DNT for under $50 scams

[nodnarbusn]

No support. The rules are ridiculously lax as is letting scammers back at all.

 

[Floridian]

I am not arguing that people aren't always going to scam but if we send out the message that you can scam below a certain amount and see no punishment for it then it's only going to be more enticing to scam. Truth be told in the time i've been here i've seen countless vaders fuck off after x amount of bans and never return. Arguing that they may scam on another vader isn't relevant because if they want to make a new account while under DNT and scam they're going to do that as well. While evading may make bans ineffective, instantly giving scammers a DNT rank with no punishment makes the entire market platform and the concept of punishing scammers at all ineffective. If Richard wants to decide on how long someone is punished depending on what they've done then so be it, but deciding to take a group of people and not punishing them at all because the amount they got their greedy faggot hands on was below $50 is ridiculous, there shouldn't be any case where they see absolutely zero punishment.

What would you think about a system where the scammer would be temp banned and subsequently placed on DNT when the ban expires? These would be classified based on the amount scammed and the amount of scams.

Ie. User A scams once for $15 and is temp banned for 3 months/DNT

User B scams once for $70 and is temp banned for 6 months/DNT

User C scams three times before ban totaling $130 and is perm banned until pardoned.

@Chloe

 

[Yousuckv2]

What would you think about a system where the scammer would be temp banned and subsequently placed on DNT when the ban expires? These would be classified based on the amount scammed and the amount of scams.

Ie. User A scams once for $15 and is temp banned for 3 months/DNT

User B scams once for $70 and is temp banned for 6 months/DNT

User C scams three times before ban totaling $130 and is perm banned until pardoned.

@Chloe

I was pretty sure that was originally the plan anyways

 

What would you think about a system where the scammer would be temp banned and subsequently placed on DNT when the ban expires? These would be classified based on the amount scammed and the amount of scams.

Ie. User A scams once for $15 and is temp banned for 3 months/DNT

User B scams once for $70 and is temp banned for 6 months/DNT

User C scams three times before ban totaling $130 and is perm banned until pardoned.

@Chloe

Sounds good, I was just hoping we could get some more suggestions out there as to making DNT more known to users, those who have a change of heart, I thought giving a DNT to petty scammers might make things look more clean but I feel like the majority of the forum feel different to that opinion.

 

[Matt Hasty]

I'd say for only certain situations such as dicing, money borrowed and graphics. Anything else is just a scam get out of jail free card.

 

I don't agree with this. You scammed, you pay the consequences. Most these scams I assume tend to be evaders who just build up a rep, scam, and repeat. As a result sticking them straight on to DNT is just a way of saying, don't worry its fine you can scam right now and we'll just let you back in partially. Again they could or most likely would just evade again, have a reason to troll around in the community, and just scam again and repeat. I like the current idea where people who are willing to pay back are put on DNT. If you can find any person who has just scammed, and is willing to pay that back.. then maybe you have a point. Otherwise this seems absurd, because I don't assume any person who has just scammed in that form would want to just repay back to be let in on DNT. I do agree with the comments about if they could get their hands on more they would, therefore I don't believe they're the type of individuals who are trying to stay in the community.

 

The DNT rank isn't even issued to everyone anyway. It should only be used in rare cases. In my opinion, if you scam, you pay the price and should just remain banned. No one else's fault that the site has hella users that are banned.

 

[egear]

Honestly as someone pretty new to this forum I believe this suggestion would both give a better appearance and promote more activity.
1. If they scam someone and receive a DNT they may continue to post in sections with the account.
2. If they were intent on scamming again they would just make another account for it and banning their old account would fail to prevent this and just result in the forum looking like a worse place with so many bans.

This make sense and results in only a positive outcome.

 

I disagree because they would have scammed a larger amount if they could, but nobody trusts them with a significant amount of cash so they settle for scamming "lunch money" instead. In my opinion scammers should be given DNT only if they show remorse and attempt or plan to pay back their victims.

 

[SuF]

No support. The rules are ridiculously lax as is letting scammers back at all.

Well the previous system of letting scammers back is mostly just a popularity contest. DNT at least lets us make a slightly fairer system.

 

[Lean]

People who scam small amounts are the type of people who would just keep ban evading and not want to return as a DNT user.

 

Going to support this but in my opinion a temporarily ban should still be placed. I have noticed quite a bit of previous DNT users repaying their victims (s/o @Alex_J_Leon @Felix1222100) thanks to the DNT rank. Even though I was against the introduction of this rank it does appear to work for some. Yeah, people will abuse it, but they already abuse their bans by ban evading. It doesn't have to be a permanent thing.

 

[Felix]

Going to support this but in my opinion a temporarily ban should still be placed. I have noticed quite a bit of previous DNT users repaying their victims (s/o @Alex_J_Leon @Felix1222100) thanks to the DNT rank. Even though I was against the introduction of this rank it does appear to work for some. Yeah, people will abuse it, but they already abuse their bans by ban evading. It doesn't have to be a permanent thing.

Thanks man <3
Yeah I agree with this as well, but just like Wortel said they should still be banned. A scam is a scam, and a victim is a victim. All victims of any scam deserve to be refunded, because $50 may not be a lot to you but it could be a hell of a lot to somebody else.

 

[Boney]

Instead of banning people straight up after a successful scam report, you could try proposing repayment plans between the scammer and the victim. If the scammer refuses, then go ahead with the ban.If the scammer and the victim agree to the proposed repayment plan, give the scammer a DNT until repayment is complete. If the scammer accepts the payment plan but doesn't show any signs/proof of repayment, ban him. That is my take to this concept you have suggested.

Whenever a scam post is made calling a person out 99% of time they have chance to reply back and sort out if something needs to be repaid or figure out issue. Reason people are instant bans are because the scam reports are "I bought this item and then wasn't replied to(Blocked) by the seller for multiple days/hours."

It makes zero sense to allow a potential scammer more time to scam other users if that's what they are intending to do. There's no time to ask "hey, would you mind repaying this user who you have just ignored and stolen money from" that would just allow fake responses of "sure" and then they go on to scam more users. No, they have to be instant banned as that puts a stop to any future scams and then if they want to come back and refund to clear up their name they can pardon that way. The instant bans are a safety thing to avoid any more damage.

 

[Superfluous]

People who scam small amounts are the type of people who would just keep ban evading and not want to return as a DNT user.

as much as i hate to admit it, i think this is probably the biggest issue with your suggestion, @Chloe. the populations of "people who scam $50" and "people who want to return as DNT users" don't really overlap

 

[Lean]

as much as i hate to admit it, i think this is probably the biggest issue with your suggestion, @Chloe. the populations of "people who scam $50" and "people who want to return as DNT users" don't really overlap

As much as you hate to admit it eh? Why do you hate to admit it then? Explain

 

People who scam small amounts are the type of people who would just keep ban evading and not want to return as a DNT user.

Surprisingly, this post makes the most sense.

 

[Ult]

bad idea for me

 

Going to support this but in my opinion a temporarily ban should still be placed. I have noticed quite a bit of previous DNT users repaying their victims (s/o @Alex_J_Leon @Felix1222100) thanks to the DNT rank. Even though I was against the introduction of this rank it does appear to work for some. Yeah, people will abuse it, but they already abuse their bans by ban evading. It doesn't have to be a permanent thing.

this suggestion isn't related to people like felix/ajl b/c they've already served their time, this suggestion is to auto-DNT all fresh scammers that've only managed to get their hands on $50 or less

 

[Yousuckv2]

Going to support this but in my opinion a temporarily ban should still be placed. I have noticed quite a bit of previous DNT users repaying their victims (s/o @Alex_J_Leon @Felix1222100) thanks to the DNT rank. Even though I was against the introduction of this rank it does appear to work for some. Yeah, people will abuse it, but they already abuse their bans by ban evading. It doesn't have to be a permanent thing.

Felix was already in the process of repaying victims before being placed into DNT and Alex J Leon didn't have victims to pay back but okay