Remove the "No vouch copies" rule in guide selling section

Look at #3 though. According to the rules you can't ask anyways, regardless of whether it's PM or not.

The ruling has no jurisdiction outside of that forum.

 

[Sneaky]

The ruling has no jurisdiction outside of that forum.

Then what's the point of that rule? If I PM that user it's basically the same as posting and asking for a free copy. That's just dumb if it's gonna be that way and since there is such a grey area, just get rid of it anyways since no one will follow it.

 

[Shin]

Verification by staff members violates free market.

Market is allowed to have poor quality guides if people want it to, part of the market.

You see people selling high quality products then cheap knock offs of products in the same market, its what keeps a market going.

Requiring verification doesn't mean users won't be allowed to sell poor quality guides. It's to ensure they're not attempting to sell something against the rules and their guide has been vetted at the very least. It might be slightly irritating to wait for verification, but it should increase business and activity overall while protecting users from making silly mistakes.

One of my points though is that staff may be hard to reach, not want to do it, or have better things to do. Maybe a dedicated verifying person? Idk but I just want it to be available to anyone rn which supports the free market idea.

It would most likely need to be a dedicated individual, so the same standards are used and verification delay is consistent.

 

[Sneaky]

Requiring verification doesn't mean users won't be allowed to sell poor quality guides. It's to ensure they're not attempting to sell something against the rules and their guide has been vetted at the very least. It might be slightly irritating to wait for verification, but it should increase business and activity overall while protecting users from making silly mistakes.

It would most likely need to be a dedicated individual, so the same standards are used and verification delay is consistent.

So your saying we should have something like the LOL verifying team?

 

Then what's the point of that rule? If I PM that user it's basically the same as posting and asking for a free copy. That's just dumb if it's gonna be that way and since there is such a grey area, just get rid of it anyways since no one will follow it.

It's not the same. You don't invite spam by privately asking for a free copy. There is no grey area. Forum specific rules (not site-wide) only have authority in that specific forum.

 

[Sneaky]

It's not the same. You don't invite spam by privately asking for a free copy. There is no grey area. Forum specific rules (not site-wide) only have authority in that specific forum.

Ok so what your saying is a way to bypass rule #6? Now what about #3? Clearly states you cannot ask to review a guide for free. I take this as PM or not.

 

Ok so what your saying is a way to bypass rule #6? Now what about #3? Clearly states you cannot ask to review a guide for free. I take this as PM or not.

I don't know how to explain it better than I previously did. 4 of the 8 rules are countermeasures against spam, rule #3 is no different. This however does not mean you are prohibited against private messaging, in fact it's encouraged.

 

[Shin]

So your saying we should have something like the LOL verifying team?

In a way, yes.

 

[Tyler]

In a way, yes.

So something like an official guide verifier?


Hmm OGV

 

[Shin]

So something like an official guide verifier?


Hmm OGV

 

[Sneaky]

So something like an official guide verifier?


Hmm OGV

That could work too

In a way, yes.

How do you suggest we go about doing it then?

 

[Sneaky]

I think in the interest of "free market" the rule should be removed

@Tyler video has displayed his dominance, now obey him!

 

[Tyler]

@Tyler video has displayed his dominance, now obey him!

Lol tell him to 1v1 me in overwatch.


@video whats wrong with Shins idea of an OGV team or single verifier lol

 

[video]

Lol tell him to 1v1 me in overwatch.


@video whats wrong with Shins idea of an OGV team or single verifier lol

I'd rather have a single verifier than a team but there isn't enough guide market activity to warrant either and most of the guides especially "IRL" methods are just scams or available elsewhere on the internet for free. I supported removing this rule because it seems like it will help the people who do frequent the section and it involves little effort on our part to do so

 

[Sneaky]

I'd rather have a single verifier than a team but there isn't enough guide market activity to warrant either and most of the guides especially "IRL" methods are just scams or available elsewhere on the internet for free. I supported removing this rule because it seems like it will help the people who do frequent the section and it involves little effort on our part to do so

video has spoken!

 

[tMoon]

If anything, I think a better update would be adding a clause for all guides in the section requiring verification by a staff member before selling.

Then, "vouch copies" would be non-existent and the section would be more inviting (safer, better quality, etc.).

This would be my preferred option; however, I'm not sure section activity justifies the effort.

I'd be fine with a less official OGV comprising a sticky listing individuals who can verify guides at their own volition.

If not something like above, maybe requirements being set for users whom are able to offer to verify guides. In example. $100 + donor/$100 + in vouches and a member for 6 months (not set guidelines, just a suggestion). This would be meant to stop entry level uses with no baseline of trust from verifying guides

 

[Sneaky]

This would be my preferred option; however, I'm not sure section activity justifies the effort.

I'd be fine with a less official OGV comprising a sticky listing individuals who can verify guides at their own volition.

If not something like above, maybe requirements being set for users whom are able to offer to verify guides. In example. $100 + donor/$100 + in vouches and a member for 6 months (not set guidelines, just a suggestion). This would be meant to stop entry level uses with no baseline of trust from verifying guides

I think the end part slightly goes against the "free market" thing though, don't ya think?

 

[tMoon]

I think the end part slightly goes against the "free market" thing though, don't ya think?

Free market may be a justification for some actions, but it is not an end-all-be-all.

It was also just a possibility and if there is a consensus something needs to be done, we can move this to staff suggestions and get something finalized.

 

[Sneaky]

Free market may be a justification for some actions, but it is not an end-all-be-all.

It was also just a possibility and if there is a consensus something needs to be done, we can move this to staff suggestions and get something finalized.

Ah ok, that makes sense I guess. Up to u if u wanna move to SL, but I think it should be open and it's up to the seller to choose who they want to review it. I agree OGV is nice but like video said, the section activity doesn't warrant it.

 

[Xier0]

Requiring verification doesn't mean users won't be allowed to sell poor quality guides. It's to ensure they're not attempting to sell something against the rules and their guide has been vetted at the very least. It might be slightly irritating to wait for verification, but it should increase business and activity overall while protecting users from making silly mistakes.

Caveat emptor.

Free market may be a justification for some actions, but it is not an end-all-be-all.

The free market is literally the purpose of the existence of this site.