Mandatory OMM

Basically, seller/buyer can not refuse to use OMM as long as the other trader offers to pays the fees. Just wondering what others think about this.

Benefits:
1. Scammers can't say "U first no OMM" (Reduces scamming)
2. People who are willing to pay fees can safely trade
3. Essentially prevents unsafe trades by eliminating the desire of a person to trade even though the other person refuses to use OMM

Negative effects:
1. Trusted buyers/sellers can't refuse to use OMMs (May feel uncomfortable)
2. Trades will be slowed down if the buyer/seller requires OMM
3. OMM may get hacked and/or scam at one point and cause panic, etc.

 

Honestly, I think thats a fair idea. I thought you were at first going to say that all trades require an OMMM (which would be logistically impossible), however enforcing the concept that if an OMM is suggested and the person offers to cover fees, I see no reason why that should not be mandatory, as otherwise it is simply suspicious activity in my book. Support.

 

support most kids as soon as you say i am adding a omm to conversation they say ob scammer and ditch and then you look really bad because you just spent 10 min trying to add the omm on msn

 

Exactly!

Nice suggestion Support

 

Wow, never really thought about this, but it's actually a brilliant idea. I don't see why a user wouldn't want to use an OMM if the other person offers to cover fees. Support.

 

What is the punishment for not wanting to use a OMM even though the other guy offered to pay.

 

def support i think people who do that and theres good proof against it should get twc or at least people who do it a few times and its reported....

 

I would personally say they should at least get a TWC / market ban and/or a short-term ban for first offence.

 

TwC at minimum for first offense, perm ban for second.

 

No. If it's a big trade the seller should have to right to not want to use a middleman for obvious reasons. Just because someone is an MM doesn't mean they won't scam a big trade.

 

This suggestion is for the use of an OMM, not just an MM.

 

Yes, I know. When I say middleman I imply both.

 

Then you are grosly under estimating the rigors of the OMM application process and the globals who take all factors into account before accepting them

On another note, I think there should be a minimum required $ value for this to be a requirement, because I know most OMMs wont be doing upgrade MMs or anything like that. Perhaps implement this for trades $50+ or something.

 

Just saying there have been a number of times that I couldn't be bothered (and other reasons) using an OMM when trying to buy an account. So I just didn't bother buying the account (I ended up buying an account today; he went first), do I really deserve a twc?

Although I agree if somebody won't use a OMM at all they deserve a twc (in particular cases), but there's other times when buying an account you can understand why people won't want to use an OMM (when buying an account you only want yourself and the account seller to know the information).

 

Understandable, thats why I think a $ minimum for the trade value should be used, for example I wouldnt blame you for telling off some kid if he claims "you first or OMM" for a $10 trade for example.

 

So that means they won't scam? lol...

 

Not necessarily, but they are many times better off using an OMM then going first to people who refuse the use of an OMM.....?

 

That's for the people involved in the trade to decide.

 

... They didn't do anything wrong