TWC Disputes not strict enough

I'm not sure on the algorithm you guys go by when determining if a user deserves to have his TWC removed, but it surely isn't that hard.

http://www.sythe.org/dispute-forum-archive/1768615-barlyms-twc-dispute.html

This guy was denied because he didn't have enough quality vouches.

^ He wasn't lying when he means a few. However, let's take a look at a specific vouch.

This amount is worth more than any single trade masters has done. Unfortunately it didn't really mean much because the trader didn't go first to him when he has a TWC rank.

http://www.sythe.org/dispute-forum-archive/1770226-masters-twc-dispute.html

This is Masters' twc dipsute. In 7 months after receiving his TWC, he accomplished 7 vouches of questionable quality.

Here were some of the vouches he presented.

Talk about quality eh?

His biggest trade is worth $35.

He also used a middleman for his biggest trade, that is $55 less of value, and Roary still supports.

This isn't a thread to bash any specific staff member. I understand that it depends on the reasoning for obtaining the TWC that might sway you to be more understanding, and lenient when facing each dispute. But what if both users got a TWC for the same reason? It looks like whoever is more known, gets a slide.

It didn't take too long for Masters to get banned after the removal of his TWC. It raises the question of, "if he still had his twc, would the trader be more trusting, and less conservative of his own wealth?"

A requirement of a minimum amount of vouches since you've obtained the TWC should be required. It wouldn't determine the approval of the dispute, but it gives a larger sample size, so it's easier to make the right call.

 

It's a case by case basis honestly. If the user is involved and posts on other sections of the forum, they seem to be more likely to get a support for a TWC removal. That's what I see in these 2 cases that you brought up.

Also, Master had access to other people's accounts with X amount of wealth. I'd say that's somewhat of a trust factor.

However, I do agree with Ghast that there have been a couple instances where I see that some TWCs get supported compared to another case that gets no support even if the 2nd case warrants the same support. It's a case by case basis which I understand.

TWC disputes seem to be pretty consistent.

 

The amounts of wealth were never disclosed/brought up. Just by looking at the quality of the services he completed, you would assume that no amount of significant wealth were on the account(s). Masters scammed less than $90, which is sad, and gives you an understanding of what he's been working with if he would scam that amount without hesitation.

It's the same thing with Pardons. If you're not well known, you have a lesser chance of acceptance, especially for acts that are less prohibited than the ones committed by well known members.

 

... he probably gave himself those vouches? lmao wasn't he banned for self vouching on another acc?

 

My thought is it should relate to the amount they were charged for. If you scammed $30 and got a twc then you shuold have to get a couple vouches that were worth around $30 or more.

And something that really bothers me is a lot of times they don't get trusted with things but still get supported. If I go first in a gp for paypal trade (them paying paypal) then there's literally no trust on my side. If I pay paypal for gp then sure, I didn't charge back so a little bit of trust. But overall not so much.

 

i think it should be harsher. how do you know a user won't scam again? if someone scammed something petty like $30 how do you know they won't nab a couple hundred $$? people are too sneaky - everyone is presented with a fair and equal chance to merchant fairly and whoever scams it's their own fault and should be frowned upon for ATLEAST a year with a TWC with a great build of vouches

 

What bothers me about this is, there was no form of rehabilitation whatsoever. There was an extreme lack of effort in the amount he obtained over the course of 7 months. The only person critical of his position in the market was unb4nn3d, and even then he seemed passive.

I do understand that a lot of the cases are different, but it doesn't hurt to make the minimum amount of vouches you must show being 20, after you've received the rank. The quality of the vouches should reflect your reason for obtaining the rank.

 

I agree, however it should be said that if you get the rank for other reasons the punishment should be different. I can't think of any off the top of my head but I know there are reasons to get a TWC that doesn't imply scamming.

 

I find the TWC decisions to be relatively solid in most cases. Im not sure an exact number has to be put on the amount of vouches required for a pardon, although I suppose it couldn't hurt.

I do agree in this particular case that Master being well-known within the community played a part in his TWC being removed, however I'm not sure that that in itself is a bad thing. Daily activity and community involvement over an extended period of time (7 months) would indicate to me that the person is at least slightly less likely to scam quit upon TWC removal than, say, someone who hops on Sythe once a week.

I will say, however, that a high quality of vouches should be necessary, and I don't think Master had a single one that might fit that description.

 

It's tough to get anyone to go first to you with a TWC and that is something the staff looks for in a TWC dispute. That can be very hard to come by.

 

As it should be.

It's a difficult, but not impossible, task. Getting quality vouches where users have gone first to you should be a requirement simply because it shows that you had the ability to scam and did not. I recognize the difficulty of this for someone with a TWC, but it would be far too easy to remove a TWC if these vouches were not more or less required.

 

Wasn't disagreeing with the current ruling.

I used to have a TWC a little while back so I know how it is.

I understand the whole concept lol no need to explain to me

 

It would be hard to set some sort of "standard" but the reason people get a twc is so other people are cautious when trading with them

then for some reason we send them out and expect other people to go first to them.

 

Very tough process, I agree. I had to endure it.

This should be a case by case basis and should be judged upon previous community standing, trust, reason for the TWC, etc. There are so many things that factor into it.

It's obviously going to be harder for someone that has a 2 month old account with 3 vouches of gold buying compared to an older member whom has 50 or so vouches. The latter member is more proven and has shown that it can do business here.

 

But thats my point, there's obviously no "one size fits all" when it comes to twc's but moderators are trying to treat it like that.

 

All cases should be treated the same. If you get a TWC, it's for suspicious behavior related to the market, or security of other members.

 

In regards to Masters, I was trying to ask questions to see if I felt it was worth supporting him, but I just couldn't see any reason to do so given everything.

I don't know why other people supported or it was removed. However, I consider this to be a rare instance, so I wouldn't worry too much.

 

Agreed. It's tough.

 

reason why staff covered their eyes and posted "support" is because they see him (spam) post daily and thought he's "involved with the community".

Similar reason what people said when you where banned.

 

were* and no. Apart from posting outside the market regularly, any time an upper staff member posts support, it's almost like an obligation to follow suit.

I understand that it is part of your personality to act like an impulsive, belligerent douchebag wherever you post, but you lack one thing, and it's rationalism.

I can say with confidence that more than 1,950 of my posts are not spam. If you don't know what spam means, i'll let you know.

Definition of spam - irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients.

All my posts are detailed, and hold reason to each topic, unlike yours.

The spam you're talking of is a stereotypical version which means posting a lot.

Me being community active should not count towards a support. I was never a risk to anyone here, which is why I'm back.