New users Reputation requirement

[Playboy]

I just wanted to make a suggestion about new users entering the site. This is a brand new idea but I was wondering if we should lock the reputation system till a certain amount of requirement are met. Ofc vouches would still be allowedon their profile but new members are building rep so quickly and using that as a way for other new users to go first. Especially since this leads to most new “reputable members” exit scamming like Haunted1.

Rundown of the suggestion

New members will have their reputation locked.

Thus enforcing user to met a set of requirements to unlock that reputation as it can be easily abused.

User is NOT restricted to anything but reputation, if they are only here to make purchases then it shouldn’t matter unless they are here for a long term. They will still receive vouches just like mcm before the reputation system was implemented.

 

[Playboy]

Kwaygen why the disagree?

 

[Kwaygen]

Kwaygen why the disagree?

I just don't think new members should be locked up from reputation for a month or so they should be allowed to build up their rep. I really don't want to start an argument I might change my mind as it goes on and I see what other people say.

 

[Playboy]

I just don't think new members should be locked up from reputation for a month or so they should be allowed to build up their rep. I really don't want to start an argument I might change my mind as it goes on and I see what other people say.

Don’t worry about it no argument will be started. Just state what your thinking about.

 

[Kwaygen]

Don’t worry about it no argument will be started. Just state what you're thinking about.

I just think new members should be allowed to build up their rep without being locked up

 

[Playboy]

Kiri Zatify? I’d like to know about both sides.[DOUBLEPOST=1506872620][/DOUBLEPOST]

I just think new members should be allowed to build up their rep without being locked up

They aren’t locked it, this is simply restricting them for a duration of time from building reputation too quickly, no doubt the reputation is a bit flawed but it’s so easy to look legit when you are at 27/0/0 and you just joined about a month ago. It won’t prevent anything as you’re never to sure who to trust but may easy of all the new flow of members from scamming other brand new users. Still a work in theory, will try to detail it a bit more later today.

 

[Kwaygen]

Kiri Zatify? I’d like to know about both sides.[DOUBLEPOST=1506872620][/DOUBLEPOST]

They aren’t locked it, this is simply restricting them for a duration of time from building reputation too quickly, no doubt the reputation is a bit flawed but it’s so easy to look legit when you 27/0/0 and you just joined about a month ago. It won’t prevent anything as you’re never to sure who to trust but may easy of all the new flow of members from scamming other brand new users. Still a work in theory, will try to detail it a bit more later today.

Oh okay

 

[Playboy]

The Current example I will use is

Haunted1, user joined on the August 14,2017. Has about more then a quarter of my rep and just scammed 74194 for the account blue.

New users will look at them and see high reputable members of this forum. Won’t think much about using a MM and might get scammed.

Oh okay

 

[kiruv]

Well then my rep will be locked

racism

 

[Nekio]

Disagree, there are some people that added a reputation on my profile because they bought some of my resources "they're only registered in this forum to buy resources, so they are new".

Same thing with people that sell graphics, etc..

 

[Playboy]

Disagree, there are some people that reputate me because they bought some of my resources "they're only registered in this forum to buy resources, so they are new".

Very true I joined just to buy and then I became a seller. Locking reputation wouldn’t effect purchases as that’s between the seller and buyer. Before the reputation system was even Implemented there were only vouches ( from when I joined back in July ) and that was used to determined the legitimacy of a user. It would be exactly like but but only pertaining to a new users till requirements are met.

 

[Igneous]

Could be an interesting suggestion.

I support it!

 

[Kiri]

Kiri Zatify? I’d like to know about both sides.[DOUBLEPOST=1506872620][/DOUBLEPOST]

They aren’t locked it, this is simply restricting them for a duration of time from building reputation too quickly, no doubt the reputation is a bit flawed but it’s so easy to look legit when you are at 27/0/0 and you just joined about a month ago. It won’t prevent anything as you’re never to sure who to trust but may easy of all the new flow of members from scamming other brand new users. Still a work in theory, will try to detail it a bit more later today.

I just feel that everyone should be allowed to build up their rep if they've made a legitimate trade. People who register on any forum expect to start off right away, not wait a month before they actually get to use it properly. Overall, I just feel like date isn't particularly a good measure of preventing scammers, and it would be unfavorable to anyone who is just starting off.

 

[Playboy]

I just feel that everyone should be allowed to build up their rep if they've made a legitimate trade. People who register on any forum expect to start off right away, not wait a month before they actually get to use it properly. Overall, I just feel like date isn't particularly a good measure of preventing scammers, and it would be unfavorable to anyone who is just starting off.

Some new users would like to take out loans and/or have investments for up and coming businesses and servers that are legitimate too? They are restricted from using that till they reach a certain requirements. Just like users who come here expecting to be reputable, some other come here expecting to get loans/investments but they can to ensure that they don’t scam. Even if a factor of those requirements is time, that doesn’t effect the person from scamming after they receive that part of the forum. It’s all based on the person and that’s what we are trying to stall/stop. Yes we can try to prevent anyone from scamming by whatever way we can to ensure that those who aren’t knowledgeable enough to know don’t get scammed we can at least try.

I’m not saying that duration of time is an eligible factor as a requirements but make it so that there are certain requirements to met before unlocking those. Reputation can mean a lot especially for new users and it can easily be misleading.


It’s not really unfavorable as that system was only implemented about a year ago ( correct me if I am wrong ). It was just vouches on a user profiles that determined their legitimacy and reputation but then again nothing is perfect and there will always be flaws with any suggestions in all honesty.

Let me know if something sounds off, just trying to TYPe this before bed.

 

[Ivain]

No. Locking it for a month would just mean the scammers would lay dormant for a month, then do the thing anyway. Instead, we should encourage a more quality-oriented view of the reputation system. You can farm quantity, and this is difficult to stop without limiting the legit users. However, farming quality is difficult. Getting a reputation as someone who's done 50 small deals successfully is easy enough, getting a reputation as someone who's helped people out, done 30 large deals involving hundreds and has performed services of a high quality level is a lot harder.
Also, perhaps it might be an idea to encourage people to look for rep that relates to the field in which the deal takes place.

Exit scamming cannot be 100% prevented. All we can do is decrease the success chance and lower the spoils by arming people with information.

 

[Ivain]

it's not loloolol. think about the age group of the people on this website, and think about the average transaction that isn't a rare account. the average build, script, server map, etc etc.. usually 5-50$. these "high rep" members are part of the same group of everyone else, their word is just as good as the next guys imho.

the change should be only upgraded members (premium/supreme) can leave reputation. then there's a financial tie, and if a member is banned who was upgraded and then mick receives another payment from the same account, easier to link multi's who want to enter the rep system, etc. etc.

there's no way to stop it for sure, look at hf, they have 5x the amount of scammers but the average user is much more cognitive in deciding if they would make a trade. by no means is that a good system, ours combats high-rep exit scamming really well because of the staff that remove reputation for generally little to zero reason. i agree, it's a bit hard to build a TON of rep here, but it's not impossible buying 5$ items, building 15-25 rep.. that's $75-$150. really not a lot when you think about it.

Sorry, but making it so only premium members can leave reputation would undermine the entire system. The basic idea is that anyone can give reputation, assuming they've been part of the site for a reasonable amount of time. Putting reputation behind a paywall will create an inequality to it that will encourage those unwilling to pay for premium, for whatever reason, to circumvent it and start using vouches.
That alone is already a terrible idea. If we do that, we might as well kick away the entire reputation system and go for the manual vouches again, for all the good it would fail to do.

Apart from that, I'm not really sure what you tried to say in your first paragraph. It's obviously in some way disagreeing with what you said, but I'm having a hard time finding WHAT you disagree with.


My argument, to keep it clear and easy to understand, is that locking down reputation any further than it already has been has significantly more disadvantages than advantages.

 

[Ivain]

If you need to be a premium member to leave rep, it'll make it really fucking easy to scam non-premium members. If I was a noob that did NOT have the experience most people on here does, that'd make me big fucking bait for scammers.

Example:
new kid comes on. 15-y old, quite innocent. Goes to a builder, buys a few builds. Builder rips him off, promising great quality but producing some pretty shit builds. Kid doesnt see this until a week later as the builds are 'complete', when he's spent a bit more money on plugins and shit. Does he have money left to buy a paid rank on a site that he was planning to use maybe once or twice a year? nope. Should he have the right to leave negative reputation for the builder that ripped him off? yes.


Apart from that, I'm not sure what you're getting salty about, or what is sparking that rage of yours. Talking about people having basic common sense when doing deals? I FUCKING AGREE, as you would put it. Idk if it's my memory or yours, but I remember BLOODY arguing in favor of people using their own FUCKING heads when doing deals. Nor have I, at any point in this thread, said otherwise.
I still don't know where you get the idea that I said that high rep members mean anything. I have not used the word 'high rep member' in either of the posts that seem to have triggered the ever living FUCK out of you. All I said in my original post was that instead of harking at how MUCH reputation someone has, we should be telling people to use their brains (AS YOU KEEP SCREAMING AT ME) and look at the TYPE of reputation someone gets. In half a year, I could have 50 reputation, all of it detailed, for making terrain. Would that make me a reliable developer? fuck no, I've never made a plugin in my life.

What is confusing me here is that you seem to be ranting at me, getting angry that I don't see something which you find blindingly obvious, and yet all this time, I agree with all but one point you're making. The only thing we seem to disagree about is putting reputation beh

 

[Mick]

If you need to be a premium member to leave rep, it'll make it really fucking easy to scam non-premium members. If I was a noob that did NOT have the experience most people on here does, that'd make me big fucking bait for scammers.

Example:
new kid comes on. 15-y old, quite innocent. Goes to a builder, buys a few builds. Builder rips him off, promising great quality but producing some pretty shit builds. Kid doesnt see this until a week later as the builds are 'complete', when he's spent a bit more money on plugins and shit. Does he have money left to buy a paid rank on a site that he was planning to use maybe once or twice a year? nope. Should he have the right to leave negative reputation for the builder that ripped him off? yes.


Apart from that, I'm not sure what you're getting salty about, or what is sparking that rage of yours. Talking about people having basic common sense when doing deals? I FUCKING AGREE, as you would put it. Idk if it's my memory or yours, but I remember BLOODY arguing in favor of people using their own FUCKING heads when doing deals. Nor have I, at any point in this thread, said otherwise.
I still don't know where you get the idea that I said that high rep members mean anything. I have not used the word 'high rep member' in either of the posts that seem to have triggered the ever living FUCK out of you. All I said in my original post was that instead of harking at how MUCH reputation someone has, we should be telling people to use their brains (AS YOU KEEP SCREAMING AT ME) and look at the TYPE of reputation someone gets. In half a year, I could have 50 reputation, all of it detailed, for making terrain. Would that make me a reliable developer? fuck no, I've never made a plugin in my life.

What is confusing me here is that you seem to be ranting at me, getting angry that I don't see something which you find blindingly obvious, and yet all this time, I agree with all but one point you're making. The only thing we seem to disagree about is putting reputation beh

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.