Understanding the DNT (Do Not Trade) rank

a lot of DnT are actually cool people ngl

except Karl who needs to stop making excuses about why he can't repay £1 a week

good job for laying it out nicely and making it easier to digest @Sythe

 

Clears up the confusion I had of the rank. Thanks for the clarification.

 

I can imagine a situation in which people with the DNT rank could potentially evade their rank by creating alts to scam users.

If this is case; what will be the punishment for DNT evaders? Would it follow under this rule?:
"DNT users will receive further temporary bans for attempting to trade with ban lengths proportional to how many warnings they have been given."

I'm assuming that the temporary ban would be a longer period, in comparison to users trying to trade on their DNT account, but at what point are they no longer welcome? Is there a breaking point at when a user is found no longer allowed in the community (aka a regular ban) or will they continuously receive temporary bans with longer intervals until the sun dies out?

In certain cases, there may be users that believe the website's only purpose is to find tricky ways to steal money from people. I'm sure this is a case by case situation, but I'm worried that for many of these people it is a lost cause, and this activity spike will die out when they begin scamming. Thus leaving the community in worst shape than before the DNT rank was introduced due to real community contributors departing over the introduction of the system and the site's reputation being ruined.


This is only speculation; I'm not trying to stir up trouble or debates; I only support a clear ruling for when situations like these arise. People have different perspectives on the topic.


P.S. Thanks for the clarification. I was waiting to see this thread.

TL;DR

I can imagine a situation in which people with the DNT rank could potentially evade their rank by creating alts to scam users.

If this is case; what will be the punishment for DNT evaders? Would it follow under this rule?:
"DNT users will receive further temporary bans for attempting to trade with ban lengths proportional to how many warnings they have been given."

 

Awesome, thanks Richard.

 

Its a better option to just out right banning them, gives them the choice to either repay the debt owed or just be excluded from the community.

 

What's the procedure for pardons going to look like following these changes? By the looks of it, anyone will be able to post and request a DNT instead of a pardon.

We might as well just stop banning outright and give DNT's instead.

Memes aside, it does appear to be an issue. Why would someone ever need banned if they could return via DNT at any point on request?

 

I think he mentioned that the punishments are on a case by case basis. If there was a cold and calculated scam of a lot of money, the ban would be a lot longer before coming back with a DNT. However, if someone didn't pay a small bet because they couldn't afford it, the ban would be a lot shorter before coming back with DNT. I think it's up for staff to decide on the punishment and this is where conditional pardons could come in.

 

Thanks for the clarity

 

There's a large volume of permanent bans levied each day even now. Adding subjectivity to ban length can add a lot of extra work to it - multiple people weighing in on ban length as well as whether it's warranted in the first place, searching for cases to act as precedent, disputes regarding ban length time. Do you think staff are in a position to act as judges in this instance?

Are you going to implement some official framework/set of guidelines for staff to go off of for their ban length decisions? Will precedent ultimately be that important anyways given your stance on changes? It's an intriguing system nonetheless however.

 

There is a certain amount of subjectivity. Real world judges have a tremendous understanding of law having studied it for years upon years and having worked in their respective field for years upon years. Sythe staff is predominantly a bunch of teenagers or young adults. It's not exactly the same thing. A loose set of guidelines for people to work from would ensure more consistently fair decisions surely?

 

I forgot to type THAN*

Its a better option than to just out right banning them, gives them the choice to either repay the debt owed or just be excluded from the community.

 

Just because these "criminals" are ban evading doesn't mean the bans are for nothing. It gives users a sense of security when we see people like Firez telling most disputers to go away. We know that the person will probably ban evade but it is still nice seeing moderators stand up for us to protect us as a community. No other community had such a strict mentality like Sythe and I absolutely loved it because I knew I would never mess up and become one of those disputers.

In my first few months on Sythe I was scammed for $2000 in a WoW trade because I didn't know about Paypal chargebacks at the time. At the time I was in high school and preparing to go to university in a few months so this was a pretty big blow for me. You are making an unfair assumption that every victim would rather be repaid than to have their "criminal" exiled from the community. Maybe not back when I was in high school, but now I would much rather not have that piece of shit welcomed back into my home for $2000. We don't even get a say into whether or not our "criminals" are allowed back? Maybe some of us just want to tell our offender to fuck off with the money they took from us because to us Sythe is a privilege worth much more than what we were scammed for.

Sorry but I don't think I will ever understand why we are letting scammers back into the community. Whether it helps facilitate repayments or not, which it probably will, is it worth damaging the integrity of the site? We will no longer be known as that "strict" community we once were.

But that is just my opinion..

 

Don't know if my opinion on this matters since I'm not really a well-known user here but I agree with user kjmt.
I personally think that scamming is an unforgivable offense. The system should remain that any person found guilty of scamming who does not reimburse be permanently banned or possibly IP banned, while any person who is found guilty of scamming but then repays after a case was made here receives the DNT rank.
This pardon system might only lead to more scamming attempts as the punishment would be less harsh.

 

I am not completely against pardoning scammers. I loved the way it was before where a scammer would have to repay before the pardon was even looked at. This meant that people repaying did not even know if they would be accepted back into the community. This meant it took real character to repay because they did it with no assurance. I somewhat respect these people because for them to repay with no promise it means they might actually have remorse and that they might actually be worthy of the Sythe community. Now what does a scammer have to risk? They can come back and scope the community for a bit before they decide if they want to repay? I am ok with people pardoning/DNT on offenses where there is no offender/victim scenario and no victim can get bitter. I just don't think its worth the security risk/bitterness of having scammers back on the site as an attempt to facilitate repayments. Most of these people are high profile manipulators. They aren't stupid. They can find a way to scam again even with their new found restrictions. How hard is it for one of them to social engineer a newcomer to trade with them just based on their post count/join date? Not hard for them to log out to be able to view the market.

I think it at the very least make the community more comfortable with this if there was a thread that outlines all of the repayments.