[Approved] Update Official Middlemen

[Brad Kelly]

I too believe the OMM process deserves a rework. IMO if members like Hope, Jason and Pegasus can't make it in, something is skewed.

To me, raw numbers of trades or proofs don't make an OMM, its character, devotion to improving Sythe and helping the community be a safer place.

When I look at the official middleman list I see great representations of the community. I haven't been a part of Sythe for long but every time I saw or interacted with people like Video, Tyler, Star, Dunworry or Shin you could just tell they were professionals and you could trust them.

So maybe an applicant like Jason doesn't have quite the volume of trades he needs, but he fits that group with what's important IMO.

 

[Zynce]

Don't really agree with this.

All current OMM's are members of 5 years or older, i think the time someone has been on the forum should have a big impact on deciding if one does deserve OMM status.
I would never support OMM applications from Hope, Pegasus, Asassin,.. For that sole reason alone, no hard feelings to them tho.

And i think thats a big reason you guys didn't (will not) get it.
I mean @Assassin we all know you want OMM, but how do you expect to get it when you've been on sythe for only a year? No offense at all btw.

Time shows someone's true colors.
I'd trust a 6 year old member 10x more than a 2 years old member.

No support.

 

[Assassin]

Don't really agree with this.

All current OMM's are members of 5 years or older, i think the time someone has been on the forum should have a big impact on deciding if one does deserve OMM status.
I would never support OMM applications from Hope, Pegasus, Asassin,.. For that sole reason alone, no hard feelings to them tho.

And i think thats a big reason you guys didn't (will not) get it.
I mean @Assassin we all know you want OMM, but how do you expect to get it when you've been on sythe for only a year? No offense at all btw.

Time shows someone's true colors.
I'd trust a 6 year old member 10x more than a 2 years old member.

No support.

There are no rules stating you have to be an old member when applying. Also are you one of the people that vote? Why are you stating that voting has already happened. We've been waiting since august. This post has NOTHING to do with what you are saying rofl. Sure time can impact your application when it comes to applying but if you go solely off of that I believe it is wrong as many people can get ahold of old sythe accounts and use them to scam via blackhat methods. We have seem it a lot honestly.

Also all current OMM's have been OMM's awhile. Look into when they became OMM instead of where they stand now that will off put your data like crazy. And the difference of our join dates isn't astronomical either BTW.

Also if it seems OMM are old, there have not been any acceptances in over 2 years despite some amazing/trustworthy people that didn't join as soon as I or @Hope or @Pegasus . This includes @Devil @Wortel and @King and they all got denied. Likely I will be denied my first try to but it is a process.

You say no support but did not actually read my post which has NOTHING to do with anything you said. Come on man lol

 

[Zynce]

There are no rules stating you have to be an old member when applying. Also are you one of the people that vote? Why are you stating that voting has already happened. We've been waiting since august. This post has NOTHING to do with what you are saying rofl. Sure time can impact your application when it comes to applying but if you go solely off of that I believe it is wrong as many people can get ahold of old sythe accounts and use them to scam via blackhat methods. We have seem it a lot honestly.

Also all current OMM's have been OMM's awhile. Look into when they became OMM instead of where they stand now that will off put your data like crazy. And the difference of our join dates isn't astronomical either BTW.

Also if it seems OMM are old, there have not been any acceptances in over 2 years despite some amazing/trustworthy people that didn't join as soon as I or @Hope or @Pegasus . This includes @Devil @Wortel and @King and they all got denied. Likely I will be denied my first try to but it is a process.

You say no support but did not actually read my post which has NOTHING to do with anything you said. Come on man lol

Your post stated giving newer members a chance, which i really don't support. Just my opinion, i know you're very trustworthy so i'm not trying to offend you or make a point that i'm an older member than you.


Yeah they might need to put in some work with accepting new OMM's but i don't support the idea of giving newer members (1-3 yo) a chance to it, sorry.

And besides not only old accounts can get hacked & old accounts that get hacked are in most cases pretty inactive. I doubt they will get that rank & get caught pretty quick to what i've seen.

 

[Pegasus]

Time shows someone's true colors.

This applies to myself and others as well. Had you known me 10 years ago you would know my "true colors". Just because people don't know you doesn't necessarily mean they haven't shown their true colors. It's up to you to get to know them.

I'm not offended at all btw, I just feel like your reasoning is off.

@RandyRon isn't exactly considered "trusted" by the standards set on the forum, but he's probably one of the more trusted and truthful users around.

Honestly there is no real way to determine if someone is "trusted" or not. Tomorrow Video can go broke and decide to scam, anyone can. The only way to determine someone's true identity is to get to know them, and I don't think it's reasonable to judge someone before you do.

If I were OMM and I had to vote on someone potentially becoming OMM, I would make it my mission to get to know them as a person. I realise this could be hard because anyone can pretend to be anyone, but as you said, with time comes knowledge of someone's personality.

 

[Assassin]

Your post stated giving newer members a chance, which i really don't support. Just my opinion, i know you're very trustworthy so i'm not trying to offend you or make a point that i'm an older member than you.


Yeah they might need to put in some work with accepting new OMM's but i don't support the idea of giving newer members (1-3 yo) a chance to it, sorry.

And besides not only old accounts can get hacked & old accounts that get hacked are in most cases pretty inactive. I doubt they will get that rank & get caught pretty quick to what i've seen.

Well if you are keen, make a Suggestion in Suggestions then, and say that you required to be at least 3 years on Sythe to receive the OMM rank and explain your reasoning. I don't believe time on a website should be the sole determinator on who becomes OMM but on how actually how trustworthy they are/good at MMing trades. What if we hire some guy who sends horrid PM's but has been on Sythe 6 years?

I am sure many old accounts get bought by ban evaders and we just don't notice. Sadly it can be overlooked if @Wortel has an off day catching people or the Geolocation is similar.

 

[Brad Kelly]

There are no rules stating you have to be an old member when applying. Also are you one of the people that vote? Why are you stating that voting has already happened. We've been waiting since august. This post has NOTHING to do with what you are saying rofl. Sure time can impact your application when it comes to applying but if you go solely off of that I believe it is wrong as many people can get ahold of old sythe accounts and use them to scam via blackhat methods. We have seem it a lot honestly.

Also all current OMM's have been OMM's awhile. Look into when they became OMM instead of where they stand now that will off put your data like crazy. And the difference of our join dates isn't astronomical either BTW.

Also if it seems OMM are old, there have not been any acceptances in over 2 years despite some amazing/trustworthy people that didn't join as soon as I or @Hope or @Pegasus . This includes @Devil @Wortel and @King and they all got denied. Likely I will be denied my first try to but it is a process.

You say no support but did not actually read my post which has NOTHING to do with anything you said. Come on man lol

These last comments make me curious about who all votes each time? The OMM thread says upper staff and admins. I know its none of our business how the voting process works such as if they have to give a reason for their vote, if a person can opt-out if they don't know the person, or if voting requires 100% participation.

But it's interesting to me people are saying voting takes months.

In my opinion, if upper staff and admins want more OMM to successfully join, once a no vote is reached on a reputable member who checks all the boxes, reasoning to why they were turned down being publically stated would make the system much healthier over time.

That would give the OMM applicant something to work towards and also better define the requirements.

 

[Tyler]

reasoning to why they were turned down being publically stated would make the system much healthier over time.

The reason for denial is sent to the applicant.

Maybe you should learn about how the system works before including yourself in the discussion about it.

 

[Brad Kelly]

The reason for denial is sent to the applicant.

Maybe you should learn about how the system works before including yourself in the discussion about it.

Maybe you should learn what publicly means lol

After you deny someone and give them the reason, do you think they are going around shouting why they were turned down so the community learns from it?

Or for example, if someone sees people like Wortel and yourself apply and get denied with no explanation given then they would assume they couldn't get it.
If the application is public and the applicants submitting their requirements is public then the primary reason for " No" being more public would help.

Also, the only reason I joined this conversation was I think the OMM expanding would mean fewer scams and a healthier community.

 

[Tyler]

Maybe you should learn what publicly means lol

After you deny someone and give them the reason, do you think they are going around shouting why they were turned down so the community learns from it?

Or for example, if someone sees people like Wortel and yourself apply and get denied with no explanation given then they would assume they couldn't get it.
If the application is public and the applicants submitting their requirements is public then the primary reason for " No" being more public would help.

Also, the only reason I joined this conversation was I think the OMM expanding would mean fewer scams and a healthier community.

Oh god that's an even worse suggestion than what I misread it for.

You want the reasons that people are denied (which sometimes is privileged information, or sensitive) to be posted publicly for all to see? Lmao


If Wortel gets denied OMM, I won't think the system is impossible to get in. I'll think that he had some stuff he needed to work on, why he was denied is no concern of mine. Assuming I'm a regular sythe user.

 

[Brad Kelly]

Oh god that's an even worse suggestion than what I misread it for.

You want the reasons that people are denied (which sometimes is privileged information, or sensitive) to be posted publicly for all to see? Lmao


If Wortel gets denied OMM, I won't think the system is impossible to get in. I'll think that he had some stuff he needed to work on, why he was denied is no concern of mine. Assuming I'm a regular sythe user.

Confidentiality doesn't really fly as a reason IMO because it's pretty simple based on the listed requirements.

What are the reasons people are turned down?

-Not enough trades
-Not enough frequency of trades
- Previous trade history
- Quality of Proofs

It's not rocket science, the reason for being turned down would 90% of the time come down to " not enough x" surely.


I just thought it was a possibility since the application is public, your posted requirements are public and their posted proofs / trades are public.

Then again from a public standpoint I don't know what requirements are beyond that because they aren't listed.

 

[Tyler]

-Not enough trades
-Not enough frequency of trades
- Previous trade history
- Quality of Proofs

Two of my applications were denied for reasons not listed above, and reasons I would not like shared with the public. I can attest that I have voted no to peoples applications based on things that are not listed above.

 

[Brad Kelly]

Two of my applications were denied for reasons not listed above, and reasons I would not like shared with the public. I can attest that I have voted no to peoples applications based on things that are not listed above.

Well I just thought it would be beneficial for people of that caliber to have a rough idea of such reasons so they can work on them before application and ultimately more OMM be accepted.


At the end of the day I know you're a good guy so I'll trust your judgment on it.

I just really like the idea of more OMM to be honest. Sythe is commerce driven and OMM are like super heroes, you protect both parties completely.

Seeing no addition since 2017 made me wonder if there was a way to make the system bigger . But it seems just it has to stay where it is logistics wise.

 

[Assassin]

Now that @Shin has stepped down, who will become the new HMM to oversee the OMM? I assume @video but he already has a lot on his plate. Just wondering

 

[PerfectCrime]

3. Make it more prestigious/difficult to achieve. Increase the amount of larger trades required to receive this role.

The requirements as is are difficult enough to obtain..If you can't transfer runescape names with out getting sniped (Only two people can I believe?) or have THOUSANDS of vouches good luck finding $550+ middleman requests in 2020.

 

[Superfluous]

Done (sort of)