Self-Vouching Punishment Reform?

Well let's look at this.

Plznate, 500+ vouches, Official Middleman, Donator, long term member. Vouched himself WHEN HE FIRST JOINED for 2 vouches. Hundreds of trades.

Leecher, 2 vouches, joined 1 day ago. Both vouches are from himself. 0 trades, asks people to go first.

Now, examining the situation. Do you believe Plznate deserves the same punishment as the Leecher?

 

Doing it just for Nate's case is favoritism. Allowing the mods to do a reduced sentence for any case should be allowed so that it isn't. There have been more than just Nate's case that its been obvious that is was only a mistake. Its not like Nate's case is alone.

And. It shouldn't be reduced to 3 months. It should be a choice between a perm ban or a temp ban (1 month is what I think), with a perm TWC.

Right. Allow the staff different punishments for different cases.

Because then people cry favoritism.

What about obvious scammers?

That works but not always. Thats why a perm ban should also be allowed.

Its the staffs choice what is risky. Not yours.

Right.

The US is like this. For first degree murder you can get like 20 years, or the death penalty or anywhere in between. Its up to the judge's judgement.

What if it was just a simple mistake? Like Nate.

Most likely they are a scammer but not always... If they are an obvious scammer they should be permed, but otherwise a month ban should be fine. Breaking the rule twice though, is moronic and should result in a perm ban.

Yes. Until he disputes and tells the mods what is going on. The leecher could be in the same boat and made a mistake and him disputing could result the same lesser punishment as Nate would get.

 

fake vouch is just like cheating, you use it to your advantage. I think all members caught self vouching should be prem banned apart from the following.

Everyone who vouched over 5 months prior to being caught with atleast 20 honnest vouches (since the fake vouch) should require to have a staff vote. If the staff vote to keep said person, then they should be given a temp ban of 1-3 months and receive a TWC after that.

this is only because i think there is a cut off when the old vouch becomes "pointless"

As for nate i think he would of had a good chance but he vouched himself twice?
I didnt really no him that well but he was friendly and helpful. so it was a shame to see him go but all in all i dont think this thread is meant to be a chat about him lol.

 

People seem to downplay the negative effects of self vouching.
One of the main reasons you'd do it would be to build reputation to coerce people to go first, then scam them. It's basically an attempt to set up future scams in the majority of cases.

If two parties can't come to an agreement on who will go first, then you can use any of the trusted/official MMs available.

 

You are trying to assign reasons to use certain punishments. Thats not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether or not the community agrees that another punishment is in order, not when to you that punishment.

 

Right, and the people doing it for that should be perm banned, but there are some people who do not plan on scamming and just make a mistake and they deserve a second chance.

 

If he scammed it would have been a different story. But he didn't, if the fake vouches got him started its ok because he became trusted and a wonderful contributer to this community.

 

This thread isn't about Nate. The circumstances for each case are different and thus each person should be treated differently, even after a rule change is made. However, Nate is going to remain banned no matter the outcome of this thread.

 

Under the extenuating circumstances of the CRIME, not on the PERSON. (except for mental disabilities, an issue that doesn't come into play here)

For example, Nate did not fully admit to his crime, therefore should be punished more harshly.
However, the fact that he has had over 500 legit trades is not relevant to the punishment.

 

I really can't see any good intentions for self vouching so i think perm ban is justified.

 

I don't see what you are saying. The staff should be able to use the "crime" to judge if it was just the "persons" mistake or if it was a malicious act. If it wasn't intended to be malicious, then it shouldn't be punished as heavily.

Aka. Murder being reduced to manslaughter.

 

Many leechers get annoyed when people will not trust them, so they fake vouches in order to do the trades they want to do and they do not realize what they are doing isn't moral or against the rules. They had no intent to be malicious so they should not be punished as such for the sake of the community and themselves since they did not hurt anyone by the actions.

 

I'm suggesting other reasons yes but, As you no most self vouches are scammers and if you haven't scammed after 5 months of the vouch what is the odds of doing it? although yes i have slightly gone off track isn't the self vouch rule in place to avoid scams occurring?

 

I'm saying that a person of higher standard in the community should not be judged more easily than a leecher, if they commit the exact same crime.

 

Yes it is favoritism towards him. I never said to change the rule for him, I was merely saying that staff may make an exception, but if not he will stay perm ban.

I never said it should be reduced to 3 months, I said it should stay as PERM ban and nothing else.

 

Can you try to write more clearly? I'm having trouble understanding.

The self vouch rule is in place under the assumption that self vouchers are scammers and it attempts to protect the community. However, there is a small number of people who just mess up and are not scammers who are getting the same punishment and that isn't right and its just hurting the community.

Well, each case is different. What comes into play for the decision is up to the staff to decide.

Why not change the rule for everyone so that others who are in the same boat as Nate have a way out?

 

ok well i'm new here and don't know much bout nate or w/e so i won't be saying anything bout that!

self vouching strikes me as something to build up credits in an unfare way, considering the unfare part of it, it is post probably leading up to a scam so it should be punished as being a scam.

(There again i consider rules more of a guideline and if you can bend the rules in everybody's advantage i think you could and should deserve a full pardon, but don't complain if you get punished anyway you WERE braking the rules.)

 

I think it should be a case by case basis...

For example...
An obvious scammer shouldn't be granted a 1 month ban.
Whereas a trusted member shouldn't have to have a perm ban if they've established thereselfs as a 'credit' to sythe.

 

I beleive it should be lifted. Look at real life prison. Does everybody get LIFE for every petty crime?

 

Suf it doesn't matter.

the 3rd option in the poll is: Yes - other opinion (please post in thread)

so my first post was acceptable, and you did not need to debate it.