Solution To Scamming

That argument is so flawed, I can't begin to decipher it, but I'll try using a quick analogy.

Essentially, it's like saying "if someone wants to be a terrorist, they're going to be a terrorist, and we can't do anything about it." Sure, that may be true, but does that mean we stop implementing the security we do at airports and other transit stations, or border crossings? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

In fact, the opposite is necessary to DETER those who are on the fence from going OVER the fence.

 

Neither of those suggestions solve scamming, the first one is useless, the second one puts a dent on the heavy market users who don't really have vouch threads, and run completely separate threads with different target markets(with vouches there).

Title is disingenuous, I want my money back.

 

CAN anything solve scamming? It's about deterrence more than solving, much like crime; there will always be criminals, but laws are in place to deter EVERYONE from being criminals, and to make it harder on those who are criminals.

These suggestions can't solve scamming, sure, but they can certainly do the latter.

 

There is no way of stopping scammers, these market restrictions will do hardly anything except hinder the larger users. If you are really stupid enough that thinking that people will remove vouches because of a new rule, you're wrong. No new users will even be able to gain vouches tbh. Silly idea, no support.

 

It's impossible to stop scamming, just as it's impossible to stop crime.

Even the mere thought of it being possible completely stop scamming is absolutely absurd. It will never happen. All we can do, is work our best to slow it down, and to punish offenders when it happens.

 

1 way vouching system will severely put all new members at a great disadvantage and may even deter them from using Sythe. As for the rule that forbids vouches on the Market forums, I am for it. It gives an unfair advantage and sort of a by-pass to the 8 hour bump rule.


As many users have said before, there's no solution to scamming. Just make sure the fist of justice is quick enough to catch them and punish them.

 

I understand I slay her's point of trying to at least do something. But on the flip side of that your putting legit users in a weird situation as well, and I don't think that is fair to them. It would be one thing if it eliminated scamming all together but it won't.

 

Agreed.

 

This thread wasn't intended to be a -direct- solution to scamming: Making a claim that you can stop it indefinitely is preposterous, and I would have hoped people viewing the thread could have made that assumption- Apparently I was wrong.

This thread is more-so a suggestion to reduce scamming, by regulating the acquisition/posting of vouches so that they have some sort of value. That vouches will once again represent a token of trust and gratitude, rather than just being a number.

The return vouching seems very strict, and it is, but it certainly makes vouches more valuable and helps mitigate some of the false trust scammers may obtain. Although it would help to deter scammers, it holds a negative effect on new users trying to make a name for themselves in the market; I understand this, however, is there something that can be done to find a balance?

Amendment #2 is straightforward and the majority of you have interpreted it perfectly. Vouches can be abused by as a loop-hole to the 8-hour bump rule, which can ALSO DETER new users from the market. The only difference is: This is currently in effect.

Amendment #1 would deter some users from using the market, and amendment #2 would assist new users in using the market (in a sense).

Somewhat of a trade-off here, but I'm open to more suggestions/discussion.

Appreciate the thoughts so far.

 

Isn't that exactly what I said? >_<

 

We don't have the right to tell people to not return vouches. I've personally been in situations where someone on Sythe buys gold off me and he's got like 40 posts, $5 donor, Nov 2011 join date, etc. Basically a no-body and he's gone first every trade.

That doesn't mean he's not trustworthy, and I know that because I've trusted him with at least $100-$200 before without and fear of him running off.

We can't tell people to not vouch because they're trusted and the vouch might be abused. However, if that is a fear of yours (such as the way n4n0 stated it above) then don't vouch. It's not like you're going to be forced to.