Banning Suggestion

[wavy]

To prevent exit scamming further on a market, there should be an auto restrict on someone's account when a scam report has been filed, that giving the user the ability to browse the forum still, but have a greyed out "DEAL WITH CAUTION" Banner beside their username, this will give notice to users trying to buy from a user without knowing that they have a current report on them.

We seriously do still need to take action on the ease of exit scamming, or even just straight scamming, it's not tolerated, and should be dealt with very quickly.

 

[wavy]

Scam Resolvers already restrict members if they feel like the user needs to have the restriction.
Restricting people merely for having a scam report is not viable, as like I said, not everyone who has a scam report on them is guilty.

True, but having a "DEAL WITH CAUTION" notice goes far to the new members of the
community who don't understand that there is this issue.

 

[Zyger]

There's many impersonators, and some people don't check to make sure that they're not dealing with one. They would then make a scam report on the user, even though they were tricked by an impersonator. It would then make it harder for that user to deal with others due to the tag, until the scam report is resolved, which can take weeks.

It would also be extremely annoying to be constantly in and out of "DEAL WITH CAUTION" just because of impersonators.

 

[Landon]

There's many impersonators, and some people don't check to make sure that they're not dealing with one. They would then make a scam report on the user, even though they were tricked by an impersonator. It would then make it harder for that user to deal with others due to the tag, until the scam report is resolved, which can take weeks.

It would also be extremely annoying to be constantly in and out of "DEAL WITH CAUTION" just because of impersonators.

This. Why should potential business be ruined over the case that the scam report is baseless? Impersonator, false information, etc. A lot of scam reports end up closed, and that process takes a week or two (plus account for approval time), so a month of having a tag? There goes any business I could have had for a solid month, or longer.

 

[wavy]

There's many impersonators, and some people don't check to make sure that they're not dealing with one. They would then make a scam report on the user, even though they were tricked by an impersonator. It would then make it harder for that user to deal with others due to the tag, until the scam report is resolved, which can take weeks.

It would also be extremely annoying to be constantly in and out of "DEAL WITH CAUTION" just because of impersonators.

honestly so what, just shows how you need to make better of impersonation.

 

[Zyger]

honestly so what, just shows how you need to make better of impersonation.

Wym? I've made a whole site that helps with checking for impersonators (https://characterchecker.com) and I also have a personal site that compares IDs sticked on my profile:

 

[wavy]

Wym? I've made a whole site that helps with checking for impersonators (https://characterchecker.com) and I also have a personal site that compares IDs sticked on my profile:

Then you shouldn't be impersonated. If otherwise staff should deal with them ASAP and rather remove the tag.

 

[Sloth]

This would only serve to hurt business for people who get the tag regardless of whether or not they’re guilty of scamming. Scam Resolvers already restrict users based upon the situation.

 

[Zyger]

Then you shouldn't be impersonated. If otherwise staff should deal with them ASAP and rather remove the tag.

I still get impersonated because there's people that somehow fall for it, and yes but they have a backlog of scam reports so they can't.

 

[Mick]

This suggestion has been made a dozen times and denied each time. Our users are innocent until proven guilty.

Besides, we have since implemented a new tab to users profile to show the history of all scam reports against them, including ones pending moderation which aren't visible yet.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.