Open Scam Report Tag

[MisfitNerd]

I was discussing some scam reports with Doge earlier and I noticed that the person answering to them has their profile completely limited. I found this to be completely ridiculous. It then gave me an idea...

When any user is being accused of a scam and thus has a scam report open on them, I believe the scam resolvers should be able to remove their current tags and replace it with a new tag "Open Scam Report". This tag in turn would limit their permissions on the forums until removed. If the user is banned, they simply get the Banned tag instead. If the user resolves the issue, then they can get their original ranks returned.

Here are some of the things that would be limited, and why it should be.

Limits:

• The user will not be able to view threads in any other section of the forums other than Scam Reports.
• The user will not be able to view other profiles or message anybody but the scam report resolvers. They should still be able to view past conversations however, so that they can add the scam resolvers to chats if needed to properly view deals/issues.
• The user will not be able to limit their profiles. Limiting your profile when having an open scam report on you is extremely sketchy and should never be allowed.

Reasons why to implement this:

• The main reason is simply to get the user to respond to the scam report as quickly and as efficiently as possible. So many users ignore the report at first then finally answer, and tend to take their sweet time with tiny 10 word responses. Some reports go on way longer than they should be. It would ultimately encourage users dealing with scam reports to quickly finish them in order to continue doing business.
• This would ultimately help scam report resolvers close their scam reports much quicker. Again, many sit way too long and users tend to not make many attempts to quickly resolve issues.
• This tag would easily warn other users who were about to do business with the user in question that not only is there an active scam report on them, but that they should be dealing with caution with them in the future (assuming they respond to the report and do not get banned/suspended).

Ultimately, there's no real reason this should NOT be implemented. It would help improve the system, and potentially save other users the trouble of being scammed. If you believe there should be other limits or reasons to implement this, please comment below as to how this idea can be improved upon.

 

[Fire]

A lot of the scam reports the person the report is against is proven innocent, or there has been a misunderstanding.

If the person that made the report is slow to reply. An innocent person could potentially lose days of trade.

 

[Devon]

I completely agree, I see no reason to limit your profile anyways, but if you have a scam report against you definitely should have NOTHING to hide

 

[MisfitNerd]

A lot of the scam reports the person the report is against is proven innocent, or there has been a misunderstanding.

If the person that made the report is slow to reply. An innocent person could potentially lose days of trade.

Then in turn the scam resolver needs to force the OP to keep up too. Otherwise it should be closed.

 

[Justis]

"Ultimately, there's no real reason this should NOT be implemented. It would help improve the system, and potentially save other users the trouble of being scammed. If you believe there should be other limits or reasons to implement this, please comment below as to how this idea can be improved upon."

This is completely false. There are scam reports made all the time which are just there for one user to have a go at another; because they don't like them or for whatever other illegitimate reason.
A majority of scam reports are just miscommunication.

For the majority of the cases, where miscommunication happened, this would only serve to damage those with the scam report on them.
For the cases where the reporter wants to have a go at the other guy, this would only serve to encourage their behavior, because not only do they get to annoy the user they put the scam report on. They get to take away all their tags, all their permissions, publicize their profile, and damage their business, by publicly displaying on every one of their posts that the user has a scam report on them; which for better or worse turns people away real fast, even if the scam is false.

The amount of damage that would cause to our community compared to the possibility of this maybe preventing a few legitimate scammers from continuing to do business on our site, is not worth it.

I feel the best course of action to prevent scams is to simply encourage people to check out who they're dealing with before dealing with them. That includes looking at the open scam reports and it's content.

As for the speed at which a report is resolved, as nerd just said, the scam resolver is perfectly capable of setting a date or time for a resolution to be made; which is a much better system than just discouraging them from the rest of the forums.

 

[Fire]

Then in turn the scam resolver needs to force the OP to keep up too. Otherwise it should be closed.

There is the problem of school, work, timezones. Sometimes because of those it takes time to be able to reply.

 

[MisfitNerd]

"Ultimately, there's no real reason this should NOT be implemented. It would help improve the system, and potentially save other users the trouble of being scammed. If you believe there should be other limits or reasons to implement this, please comment below as to how this idea can be improved upon."

This is completely false. There are scam reports made all the time which are just there for one user to have a go at another; because they don't like them or for whatever other illegitimate reason.
A majority of scam reports are just miscommunication.

For the majority of the cases, where miscommunication happened, this would only serve to damage those with the scam report on them.
For the cases where the reporter wants to have a go at the other guy, this would only serve to encourage their behavior, because not only do they get to annoy the user they put the scam report on. They get to take away all their tags, all their permissions, publicize their profile, and damage their business, by publicly displaying on every one of their posts that the user has a scam report on them; which for better or worse turns people away real fast, even if the scam is false.

The amount of damage that would cause to our community compared to the possibility of this maybe preventing a few legitimate scammers from continuing to do business on our site, is not worth it.

I feel the best course of action to prevent scams is to simply encourage people to check out who they're dealing with before dealing with them. That includes looking at the open scam reports and it's content.

As for the speed at which a report is resolved, as nerd said, the scam resolver is perfectly capable of setting a date or time for a resolution to be made; which is a much better system than just discouraging them from the rest of the forums.

Though these are good points, there are still flaws to the current system.

Perhaps what should happen is after a certain period of time (let's say 1 week), then this tag is added if there are slow responses (on the user in question) or they are being stubborn.

As you did say, yes people could do it just to troll sort of, and in turn that should be highly punishable. If the original report is a clear fake incident just to cause trouble, they should receive a warning on the first offense, followed by a suspension the next offense.

There could also be 2 different groups. Perhaps one which simply limits the ability to limit your profile with an active report open, then a second group which further limits you if you make minimal effort to deal with the report.

Thoughts on that?

 

[Devon]

"Ultimately, there's no real reason this should NOT be implemented. It would help improve the system, and potentially save other users the trouble of being scammed. If you believe there should be other limits or reasons to implement this, please comment below as to how this idea can be improved upon."

This is completely false. There are scam reports made all the time which are just there for one user to have a go at another; because they don't like them or for whatever other illegitimate reason.
A majority of scam reports are just miscommunication.

For the majority of the cases, where miscommunication happened, this would only serve to damage those with the scam report on them.
For the cases where the reporter wants to have a go at the other guy, this would only serve to encourage their behavior, because not only do they get to annoy the user they put the scam report on. They get to take away all their tags, all their permissions, publicize their profile, and damage their business, by publicly displaying on every one of their posts that the user has a scam report on them; which for better or worse turns people away real fast, even if the scam is false.

The amount of damage that would cause to our community compared to the possibility of this maybe preventing a few legitimate scammers from continuing to do business on our site, is not worth it.

I feel the best course of action to prevent scams is to simply encourage people to check out who they're dealing with before dealing with them. That includes looking at the open scam reports and it's content.

As for the speed at which a report is resolved, as nerd just said, the scam resolver is perfectly capable of setting a date or time for a resolution to be made; which is a much better system than just discouraging them from the rest of the forums.

You can disable people posting on your profile you goof, everything else can be found in other ways anyways. If they have scam reports, change their name, and limit their profile they can potentially scam more.

 

[Tyler]

I feel the best course of action to prevent scams is to simply encourage people to check out who they're dealing with before dealing with them. That includes looking at the open scam reports and it's content.

This is the easiest and smartest way. People just need to learn to be smarter and use more common sense when it comes to doing deals.

 

[Devon]

This is the easiest and smartest way. People just need to learn to be smarter and use more common sense when it comes to doing deals.

Yeah but unfortunately you can't full check out that user if their profile is limited

 

[MisfitNerd]

This is the easiest and smartest way. People just need to learn to be smarter and use more common sense when it comes to doing deals.

It isn't about that. It's about seeing slimy and suspicious behavior out of some people who are accused. It's not like this tag links all reports open on them. It just says "Hey this guy's got a report on him, may want to check it out if considering him to deal with!".[DOUBLEPOST=1481940047][/DOUBLEPOST]

Yeah but unfortunately you can't full check out that user if their profile is limited

This is another big issue. How can you do a background check with a limited profile? It hides reputation, posts, and profile vouches. Like, what???

 

[Justis]

Though these are good points, there are still flaws to the current system.

Perhaps what should happen is after a certain period of time (let's say 1 week), then this tag is added if there are slow responses (on the user in question) or they are being stubborn.

As you did say, yes people could do it just to troll sort of, and in turn that should be highly punishable. If the original report is a clear fake incident just to cause trouble, they should receive a warning on the first offense, followed by a suspension the next offense.

There could also be 2 different groups. Perhaps one which simply limits the ability to limit your profile with an active report open, then a second group which further limits you if you make minimal effort to deal with the report.

Thoughts on that?

Naturally there will be flaws in any system which involves human beings. It's just how life works.
I'm not exactly sure if what you're suggesting removes these flaws or just complicates the system more..
However, in my experience, the longer it takes to explain how a system works, the greater the sign that you're doing things wrong, and so far, your system is taking up a lot of words.
Especially that bit about multiple groups, and how it's potentially decided and justified when a person deserves that group and such..

Obvious troll scam reports already aren't accepted, and we do have warnings in place for trolling.
However, there are still those which aren't so obvious without the other guy pitching in their side, and even then, how are we to judge whether or not the one filing the scam report believes they have a right to the money they're claiming or if they have ill intentions. So banking your whole solution on your increased punishments to discourage the increase in this type of behavior are in no way going to guarantee those results.
Unfortunately, people are always going to be selfish at others' expense.

This is another big issue. How can you do a background check with a limited profile? It hides reputation, posts, and profile vouches. Like, what???

To rephrase what I said earlier, when looking for a solution to a flaw in a system, the best solution is normally the simplest one.
Here's my solution: Remove a user's ability to limit whether or not members can view their profile.

Perhaps what we need is not a new scam report system in place to limit permissions and publicize profiles when a scam report is made on them, or when a scam resolver deems necessary...
But to allow users to restrict profile posts, in place of the currently available profile view restriction.
As you said, view of your profile is extremely useful in finding out whether or not to deal with a user. Whether or not they have a scam report on them.

Make a suggestion for that, instead of this, and then you'll have my support.

 

[M6Gaming]

This has already been suggested and declined multiple times -
http://www.mc-market.org/threads/94819/
http://www.mc-market.org/threads/91833/
http://www.mc-market.org/threads/88823/

Thread Archived.