Larger value scam reports prioritised....

[Proudly]

My suggestion, even through it's pointless as it won't get implemented for years but to prioritise scam reports based on value.

Surely a $500 scam report is more valuable to deal with than wasting hours approving $5-$20 scam reports?

Not saying to not approve lower value scam reports, but just prioritise higher valued ones.

ty

 

[imagamer]

Yes, but scam reports aren't really made to get you your money back. They're made to get the person banned.
If he pays you back, good. If he doesn't, banned. It doesn't matter how much you were scammed, they will still have the same punishment.

I didn't think about it that way. I guess maybe we should leave it how it is

 

[Jaii]

This has been denied before.

 

[JamboIE]

A scam is a scam no matter the price. $10 could be a huge amount to me and that may be nothing to you so where's the line for "large scams" they should be treated equally..

 

[Mick]

The solution to delays with scam reports isn't to reprioritise one report over another, but instead to improve our response times and remove delays. This can only be done by ensuring we have enough scam resolvers to handle the demand, which is definitely a goal of mine for the future.

I'll move this to denied, thanks for the suggestion.