an average member overall, as long as moderators are still upholding their usual duties...

I'm not really swayed either way entirely on this, I just don't think there is any justification coming from the against side on this one. Just seems to be something that's been implemented without proper communication or discussion.

 

[S]

@Shin

You're whole argument is based on what IF, and a hypothetical. This whole thread and debate is pointless.

IF, all the staff members are doing fuck all, and simply just 'catching vaders', and disregarding every other duty, then sure, go ahead and implement something new. However, that's another story, and them not doing their duties warrants a different conversation.

Why on earth are you trying to fix something that isn't broken? I actually don't understand. What is your logic behind wanting to change the system?

 

[b1b]

a broken man posted something sensible for once

as long as it's fully transparent I support this. don't want ego maniac mall cops banning people after 2 minutes of "research" though

 

[Program]

I don't support this suggestion.

It's as others have stated, the ban evaders are a scourge we can't rid ourselves of. Spend your "free-time" educating users on how to trade safely if you truly care about innocent users and a safe community.

Arguing to "headhunt" just seems to me like you want to moderate for the wrong reasons. I don't see how that protects anyone. Good job, you wasted 20 seconds of someones time, they'll probably make a new account that same day and scam that same user you supposedly protected. Woohoo, go you. Or what if you instead spent that time taking a minute and explaining safe trading practices to victims and potential victims. Then you're much more likely to actually protect someone from a scam.

I understand some of you out there get some kind of satisfaction rooting out the scum-bag moles from their evading holes, but you're not helping anything to be brutally honest.

I see the common counter-argument is "why not?". Why not is because you represent the moderators poorly as people who care more about their own satisfaction of rooting out evaders for fun than you do about protecting people from getting scammed.

If you had asked me a year ago I definitely would've supported it. But as time goes on my perspective has definitely shifted to be more realistic.

Edit: Also, SytheLib is cool. Look into it, use it, be cool too.

 

Just to point out, this suggestion has got nothing to do with headhunting. You're comparing 2 opposite things: headhunting with not being able to banevaders at all. Think as if this suggestion was not made by me.

 

[Program]

Just to point out, this suggestion has got nothing to do with headhunting. You're comparing 2 opposite things: headhunting with not being able to banevaders at all. Think as if this suggestion was not made by me.

I equate them as equal because the point is not only seeking them out, the main point is that banning evaders doesn't really help anyone. There's exceptions of course, like high profile accounts with massive scam potential, but your average evader is a waste of time and it doesn't help to ban them if they are back that same day.

 

I equate them equally because the point is not only seeking them out, the main point is that banning evaders doesn't really help anyone. There's exceptions of course, like high profile accounts with massive scam potential, but your average evader is a waste of time and it doesn't help to ban them if they are back that same day.

So what you're saying is; if someone risks about getting scammed a high amount of money we gotta do something about it, but if it's a random about who most likely will scam again, but it won't be insanely much, it's fine?

 

[Program]

So what you're saying is; if someone risks about getting scammed a high amount of money we gotta do something about it, but if it's a random about who most likely will scam again, but it won't be insanely much, it's fine?

I'm saying there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it with the second scenario because they'll be back that same day and scam again and you'll have just wasted your time, so why not focus your energies on doing some actual good like educating members because if we're being honest, banning that "random" helped no one, but only served to waste five minutes of their time and that's not what moderators should be doing or represent.

 

I'm saying there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it with the second scenario because they'll be back that same day and scam again and you'll have just wasted your time, so why not focus your energies on doing some actual good like educating members because if we're being honest, banning that "random" helped no one, but only served to waste five minutes of their time.

I'm perfectly fine "wasting my own" time if that prevents other users from getting scammed.

 

[Program]

I'm perfectly fine "wasting my own" time if that prevents other users from getting scammed.

That's all fine and dandy except you're not. You're not helping anyone. You're wasting time and showing people you care more about finding evaders for fun than you do about protecting people.

If you really wanted to "prevents other users from getting scammed" you'd spend your time making sure people don't enter trades that are liable to put them at risk by educating them further.

 

That's all fine and dandy except you're not. You're not helping anyone. You're wasting time and showing people you care more about finding evaders for fun than you do about protecting people.

If you really wanted to "prevents other users from getting scammed" you'd spend your time making sure people don't enter trades that are liable to put them at risk by educating them further.

Feel free to think however you wish to think about me finding ban evaders. My expertise isn't socializing with people, neither is discussing with people. There's already a million of stickies which should prevent users from getting scammed, though they keep falling for it. There's already a million of middleman users to ensure their trades will go safe, though they keep on trading on their own. People are stubborn and will keep falling for the same thing over and over again. Why should I help them go through with a trade with a scammer, while I could even prevent the trade from happening? I don't mind "wasting my own time" for that.

 

[Program]

Feel free to think however you wish to think about me finding ban evaders. My expertise isn't socializing with people, neither is discussing with people. There's already a million of stickies which should prevent users from getting scammed, though they keep falling for it. There's already a million of middleman users to ensure their trades will go safe, though they keep on trading on their own. People are stubborn and will keep falling for the same thing over and over again. Why should I help them go through with a trade with a scammer, while I could even prevent the trade from happening? I don't mind "wasting my own time" for that.

I don't see how you keep missing this point. You aren't preventing a trade from happening or protecting anyone when that user will be back in five minutes flat.

You find person A is a ban evader who is about to trade with person B and you ban them. Person A comes back and makes the trade/scam regardless the next day. So who did you help? No one that I can tell.

Now what if you had told person B not to trade with someone who is a risk like person A? Then from then on out, person B is much less likely to be scammed. Seems like you did real good there.

Although, I do have to give you your other points. Indeed there are resources and people here are stupid, so the outlook on truly helping the problems is somewhat bleak imo.

And I'm not down on you in any way. I don't have a sure-fire solution to combat the issues Sythe has always had. And at least you're trying to think of ways. So good on you. But I don't see any merit in this specific way of thinking.

 

I don't see how you keep missing this point. You aren't preventing a trade from happening or protecting anyone when that user will be back in five minutes flat.

You find person A is a ban evader who is about to trade with person B and you ban them. Person A comes back and makes the trade/scam regardless the next day. So who did you help? No one that I can tell.

Now what if you had told person B not to trade with someone who is a risk like person A? Then from then on out, person B is much less likely to be scammed. Seems like you did real good there.

Let's agree we disagree. My strongest point is not to discuss with people. I simply want this suggestion to pass because it's ridiculous to even let users return to the community while they still owe other people money. I believe that once we encounter a ban evader we should be allowed to ban them.

 

[Program]

Let's agree we disagree. My strongest point is not to discuss with people. I simply want this suggestion to pass because it's ridiculous to even let users return to the community while they still owe other people money. I believe that once we encounter a ban evader we should be allowed to ban them.

Sounds good man, refer to my edits to last post. I think we are just in disagreement of plan of action but want the same things.

 

[diosvany]

It LITERALLY makes no sense to vote NO to a thread that revolves around banning people who are already banned.

This thread has nothing to do with headhunting or anything else. There's one question to be asked and it's "are they banned on another account?". If they are then they should be banned on the spot, no questions asked. Is Sythe now a website that gives 20 chances as long as you create a new account?

There's ZERO reason to vote NO for this.

 

[Oathkeeper]

I think Mod's should be able to ban people if they catch them before a regular user does.

But as I understand a mods time is mainly for Moderating the forums not for chasing people.

Since we have the CDT team, and the PR team.

How about a dedicated Ban Evasion team that just look into that, I mean there's already group of users that currently do this/is always the same users reporting people.

I do support though.

 

Since we have the CDT team, and the PR team.

How about a dedicated Ban Evasion team that just look into that, I mean there's already group of users that currently do this/is always the same users reporting people.

The CDT and PR have got nothing to do with these. A dedicated group to catching ban evaders would encourage headhunting and that suggestion was already denied.

 

[Oathkeeper]

I just stated them as examples of groups that don't have the same powers as Moderators.
It was just a thought that was all. @Wortel

 

[Program]

It seems to me people are not critically thinking about this issue. You're seeing blaring words like "scammer" and "evader" and not looking at the true depth and intricacies of the issue.

If someone ban evades and is banned that same week and then just ban evades again the next day, what is the purpose of wasting staff time banning them when they could spend their time on something that yields actual results and helps the community?

Yes in an ideal world we'd be able to blow up a scammers computer every time they logged on Sythe lol, but we can't. So let our staff put their efforts into something productive.

This isn't to say that evaders don't get banned, but the system in which they do so is more efficient and productive. That's the goal I see with the current system.

But if yall prefer a system of whack-a-mole where nothing gets accomplished, then go for it.

Either way I think this topic should be closed and settled one way or the other.