Major problem is the 3 levels. What exactly defines between someone going on a level 1 or level 2. There is always going to be some grey area which brings controversy.
Major problem is the 3 levels. What exactly defines between someone going on a level 1 or level 2. There is always going to be some grey area which brings controversy.
It would just cause more complications than benefits.
I am looking in to whether a TWC reason profile field would be feasible or not.
Major problem is the 3 levels. What exactly defines between someone going on a level 1 or level 2. There is always going to be some grey area which brings controversy.
support. TWC system is not really perfect ATM. Somone who scammed and got pardoned should be punished more than someone who was angry for something and threatened ddosing or something
Honestly I don't agree with that. If someone scams and pardons they had to pay back and therefore learning from their mistakes. If someone threatens and DDoS someone or performs in blackhat activities are equally as guilty.
No support. TWC are removed if we deem someone is abit trustworthy, I honestly doubt something like 'expiring' twc will be introduced
Would lead to biases by market business owners. Also TWC disputes do need considerable staff backing to be removed - we have a tough format to be followed which does require quality vouches.Support, I can see most of the staff don't like the idea but there is a better way to go about the TWC rank than it currently is. Maybe Ghast has the right path of an idea here but maybe it's not the one everyone wants. If staff dislike what Ghast is offering is there any feedback as to what might make this concept better? I would think everyone would love to hear the opinions of the staff on this. Members are the ones who receive the TWC so we'd be more likely to support this type of idea. Maybe rework the stages and lengths though, no need to redo the whole system. Still keep the support to remove the TWC as staff see fit, Unless it's a serious TWC.
I'd suggest a level of TWC where the user must receive 75% vote of removal by staff and/or members who are apart of the market.
TWC is TWC, i dont support this. They just shouldn't have scammed or delayed paid in the first place

