Improvement to the Scam Report System

[Scroll32]

Hello MCM,

I have been thinking recently about how Scam reports are handled and how it takes 6 weeks to get responded to. Though one way to solve this is to add more Scam Resolvers, that requires lots of trust and is not as easy as it sounds to do, thus I came up with this solution. My proposal is that we have part of the Scam Report System be automated to get quicker response times. Though I am not saying we automate the whole thing as human judgement is needed, I suggest we automate the beginning part where it says "what do you have to say about this scam report against you". Also should make it so if they do not respond within a certain amount of time emails are sent and are banned and what not. If you do it this way you will get a certain amount of scam reports worked with between users due to a miscommunication which will get those resolved in days. It also allows scam reporters to see what the prosecution and defense both have to say before mediating it, which allows them to put more effort into getting it resolved rather then gathering the evidence. Though I don't know what would be needed to implement this, if it were added it would save time of the scam resolvers and would help resolve lots of these cases more quickly. If you got any suggestions or concerns about this idea then I am all ears as I am just trying to cut the Scam Report time.

 

[nfdegreu3i23r22r]

Doge M6Gaming best scam resolvers onsite?

 

[Scroll32]

Agree, Lotus/Kram were pretty good too.

 

[Harrison Sawyer]

I agree, I would totally be down to help with it, have won every scam report lol I have been scammed enough to have the knowledge to help with something like this.

 

[SSH]

Hello MCM,

I have been thinking recently about how Scam reports are handled and how it takes 6 weeks to get responded to. Though one way to solve this is to add more Scam Resolvers, that requires lots of trust and is not as easy as it sounds to do, thus I came up with this solution. My proposal is that we have part of the Scam Report System be automated to get quicker response times. Though I am not saying we automate the whole thing as human judgement is needed, I suggest we automate the beginning part where it says "what do you have to say about this scam report against you". Also should make it so if they do not respond within a certain amount of time emails are sent and are banned and what not. If you do it this way you will get a certain amount of scam reports worked with between users due to a miscommunication which will get those resolved in days. It also allows scam reporters to see what the prosecution and defense both have to say before mediating it, which allows them to put more effort into getting it resolved rather then gathering the evidence. Though I don't know what would be needed to implement this, if it were added it would save time of the scam resolvers and would help resolve lots of these cases more quickly. If you got any suggestions or concerns about this idea then I am all ears as I am just trying to cut the Scam Report time.

Also, allow the defendant to see the plantiff's responses before moderation and vice versa.

 

[Lotus]

I suggest we automate the beginning part where it says "what do you have to say about this scam report against you". Also should make it so if they do not respond within a certain amount of time emails are sent and are banned and what not.

The reason why scam reports need to be initially approved for public view is that some reports may contain personal sensitive data that may need to be omitted. That’s the main reason why we’ve never supported the idea of automating that situation, and instead use macros at most.

The latter half of your suggestion becomes a lot more complicated when scam reports end up in different situations where maybe both sides have agreed to be given more time, but the system would auto-ban them. How does the system determine if it’s a ban or report close? Etc. The flexibility of SRs is impeded.

An addition of an internal macro system that includes site actions, over the typical keyboard macro of just text responses would be a viable solution to improve efficiency.

 

[Kram]

Everything Lotus is said is very true, but on top of that:
Realistically speaking, we normally don't take 6 weeks to respond to a scam report. I am not saying that isn't the case right now, but we have in the past kept scam report backlog at a minimum and it was fine.
However, now, the current scam resolver team is doing their best but they have other things to do as well and aren't able to collectively put as much as needed, however, they are working hard and some of them are now putting more time into MCM to try and fix that.
We are also constantly looking and considering people to be scam resolvers and will be moving staff members as needed to make sure that we can fix that backlog we are looking at right now.

 

[Jinxx]

I think Lotus, Kram, do a great job, but I think this is needed. (no offense)

 

[Sky.]

Maybe a system where after 3 scam reports are made, in a certain period of time, the user is suspended until 1 or more of the scam reports are resolved. This could stop users being scammed by a long shot.

 

[Scroll32]

The reason why scam reports need to be initially approved for public view is that some reports may contain personal sensitive data that may need to be omitted. That’s the main reason why we’ve never supported the idea of automating that situation, and instead use macros at most.

The latter half of your suggestion becomes a lot more complicated when scam reports end up in different situations where maybe both sides have agreed to be given more time, but the system would auto-ban them. How does the system determine if it’s a ban or report close? Etc. The flexibility of SRs is impeded.

An addition of an internal macro system that includes site actions, over the typical keyboard macro of just text responses would be a viable solution to improve efficiency.

I think you have a great point but I am saying we automate a small part not all. In my first half I specifically state that human judgement is needed which is why I am not wanting the whole thing automated. For the auto ban part I was saying if there was no response, like they do now, you have been emailed, you have been online all of that stuff. Also, I am suggesting that this part would be private, then once both sides are put forward which helps save time then it is brought to the public for mediation, by doing this you make it ones that are easy to resolve not have to even go to the public and not tarnish their name.[DOUBLEPOST=1590589610][/DOUBLEPOST]

Also, allow the defendant to see the plantiff's responses before moderation and vice versa.

Completely agree with you. I meant to make that part of this suggestion sorry if my wording suggested otherwise.

Everything Lotus is said is very true, but on top of that:
Realistically speaking, we normally don't take 6 weeks to respond to a scam report. I am not saying that isn't the case right now, but we have in the past kept scam report backlog at a minimum and it was fine.
However, now, the current scam resolver team is doing their best but they have other things to do as well and aren't able to collectively put as much as needed, however, they are working hard and some of them are now putting more time into MCM to try and fix that.
We are also constantly looking and considering people to be scam resolvers and will be moving staff members as needed to make sure that we can fix that backlog we are looking at right now.

I will agree with you that there has been improvement in this area. But that doesn't mean there is not room to add on to this, and like you said they have other things and I respect that. So if we can help save time for them and make it more efficient for at least lets say 20% of scam reports, isn't that a benefit for them as well.

Maybe a system where after 3 scam reports are made, in a certain period of time, the user is suspended until 1 or more of the scam reports are resolved. This could stop users being scammed by a long shot.

With that logic I could get me and 2 of my friends to make scam reports and then get you suspended. though in theory its a decent idea, its not really practical.

 

[Joshua C]

The reason why scam reports need to be initially approved for public view is that some reports may contain personal sensitive data that may need to be omitted. That’s the main reason why we’ve never supported the idea of automating that situation, and instead, use macros at most.

The latter half of your suggestion becomes a lot more complicated when scam reports end up in different situations where maybe both sides have agreed to be given more time, but the system would auto-ban them. How does the system determine if it’s a ban or report close? Etc. The flexibility of SRs is impeded.

Addition of an internal macro system that includes site actions, over the typical keyboard macro of just text responses would be a viable solution to improve efficiency.

Make a system where it can detect that personal information like IP address, and so.

And on the xenforo's original website, there's an option to input private data, which only staff members can see before they can approve it before it's on public, so if the user puts the personal content, in the private text box, it can eventually go on hold before the staff can publish.

 

[Zyger]

Make a system where it can detect that personal information like IP address, and so.

And on the xenforo's original website, there's an option to input private data, which only staff members can see before they can approve it before it's on public, so if the user puts the personal content, in the private text box, it can eventually go on hold before the staff can publish.

Might be hard for screenshots though

 

[Lotus]

Make a system where it can detect that personal information like IP address, and so.

And on the xenforo's original website, there's an option to input private data, which only staff members can see before they can approve it before it's on public, so if the user puts the personal content, in the private text box, it can eventually go on hold before the staff can publish.

A lot of evidence tends to be in the format of screenshots, it won't be able to detect content in there. Furthermore, I don't think there is a bot capable of discerning private names, addresses, etc, accurately from normal content as well. Bit of a fruitless venture there when the last thing we would want is information not detected by a system to pass through to the public.

Also, allow the defendant to see the plantiff's responses before moderation and vice versa.

I like this. I don't see any of the past concerns applying to this considering most moderation is only meant to make it accessible to the public. Definitely would want to see if there are any concerns from other staff members that I might have missed.

 

[SSH]

A lot of evidence tends to be in the format of screenshots, it won't be able to detect content in there. Furthermore, I don't think there is a bot capable of discerning private names, addresses, etc, accurately from normal content as well. Bit of a fruitless venture there when the last thing we would want is information not detected by a system to pass through to the public.

OCR maybe?

I like this. I don't see any of the past concerns applying to this. Definitely would want to see if there are any concerns from other staff members that I might have missed.

Thanks, I think that most of the time comes from that. One side can't battle points until the SR approves it. Then the SR has to approve the other side's battle. It's a lot of unnecessary stuff.

 

[Lotus]

OCR maybe?

It's just too... unreliable. We're unlikely to account for every type of data we might need to omit and it would be very error-prone without a doubt.

 

[SSH]

It's just too... unreliable. We're unlikely to account for every type of data we might need to omit and it would be very error-prone without a doubt.

Yea. Just an impulse thought.

 

[Joshua C]

A lot of evidence tends to be in the format of screenshots, it won't be able to detect content in there. Furthermore, I don't think there is a bot capable of discerning private names, addresses, etc, accurately from normal content as well. Bit of a fruitless venture there when the last thing we would want is information not detected by a system to pass through to the public.


I like this. I don't see any of the past concerns applying to this considering most moderation is only meant to make it accessible to the public. Definitely would want to see if there are any concerns from other staff members that I might have missed.

Then make it so the scam report, gets public or at least the person whom its filed on can see it before its public (a lot of people work out things before scam reports are even public)


Or you can just go ahead and improve the staff capacity so people don't have to wait months to finally win the scam report, or wait weeks for a 48 hour deadline to fix things.

 

[Lotus]

at least the person whom its filed on can see it before its public (a lot of people work out things before scam reports are even public)

Already mentioned I'd like to explore what SSH has been saying.

Or you can just go ahead and improve the staff capacity so people don't have to wait months to finally win the scam report, or wait weeks for a 48 hour deadline to fix things.

We're already doing that for the next announcement.

 

[Mick]

Everything Lotus is said is very true, but on top of that:
Realistically speaking, we normally don't take 6 weeks to respond to a scam report. I am not saying that isn't the case right now, but we have in the past kept scam report backlog at a minimum and it was fine.
However, now, the current scam resolver team is doing their best but they have other things to do as well and aren't able to collectively put as much as needed, however, they are working hard and some of them are now putting more time into MCM to try and fix that.
We are also constantly looking and considering people to be scam resolvers and will be moving staff members as needed to make sure that we can fix that backlog we are looking at right now.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion