Self-Vouching Punishment Reform?

Isn't there more Yes than No?

Both the "Yes" sides add up for well more than half of the votes, or am I seeing this wrong?



EDIT: Nvm, after re-reading Finn's comment I noticed that was from the staff section. If anyone cares, I'd change this rule, but only for certain exceptions such as Nate.

 

/\ what a great idea

 

I voted Yes- reduce the ban length to 3 months but thinking about it, I believe it should stay as a permanent ban. If the person is going to be self-vouching to make them self more trust worthy that means even when they get back they will probably still try to scam.

 

I vote to stay with a Perm Ban. It is nothing less then deception.

We don't need those kind of people around here. And those who say newbies don't know the rule, well then thats their own fault.

 

1-3 month ban.

 

Thats why the staff uses judgement to determine which people simply made a mistake and do not want to scam.

Our community is dying, partly due to all the bans. For Sythe to survive less people need to be banned.

Why?

 

I didnt really know nate that much, but from the look of his trades and thread awhile back i thought he was a legit trader maybe he only made a few false vouches but still any one misleading to make an upstanding in the community doesnt really deserve a 2nd chance

 

This thread is not about that. It is about what punishments self vouchers should get. Nate's punishment will not change no matter what happens.

 

And i disagree with that comment sythe isnt dying by banning members who scam their becomming a more legit site, we all know much scamming is around but to say sythe is dying out because of banning is ridiclous

 

fool i was just stating the mis fourtune of self vouching and i said we should keep it the same punishment but mk

 

TWC the first time and perm the next.

 

Self Vouching != scamming... Banning self vouchers who have no intention of scamming hurts the community and helps no one.

You've never made a simple mistake in your life? Thats what many leechers do. They do not know any better and self vouch and get perm'd for it. They should be able to be forgiven if the staff seems fit.

 

Self vouching should't be perm bann, and i think 3 months bann is way too long, 1 month bann and twc should do. ( with a chance to take it off, once you proven that you are good member of community )

 

Why? Some people are obviously scammers and they should be permed right away.

 

Fair point.

maybe market bans need to be sued more often.

 

Internet Cut out, any ways your reasoning is circular you dont state anything new to the convo so i wont even argue with the same points uve made several times

 

Market bans could be used. I don't really see why they are not, but they shouldn't be used for people who make mistakes.

Okay........

 

Im leaning on both perm and just a twc -- all depending on whoever it is.

If its a highly respected user, such as Nate -- which pretty much only been a great help for Sythe, by either MM'ing or helping out; making this forum much more inviting an safe. -- I'd actually say, remove the bann with either a twc or with no consequences whatsoever.

Mostly cause it was quite while ago, and he proved himself trustworthy - Making 1 vouch out of the millions he got, invalid.

But... IF this self-vouch would've been caught once it happend, he would've been banned and.. here we are.

-- My vote would be; If its an old selfvouch with the user proving that he's not a scammer nor ever thought of scamming; unbann.
If its a new member with selfvouches; bann him.

I do realize theres alot of flaws in this argument, but its mostly directed to Nate's case.

 

Current ban for self-vouching is too long.
IMO it should be..
1 week ban for first offense + Perm TWC and if the person self vouches again then make it a perm ban.