Has this ever been done?

In the OMM Application process thread says that those who vouch an applicant will be punished if, after becoming OMM, the person chooses to scam.

I've heard about OMMs scamming before, but those who vouched for him, were they actually "punished"?

This came into my mind because of the SRR

4. Get your staff member/veteran member to vouch for you in your thread. This member's vouch will be deemed either appropriate or inappropriate by the Head Middleman. If deemed inappropriate, your application will not be processed until you have acquired the fundamentally important vouch from a trusted member/staff member. Remember, if you ever choose to scam, the member who has vouched for you will be punished.

All I'm saying is, clarify this or remove this (If this has never applied)

Thanks ^_^

 

[video]

OMM application vouches by staff are a serious matter but to my knowledge, no one has been actually punished for it. OMM scams tend to be pretty unpredictable, the last OMMs to scam were Pen, Louis, Rohail, Feren (kinda), so I don't think people should be punished. I think even if that clause were to be removed, people would still take their recommendations seriously and not just throw them around

 

OMM application vouches by staff are a serious matter but to my knowledge, no one has been actually punished for it. OMM scams tend to be pretty unpredictable, the last OMMs to scam were Pen, Louis, Rohail, Feren (kinda), so I don't think people should be punished. I think even if that clause were to be removed, people would still take their recommendations seriously and not just throw them around

Of course the recommendations wouldn't lose any seriousness or value. But as you say, I've never heard that those who vouched for an OMM who scammed. So what's the point on having it?

 

[video]

Of course the recommendations wouldn't lose any seriousness or value. But as you say, I've never heard that those who vouched for an OMM who scammed. So what's the point on having it?

Yeah I agree. Unless it's actually been used, it should be removed

 

[Wrestle]

no idea.

 

[FireZ]

I'd find it extremely offensive if I was punished for someones elses actions in which I had ZERO control over.

 

The rule doesn't really work. If you're an OMM, obviously a majority of the staff would have voted the member in, and he would have already been very trusted. If he chooses to scam, it's on him. Pen scammed out of nowhere, should the members who vouched him be penalized?

 

[kingsword123]

I'd find it extremely offensive if I was punished for someones elses actions in which I had ZERO control over.

you dont have control over the person scamming however you do have control over the fact whether you choose to vouch for them in the first place

The rule doesn't really work. If you're an OMM, obviously a majority of the staff would have voted the member in, and he would have already been very trusted. If he chooses to scam, it's on him. Pen scammed out of nowhere, should the members who vouched him be penalized?

Going along with what kero has said and the rule it could also be interpreted that those members who voted in the staff member should also be punished as they also deemed this person trustworthy as they voted.

In saying all this I think the rule is pretty stupid

 

[GodGenesis]

I think that rule just simply act as a deterrent for people posting vouch causally. It shouldn't be in the rule, It should be in a note or something since no action have been taken so far.

 

[malakadang]

I'd agree with removing this sentence, "Remember, if you ever choose to scam, the member who has vouched for you will be punished.", there's really not much point in having it there, considering no one's ever been punished for it, and there would be an outrage if someone was. If you want a mild deterrent for people vouching freely, then at the very least changing the word 'will' to 'may' should be done.

 

[Alex_J_Leon]

Pretty open and shut case for removal imo. I believe the original intent may have been to ward off people who were vouching for friends or vouching for someone who'd scam... it is silly though. It isn't a good deterrent, so it should be removed. The staff's decision on whether or not to promote someone to OMM is the best deterrent.

 

[I Peter I]

Yes, this should be removed, or at least the sentence removed as it's quite apparent it's not been used. Being punished for something you have no control over? No thanks.

 

I'd find it extremely offensive if I was punished for someones elses actions in which I had ZERO control over.

This^

Nobody can predict what people are going to do over the internet. On top of that the rule isn't even used anyway.
IMO, scrap the rule...

 

im with firez on that 1

 

Well, I think it should be removed then.

 

[MMA]

you dont have control over the person scamming however you do have control over the fact whether you choose to vouch for them in the first place

Don't staff have a vote to decide weather or not a person becomes a official middleman? If someone becomes a omm it's because the majority vote was the person is trusted enough and deserving enough to become a omm. So weather or not those staff posted a vouch on the person application they kind of are still vouching for the person by promoting them.

 

[Rent]

you dont have control over the person scamming however you do have control over the fact whether you choose to vouch for them in the first place

that's pretty stupid... you vouch for them because you had a good trade.
*facepalm*

 

that's pretty stupid... you vouch for them because you had a good trade.
*facepalm*

Not really, you vouch for them because you trust them.

 

[Rent]

Not really, you vouch for them because you trust them.

yeah you do, it's really not your fault if they scam.
also no-one vouches with the intention of they vocuhed scamming, they vouch because they proved to be trustworthhy. =@

 

I think a note saying: Vouching for OMM candidates is only advised when you are certain said candidate is legitimate and trustworthy.

Or something similar. There's no way someone should be punished for vouching them as even the most trusted people can end up scamming. Take it out of the 'Rules' but have it somewhere as a sidenote.