If you make a rule enforce it.

[Im Solo]

This is quite simple and it related to the report I made here : Snow Partol's scams

The report is currently closed which doesn't quite make sense to me. Video I have a ton of respect for you however I think the post was prematurely closed I was looking for input from the two people I tagged, the Head Middle man and Richard.

I made it clear in the post that there is a rule stating the person(s) who vouched for a scamming OMM would be punished. It is/was still in the rules at the time of the scam. As part of the application process to become a OMM it should be understood what making the vouch entails, if you regret making the vouch it doesn't excuse the fact that you did no matter how long ago. If you make a rule that is still in place you can't just turn a blind eye to it when convenient.

As I said in my OP, and as a rebuttal to Video, the OMM rank is an endorsement of a persons trust directly related to trading. I agree other rabks such as mod and admin carry no weight when it comes to trust, especially when it comes to trading.(i.e. Zippy) but the OMM rank is not the same, an omm is supposed to be an entrusted trader and staff have awarded a special rank to set them above all other middlemen/traders.

It all circles back to enforcing the rules that are currently in place.

If a OMM can't be trusted why do we even have the rank. Even after the scam there are still OMMs that are inactive and just as big a liability as Snow Patrol.

Either enforce your rules or don't have any at all. To make this more of a "suggestion" I would offer this. Update current OMM rosters, demote inactive people, make 2fa a requirement if it isn't already, and reform your application process and rules that go along with OMM. Maybe you could even put a footnote stating that's OMM can scam you just like any regular member so there is no benefit to using them over other MM.

Final suggestion, if there is no assurance to using an OMM than get rid of them all together. There is no point in setting these MM apart if nothing is different about them.

I know this is going to be kicked to the curb quickly but atleast consider this- If a deposits was required by all OMM there would be a way to pay back a scam that may occur. Not only this but if you had a deposit and planned on going inactive you would have an incentive to drop the rank. If you stop being a OMM you get your deposit back. We wouldn't have OMM just disappear if they had money in it. That would also be the assurance that I talked about earlier.

 

[Im Solo]

@video @Shin i want to emphasize this isn't taking shots at anyone in particular. The whole Snow Patrol issue just highlighted the need for an overhaul of the current OMM system as a whole. I know in the end no one is going to be held liable for SP's scams because the rule will be brushed to the side/not enforced. But moving forward something has to be changed.

 

Just to be clear, OMMs are stripped of their ranks if they are inactive for an X amount of days (or they are supposed to be at least). If Snow Patrol was not actively middlemanning, he should have been stripped of his rank.

 

[video]

This is more fitting as a suggestion thread than a scam report anyway, feel free to tag/discuss anything with anything here

 

[Shin]

Just to be clear, OMMs are stripped of their ranks if they are inactive for an X amount of days (or they are supposed to be at least). If Snow Patrol was not actively middlemanning, he should have been stripped of his rank.

I contacted @Im Solo on Discord and relayed some information the moment he posted his other thread.

Snow Patrol's OMM rank was apparently stripped a while ago. I looked into it (and other OMM's) the moment I was informed. I've had some ideas for current OMM's, but wanted to change up processes we currently have as well. What that might entail exactly I still don't know at this point, but know I do have plans and hope others will provide useful input for when changes are made.

 

[Makkara]

Why is this guy: -> Official Middleman here <- a verified middleman? He bumps his thread once every 2-3 months.. Found another one that hasn't bumped their thread for over a year: OMM 800+ Vouches RsProd's OMM Service Mod

 

[Shin]

Regardless, I don't really care about OMM, I've never applied because its simply a waste of time to do so. It literally is simply not worth it(to me), no gold sites have OMM owners so that tells you the ranks usefulness.

Regarding the OMM rank itself, the actual rank idea itself is fine( a trusted middleman above others preventing scams is good), but the system is dreadful as outlined above.

The OMM system has not been updated as Sythe has been and its caused it to become very outdated, its system very barbaric and overall just not worthwhile.

Concept is fine, currently application and execution is dreadful. Since I never ever ever will apply for OMM and have never expressed any opinion in desiring to do so, you can consider me an unbiased party.


All of the above is directly quoted from:
Sythe.org Official Middleman Application Process [Updated 9/26/15]

Which was last updated around 18 months ago.

Were you going to make a suggestion on what to do in regards to the current system? Or show how incompetent you are about the process altogether?

We're all well aware some things are outdated, so pointing out the obvious does no good (especially when you're wrong, lol). Citing where something is incorrect or needs updated and propose a solution, however, is always welcome.

 

[Program]

If being a mod or admin carry no weight as far as trustworthiness, why should their endorsement carry weight lol. That's not very logical. It's like saying two stupid people said someone is smart. Why would the stupid people be blamed for the third not being smart.

This is a community, not a company. Staff and you yourself are volunteers to help the site. Not be held responsible when someone goes out of character and does something rash.

I think the standpoint you're taking is coming from a good place. But it's not like the people who vouched for OMMs are in on any scheme for potential scam profits. They are just going off of what they know at the time, just like when we vouch people regularly, that the person seems straight up as far as they can tell.

I might support OMM ranks being harder to get. Maybe Sythe requires some background from them if he's willing. Or some system of collateral to a truly trustworthy member. But I very highly doubt either of those things happening.

 

[holy cherrys]

Why is this guy: -> Official Middleman here <- a verified middleman? He bumps his thread once every 2-3 months.. Found another one that hasn't bumped their thread for over a year: OMM 800+ Vouches RsProd's OMM Service Mod

Lmao that guy getting no ratings

 

Yeh I've always wondered why people who vouch in an OMM application process aren't held accountable when that OMM rank is abused for whatever reason.

Why is the rule there if it holds not weight? It's the reason why I wouldn't vouch anyone going for an OMM app.

Rules need to be in place that protect users, if an OMM removes 2FA remove their OMM status, their not safe to be OMM.

If the rule is there then regarding OMM being stripped of title when in active for x amount of days, why isn't it enforced? Who's job is it to do this? Is @Dave head middleman? Is it up to staff? Has it switched since he stepped down atm?

 

[Dave]

Yeh I've always wondered why people who vouch in an OMM application process aren't held accountable when that OMM rank is abused for whatever reason.

Why is the rule there if it holds not weight? It's the reason why I wouldn't vouch anyone going for an OMM app.

Rules need to be in place that protect users, if an OMM removes 2FA remove their OMM status, their not safe to be OMM.

If the rule is there then regarding OMM being stripped of title when in active for x amount of days, why isn't it enforced? Who's job is it to do this? Is @Dave head middleman? Is it up to staff? Has it switched since he stepped down atm?

The rule is enforced, the rule isn't to strip a user of his rank if he doesn't OMM. It's if he doesn't log on, Shin can post those movements here if he wants to

 

[S]

Yeh I've always wondered why people who vouch in an OMM application process aren't held accountable when that OMM rank is abused for whatever reason.

How is this even a logical statement?

It's like saying whomever you vouch for after a transaction, and if said individual scams, you're liable.

A better solution would simply be to add a clause within the OMM thread, that Sythe.org is not liable for any malicious activity relative to any OMM's.

 

How is this even a logical statement?

It's like saying whomever you vouch for after a transaction, and if said individual scams, you're liable.

A better solution would simply be to add a clause within the OMM thread, that Sythe.org is not liable for any malicious activity relative to any OMM's.

It's logical on the basis of the following thinly veiled threat that exists in the MM Application stickies that has never ever been wielded or even regarded seriously.

"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."

 

[S]

It's logical on the basis of the following thinly veiled threat that exists in the MM Application stickies that has never ever been wielded or even regarded seriously.

"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."

Yeah, I read that and was like lolwut.

No one has ever been punished AFAIK.

Far better to just amend it with a clause, if people want it that badly.

 

Yeah, I read that and was like lolwut.

No one has ever been punished AFAIK.

Far better to just amend it with a clause, if people want it that badly.

Reading half of the stuff on this site makes me go "lolwut"

Just remove it lmao

 

How is this even a logical statement?

It's like saying whomever you vouch for after a transaction, and if said individual scams, you're liable.

A better solution would simply be to add a clause within the OMM thread, that Sythe.org is not liable for any malicious activity relative to any OMM's.

What Jack pointed out.

Why are people vouching for someone's trustworthyness, and then said person scams or gets hacked because their clearly dumb and allowed it to happen. Why was that rule there and never enforced?

Basically seems like the OMM system isn't as strong as it could be, I'm sure there loads of staff that could be held liable if that rule had been enforced ..that's why we'll just scrap it now.

Isn't the point of OMM to be trustworthy in other people's standards, when they ruin that rep somebody who claimed they were good enough should pay as a result.

 

If we're going to be nitpicky about this, note that it says "Remember, if YOU chose to scam..." At this point, the public does not know if Snow Patrol was indeed hacked or not. Just going to point that out

Secondly, I don't know why so many people have their panties in a bunch over this. It's really meant to say that you shouldn't vouch for someone because you're friends. OMMs are on a different standard, so you should only vouch for them if you truly believe they are trusted and deserving of the rank. If you want to amend it, do that; however, getting angry of this is really pointless.

 

There is a human behind every/each rank given. Saying anything more would be a waste of time.

 

You can't make post about ignoring rules in regards to omm's without mentioning the 100% ignored fact that every time an omm scams, there's supposed to be a staff member held responsible who vouched their application.

 

You can't make post about ignoring rules in regards to omm's without mentioning the 100% ignored fact that every time an omm scams, there's supposed to be a staff member held responsible who vouched their application.

If that rule was upheld, I would never vouch for anyone. It's absurd to think that a staff member would be held liable in the event of a scam. That staff member is vouching because they truly think that user is trusted, they shouldn't be held accountable. If that's upheld, I doubt aspiring MMs would get any vouches, simply because no one wants to be liable in a deal they're not really apart of.