[Approved] An addition to Bogus posting/bumping

Let's start by quoting the rule in question:

This is currently considered as a minor rule and therefore the punishment to this is only an infraction.
We've seen multiple suggestions lately where this rule plays a role. One major frustration has been that a lot of people (auto)bump when they're actually not ready to trade and sometimes are even offline.
We do get post reports about this occasionally but our current punishment is only an infraction, even if it's a repeated offense.

This suggestion can be considered two suggestions in one.
1. We should implement a system where repeated offenses get punished more severely. The exact punishment could be up for debate, but what I currently have in mind:
1st offense: infraction.
2nd offense: infraction + all market threads locked for 1 week.
3rd offense: infraction + all market threads locked for 1 month.
4th offense: infraction + 1 month temp ban.

2. If the first change passes, we should enforce this more strictly. We're generally not a fan of policing threads/discords but I think periodically random checks would do the trick. We could set the bar at forcing people to be online/ready to trade for at least 15 minutes after a bump.

I think this really can be enforced as random checks shouldn't take up too much time. I don't mind doing this either. Worst case if future staff does not have the time/capacity to enforce this, it could always be scrapped.

 

My opinion on the first infraction.

 

I think this would depend on the circumstances. My original suggestion is having to be ready for at least 15 minutes after bumping. You could at least reply to the new ticket saying you'll be with them shortly or something.

 

I think these advised rules are going from 0 to 90 too quick, I am also not fan of this in ras either:

I like the idea, but think this is going too far especially if these offenses don't expire. keep in mind I am a fan of more enforcement, just think these are a little bit too far.

Staff are meant to be court and not police, while I like the idea, I think it goes against what the staff are meant to do, also at points I just ignore pms from certain members and reply later if I am not mood to reply person (generally this would be known sythe members not customers), if this system is going to be in place, I think you should leave it to the community to do and not staff, also there argument that staff or member of the community could aim to try bully competition by spamming there pms every time,

I think it's good idea, I think think it need to be changed a little, I still think better idea just to remove auto bumpers, we been through this before and staff got overwhelmed and ended up removing bumpers, I still think this is better and why I suggested in the past. soultion Removal of autobumpers (again).

 

I'm on the fence on this one but leaning more towards no support - I think there’s too many X factors.

I have three discord servers & am in tons that I forget to mute - sometimes it is possible to miss an open ticket and my other admin be busy as well. There's also situations that happen IRL as we are all getting older. For example I've been in scenarios where I've bumped things & wife comes home and asks for help with things or I have to deal with something for a business that just came in so I step away for a period of time. It's not an ill-intent but the way this suggestion is it makes a scenario like this punishable.

Not to mention this already takes away from the limited mod/admin time to try to 'catch' people. Scam/violation/vader reports are trending towards longer times it seems so I don't see this beneficial to pull more focus away from that to catch people. The cons outweight the pros for me.

 

Interesting idea. To my knowledge this rule is mostly being broken by people using auto bumpers, so I think this is a decent idea. I think a temp bot on using bump bots at offense #2 is fair and it can get more severe after.

Up for debate although I think it's fair to set an expiration date for these infractions. Regular infractions expire after a month, we could make it a year for this.

If you refer people to a site/discord server on your thread then a reply there is fine.

This falls under the same rule. They're not ready to trade then. If they happened to have just sold out right before you, staff can ask for proof.

I think it works well in RAS. The only people who keep doing this in RAS are doing it to troll and know about the rule already. We can however lower the punishment, the suggestion is about making punishment more severe if the offense gets repeated. Right now you could do it a couple times a month without any real punishment.

I know where you're coming from but honestly staff does a lot more than just that. Staff members can and do already report things (policing), they can't handle their own reports to keep things in balance. We also do the detective/investigation work on reports, which is not something a court does either. Ideally we would only punish people when there's a (post) report but in reality people rarely get reported as many buyers don't know these rules we have.

I personally don't see this as a factor. Random checks don't take a lot of time. I can PM like 10-20 people using an auto bumper within a couple of minutes, then wait for 15 mins to see if they reply or not. The idea is to not do this that frequently, just occasionally.

Most reports that take a while are reports with either conflict of interest or rather complex reports that require some discussion. Performing random checks can be done by just 1 staff member.


Edit: Btw I appreciate everyone's replies. I know it's easier said than done to fix the issue. I don't want to create a situation where you can get severely punished for missing a PM. I do however want to prevent users from auto bumping 24/7 whilst being offline/asleep/at work all day. We've already had suggestions regarding disabling autobumpers like @Pikachu mentioned, I don't think that's the right solution however as it also punishes people who don't abuse it.

 

To me this is literally history repeating itself, notice the reason auto bumpers were removed in the first place was it was too much to enforce, [APPROVED]removal of autobumping , if you look at suggestion before which was to stop auto bumping services [DENIED] Disallow bumping services you notice the staff had different attitude which was they thought they could enforce it (this is based off video reply), there no real middle ground here sadly and this is history just repeating itself sadly

 

that use to be thing a while ago, and it actually worked quite well.