Self-Vouching Punishment Reform?

I say it stays a perm ban. If you have multiple accounts they should not come in contact at all.

 

No, self vouching should be a permanent ban. Theres no excuse for tricking others into thinking you're trusted, whether you have intent to scam or not. Earn your vouches on a legit basis or leave.

 

I don't think the punishment should be universal, SuF. I know you say everyone should be treated the same, but that's not true.

If a leecher has 5 vouches, all given by himself, and is selling something for $100, he's trying to scam.

If Nate has 500 vouches, 1 or 2 of which he gave himself, and has since done hundreds and hundreds of trades, I don't think he intends on scamming anytime soon.

 

Whenever exceptions and implemented all that results from it is a larger gray area in which everyone will start pointing fingers (again).

 

Why? It is their fault for breaking the rules, and they should be punished accordingly. Using that logic why cant I scam, I mean if I didn't read the rules, I shouldn't be held accountable for my actions.

so Ignorance of the rules, means you should have a higher chance to be pardoned? Also how do you determine if someone knows the rules, intent can be hard to establish over the web.

 

Yeah, I suppose. That's a good point really, because if there were to be votes on self-vouchers, I think there'd be some bias.

As in Nate's case, I'm not sure, but I feel like some people would vote on friendship rather than voting for the right decision.

 

People aren't always smart, but I do not think that they should be punished if their actions were not malicious.

Giving the staff a choice of punishments isn't really a grey area. Allow them to perm ban but let them also do something like a month ban with a perm TWC... The staff should be able to choose in order to benefit the community the best.

I never said that not reading the rules means you are exempt. Deciding on a punishment is a JUDGEMENT call. It differs with each case, and is up to the staff. This thread is about whether lesser punishments are acceptable by the community.

 

To be honest it should be moderator discretion. Nate was a trusted trader with HUNDREDS of trades, OMM status, etc. He clearly had no intention to scam.

Now had a leecher with 10 posts vouched himself 8 times, then was trying to make someone go first on a $200 trade, it's pretty obvious where that's going.

Common sense should be put into play.

 

It wouldn't be a vote. It would be a moderators decision, that could later be over turned or talked about. Most self vouching cases are with leachers. People none of you care about, so there wouldn't be bias.

 

Exactly, but most self vouching cases are not about highly known people. Most are about leachers who made a mistake. Most get caught, some (like Nate) don't. The mods should be able to allow them to come back with a lesser punishment like a month ban with a TWC instead of just kicking them out.

 

I mean if the Moderators took a vote. As they did in Nate's case, I think.

If it's a leecher, of course it shouldn't even take more than a minute to make a decision. That's my point.

You can't put Nate, or people of his status that will someday be accused of this, in the same boat as leechers.

 

If they're leechers then they don't really have much to lose. Not to be mean to new members, but I'm guessing well over half of the leechers that self vouch are here to scam.

 

Yea you can. The judgement with this sort of thing is whether or not the person has an intention to scam and Nate showed that most likely he did not, so its still a pretty clear case.

 

So? Then half are not. If they intend to scam then they will just make a new account. Leecher accounts are worthless to them, thus the scammers don't matter. The non-scammers do.

 

Okay, so you're agreeing with me? Lol. That's what I'm trying to say.

If you just instantly ban all self-vouchers, rather than actually stepping back and looking at each case more in depth, you're going to lose people that are beneficial to Sythe.org that just made a silly mistake.

 

I still believe he should be banned because this rule change hasn't happened yet. I also believe that they should just be permed right away. The way we figure out who is a scammer and who isn't is through the dispute forum. If they care enough to dispute then the moderators should spend more time on the situation and use their judgement to see whether or not the person is a danger to the site or what ever and if they should be permed or have a lesser punishment.

 

I could sit both ways on this one.

If they have contributed greatly to the site and the market then if the staff sees fit a lesser punishment should be given.

But then if you think about it, maybe the only reason they got trusted and were able to contribute to the site is because of that one fake vouch etc. Then that gave them an unfair advantage compared to everyone else an should warrant a permanent ban.

 

No, I Think the Punishment should be dropped to One Month Ban and a TWC, But should be dependent on the case.

 

I say no because it should stay a permanent ban offence, but I certain cases, such as nates, should be handle a bit differently due to certain aspects of the case.

 

So. Do you want it to change or not? Do you agree that staff should be able to choose what punishment is suitable or should it just be for Nate that it is different?