Make Vouches Mean Something

[Chimichangaz]

Vouches show that legitimate trades are actually going on. This is suggested quite often.

 

[Mj808rs]

This would make it extremely difficult for newcomers such as myself to build up vouches.

If you only get vouches for being trusted, and only become trusted by having vouches, isn't that a dead end?

 

[Freddy Krueger]

This would make it extremely difficult for newcomers such as myself to build up vouches.

If you only get vouches for being trusted, and only become trusted by having vouches, isn't that a dead end?

You're right. It's a contradiction.

 

I'd also like to see more people dividing vouch threads up into trades they went first and trades they went 2nd/used a MM

I 100% support this. This is how exactly how I give out my vouches.

 

[Aesiir]

I'd rather see vouches like this....


Vouch for _____, I went ....... and sold ......via .......

Support... this would also help me cuz 3 people have gone first to me with 30M,35M, and 100M, respectively.

 

[Determinate]

Player B buys 300M off of Player A via WU. Player B vouches for Player A, and Player A vouches for Player B. Player B really didn't deserve a vouch because he's only proving that he bought something going first. It doesn't prove in any way that he won't scam if he doesn't go first.

I don't think this should be the case. Vouches also give evidence that a trade has been completed and that the two parties were, at that point, satisfied with how the trade had gone. If this were an account sale, Player A could recover the account at a later point - in this case, Player B would have had to have trusted Player A to the extent that he would not recover the account. If this system was implemented and Player B did not get a vouch, proving that Player A had recovered the account would be that much harder.

Other than that, though, I agree.

 

[blazee]

As stated in the first page.

I would love to see people actually put how much they paid/sold for.
I hate just seeing what the trade was initially for ("Vouch for Firez, he sold me an account"
I want to see details on the vouches.

Edit: and I would also like it for vouches that are from YOU(me) going first don't count.

Me giving Firez 1bil first, and him vouching for me, doesn't mean anything.
He didn't have to put any trust into my hands.
I would vouch for him, since I trusted 500$ in his hands.

I support the op.

I don't agree with that. Only because vouches can also determine if the trade was successful. If i dealt with RsProd and went first to him of course and the trade goes good. I feel vouches should both be exchanged because the trade went smooth on both sides.

I agree with the template idea thought, but it would be hard to implement now and if some people don't follow it, what will be the punishments?

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

Is a feedback system on the DNS list? I think that could work well...have amounts, who went first, a middleman option, etc. Might take some time to make but would be a large improvement over vouches.

 

[Dom]

This is the kind of shit Aroxez is talking about.

Edit: It's a picture by the way, not actual text... ;_;

 

[RapierStakes]

i agree with firez i pretty much vouch like that

 

[Determinate]

Is a feedback system on the DNS list? I think that could work well...have amounts, who went first, a middleman option, etc. Might take some time to make but would be a large improvement over vouches.

http://sythe.org/showpost.php?p=9073989&postcount=18

Pretty much the same thing, isn't it?

 

[Aroxez]

This would make it extremely difficult for newcomers such as myself to build up vouches.

If you only get vouches for being trusted, and only become trusted by having vouches, isn't that a dead end?

Offer free services.

Vouches show that legitimate trades are actually going on. This is suggested quite often.

Okay - and how is this suggested quite often, if you haven't even been here a month? How do you know?

I don't think this should be the case. Vouches also give evidence that a trade has been completed and that the two parties were, at that point, satisfied with how the trade had gone. If this were an account sale, Player A could recover the account at a later point - in this case, Player B would have had to have trusted Player A to the extent that he would not recover the account. If this system was implemented and Player B did not get a vouch, proving that Player A had recovered the account would be that much harder.

Other than that, though, I agree.

That's sort of the template idea, that the trade was completed. I guess my "logic" was misunderstood.

As stated in the first page.



I don't agree with that. Only because vouches can also determine if the trade was successful. If i dealt with RsProd and went first to him of course and the trade goes good. I feel vouches should both be exchanged because the trade went smooth on both sides.

I agree with the template idea thought, but it would be hard to implement now and if some people don't follow it, what will be the punishments?

We can't force anyone to obey the template, as FireZ stated.

Is a feedback system on the DNS list? I think that could work well...have amounts, who went first, a middleman option, etc. Might take some time to make but would be a large improvement over vouches.

Yeah it's basically on there, but I don't understand why. <_<

This is the kind of shit Aroxez is talking about.

Edit: It's a picture by the way, not actual text... ;_;

I thought it was text LOL.

Anyways, Yeah, that's not what a vouch is for, a vouch is a form of trust. How is helping someone not get scammed being trusted?

 

[DragonTails]

This would completely kill middlemaning, which I think is a really good concept for preventing scams. It miff be better if people just stated they used MMs in vouches

 

[Aroxez]

This would completely kill middlemaning, which I think is a really good concept for preventing scams. It miff be better if people just stated they used MMs in vouches

How would this kill middlemanning?

 

[DragonTails]

Well, if you're new like me, middlemans are a good way to prevent from bein scammed, and for other members to know that they're not being scammed. However, trustworthiness is quantified by vouches, which means you either use mm's forever for no vouches, or risk being scammed like I did (gf ignis capes.....) Once again, I think mm trades are a good indicator that you're here to do business, not scam , and that you want to slowly build up trust, even if it is distinguished as mm trade in voiches

 

[Philosophic]

It's a good idea, and I support it, but it is kind of contradiction, but it can be still fixed.

 

[kmjt]

I don't see the problem with someone going 2nd getting a vouch. If they have proved that they can complete a legitimate transaction they deserve a vouch imo.

 

[Determinate]

That's sort of the template idea, that the trade was completed. I guess my "logic" was misunderstood.

Yea but if only one person vouches/is allowed to vouch then that could lead to abuse.

Two vouches indicating that a trade of some object for some form of currency definitely demonstrates that that trade did indeed happen. If only one vouch is allowed/required after each trade, then I think that it would be easier to abuse this fact.

I agree with the template, but am making my argument with your suggestion of only the person who went second getting a vouch after the trade has been completed. I feel that as long as there has been a trade, everyone associated should have the right to a vouch.

 

[ScammersAreDumb]

No support, it proves that he had the intention of not scamming if he completed the trade.

Not even close to being correct.

I don't think this should be the case. Vouches also give evidence that a trade has been completed and that the two parties were, at that point, satisfied with how the trade had gone. If this were an account sale, Player A could recover the account at a later point - in this case, Player B would have had to have trusted Player A to the extent that he would not recover the account. If this system was implemented and Player B did not get a vouch, proving that Player A had recovered the account would be that much harder.

Other than that, though, I agree.

Vouches =/= records of trades. Do people realize you can post on someone's thread saying something like, "Sold him 50m, everything went smooth," WITHOUT saying VOUCH/TRUST/LEGIT, etc.? You can record your trades without ever vouching for the person.

If you vouch for someone, you're giving them credibility, you're saying they're trustworthy. I've had people who I sold 40M+ to before, chargeback a week later and scam me, yet we both vouched each other at the time, which absolutely meant nothing.

The truth is that vouching has become second nature to people, when they really should only be given if you actually trust the other party involved. I'd like to see people who vouch a lot of scammers actually have action taken against them. I realize it will never happen, but if they don't even care or look at who they vouch, they should be treated accordingly.

 

[Aroxez]

Yea but if only one person vouches/is allowed to vouch then that could lead to abuse.

Two vouches indicating that a trade of some object for some form of currency definitely demonstrates that that trade did indeed happen. If only one vouch is allowed/required after each trade, then I think that it would be easier to abuse this fact.

I agree with the template, but am making my argument with your suggestion of only the person who went second getting a vouch after the trade has been completed. I feel that as long as there has been a trade, everyone associated should have the right to a vouch.

But I don't think they deserve a "vouch". As ScammersAreDumb stated, they could just say "Sold FireZ 30M, he went first. Thanks", without using the term vouch.