Have a "Current Scam report open" badge or something
- Thread starter Vented
- Start date
- Status
PebbleHost
High performance, consistent uptime and fast support. Minecraft hosting that just works.
This has been suggested like 5 times and has been denied for the same reason each time. It can seriously hurt the people involved, who are often not actually guilty or anything like that. Considering how vindictive this community can be, I fear it would do more harm than good.
If you deal with someone, checking if a scam report is open seems logical.
But labeling them as scammer, which is effectively what such a badge does, even if it doesn't say anything like it, would be a big step in the wrong direction
If you deal with someone, checking if a scam report is open seems logical.
But labeling them as scammer, which is effectively what such a badge does, even if it doesn't say anything like it, would be a big step in the wrong direction
I agree with Mick on this one, It would affect peoples business when in fact they could not even have scammed anyone. Ive had past "scam reports" open against me and they were denied as I never scammed them I wouldnt have liked a badge next to my name.
Except there is not currently a way to check for currently open scam reports, especially if they are still moderated like mine has been for weeks.
Yes, that is a problem, but there's such a thing as negative reputation. Which can warn people about someone being a scammer without having the site itself brand them as such.
The rep system holds 0 water in my opinion. In the short time I've been on this site I've seen so many complaints that people received negative rep for pitiful reasons. Then a mod has to review it... which takes just as long as scam reports I assume. Plus, I've been on enough forums in my life to know that even the most reputable names (including partial owners) are not above scamming.
If I could have just looked and saw that 2 others had filled out a scam report, for a member that had 0 neg rep, I wouldn't have dealt with them.
If I could have just looked and saw that 2 others had filled out a scam report, for a member that had 0 neg rep, I wouldn't have dealt with them.
So basically, you're saying a warning in someone's negative reputation about them scamming is completely useless, while a warning badge that does exactly the same thing except is far worse for the person targeted is vital?
Sorry, I don't follow you. I agree the rep system is far from perfect and full of problems, but it has 2 practical uses. 1. warning of scamming in the interval up to a public scam report without branding a person by the site itself, and 2. neutral rep serves perfectly as a loan.
Another problem is also that people very much forget that the rep system is just one element of reputation as a whole. I've been saying for several years now that at least half of a person's "reputation" is intangible. You can't put it into fixed numbers or words, or if you did you'd have to write a book analyzing their every move.
Anyway, whether or not the rep system is useless for other purposes, it can be used as a way to warn people that someone has a scam report open on them in a way that cannot be deleted by the user and will directly attract attention.[DOUBLEPOST=1524761741][/DOUBLEPOST]
Then that's on them as well, eh? Anyway, I can tell you with almost perfect certainty that this will not be implemented. The whole scam report problem is definitely serious right now, but it the climax has passed. Its now mostly damage control. What you're proposing is a permanent change to the site.
Honestly, if someone gets scammed, makes a scam report but does not add a negative or perhaps just a neutral reputation, their commitment is questionable.
Last edited:
So, by your standard then, we shouldn't have negative rep because if a false negative rep is used to indicate scamming then that user is labeled as a scammer.
I can say that I have seen this model used on another forum which was involved with a lot more money than this place (Online poker stakes pre 2006) and it simply added a label to their photo and put a link to the scam report they were involved in. This would give the end user the final say in if a deal was struck or not. If they were cleared of the scam report then the badge was lifted and all was history. Having a person labeled as a potential threat is not always a bad thing. If that user has nothing to worry about it is easy enough to clear their name.
Though I will say that I'm in agreeance that it will not get implemented if it has already been denied multiple times. I'm just saying that something needs to be done, overall, about the rep/scammer situations on this site. The current state is well below par. Yes, it is the buyers/sellers obligation to do their due diligence, but you can't pin it all on the end user if the site doesn't provide proper functionality to allow users to do so.
I can say that I have seen this model used on another forum which was involved with a lot more money than this place (Online poker stakes pre 2006) and it simply added a label to their photo and put a link to the scam report they were involved in. This would give the end user the final say in if a deal was struck or not. If they were cleared of the scam report then the badge was lifted and all was history. Having a person labeled as a potential threat is not always a bad thing. If that user has nothing to worry about it is easy enough to clear their name.
Though I will say that I'm in agreeance that it will not get implemented if it has already been denied multiple times. I'm just saying that something needs to be done, overall, about the rep/scammer situations on this site. The current state is well below par. Yes, it is the buyers/sellers obligation to do their due diligence, but you can't pin it all on the end user if the site doesn't provide proper functionality to allow users to do so.
A site-issued label holds more power than a negative reputation from a user onsite. If you accuse someone of scamming via the reputation system, you are required to provide a link to the scam report you've opened.
Innocent until proven guilty, there's no need for the site to give an indicator of an open scam report because it could and most likely would inhibit the user's ability to deal in the future. It's like having the staff say you're a scammer without actually going through with the scam report prior. You should always use a middleman that can help to prevent scams anyway.
Again, I agree that a server imposed warning holds more weight than a user imposed warning. That isn't my point. My point in general is a warning. I shouldn't have to talk to 18 parties and essentially become the scam resolver myself if I'm trying to make a simple purchase. I should, however, be able to search the scam reports, see that there are none ever made against this user and make my decision.
How can they post the link to the scam report if I can't see it until a scam resolver has un-moderated the post? 1 month is the current turn around currently if I'm not mistaken... that is a 1 month window that I can be scammed all while being none the wiser that a report has been opened.
Again, I agree that if I see a negative rep I can choose to try and find out more. It does sometimes become a difficult thing to do to try and find out all the details. Now I have to hope my online time matches with 2 other users and that those 2 other users are even willing to talk to me about it.
Also, again, it would be much easier to just search for the details in the scam section and make my decision based on that. Even if a report was filed and it is determined by the site that it isn't a scam, users should be able to see that information. If I personally think it wasn't handled well by the site I should still know about it so I can avoid the headache.
All I'm trying to say here is that SOMETHING needs to be done to give users the ability to make proper decisions. Currently it is completely dependent on the speed of the moderation team to determine if a user has a chance to make a fair assessment about a potential scammer.
You're proposing putting a banner on users that says, "Open Scam Report" that would link to the user's scam report, however, that scam report may not be visible. Does that make sense? The person accused may not even know what the scam report is. Without seeing the actual scam report, how do you propose that it would help the market without hindering any and all business a person is doing. It's just calling people guilty without giving them a chance to defend themselves because, like I said, they may have no idea what the topic of the scam report is on.
You clearly don't know me well. I was trading/selling online items back in Diablo 2. I've been around trades and online dealings for longer than some users here have been alive.
It isn't calling them guilty by saying "open scam report". As someone said above, innocent until proven guilty. It is simply alerting people to the fact that the user may have scammed and they should take extra precautions. Besides, any user that has good reputation, and knows they did not scam would be happy to clear up their name and explain things to people should someone ask.
You're right, with the current system, the warning would do no good. Not being able to see ANY and ALL open scam reports hinders the ability to make good educated decisions. If you look in the scam report section, not a single scam report has been un-moderated for the month of April (as of when I looked last night). We are nearly into May now. That is a HUGE problem. That is a months time, or longer, which a user that has scammed someone can continue scamming. Even if I did try to do my due diligeance on a user that scammed in April I simply can't. Then I do the deal, get scammed, file a scam report and a month later my scam report is closed with "user was banned in May for scamming". Not sure why no one sees an issue with that fact.
The badge alone will not help. Opening up the scam report section to be fully visible AND adding a badge will.
- Status
