Punishments Tab on Profile

[MisfitNerd]

I think there should be a tab on your profile that says "Punishments", which includes all warning points given, with reasons for each violation, as well as any temporary bans or permanent bans which were later removed. Since users here deal with money, we should be able to have all information about a user at our disposal, making it easier to determine if we'd like to deal with them, rather than blindly taking chances.

Personally I think this is good, with the added addition of what I mentioned above. It's always nice to have all of that information available to you. If users try to argue "It's a violation of privacy", don't start please. You shouldn't have been breaking those rules in the first place. I have no problem admitting I have 6 warning points for abusing reactions a year ago and for abusing the reputation system in January. They're mistakes I made and I regret them, those are things people should know about me. I feel everyone deserves that same kind of clairvoyance with other users.

Mick I know you liked this but that old thread kinda died so I made this ons. Thoughts and opinions are welcome, just provide an explanation if you disagree.

 

[Ivain]

The whole "warning because of scam report" thing has already been suggested 5 times and denied each time because it would encourage frivolous scam reports to discredit someone. I already see people make scam reports because someone didn't respond to their messages for an hour (which imo is VERY frivolous), this would encourage people that want to take revenge on someone beyond negative rep to open a scam report for minimal reasons, just enough to have M6 approve it.

Right now, people have to go look into the actual scam reports, which usually results in seeing what the scam report is for. I guarantee you that if a user's profile or user card shows "has scam report open" in any way, that people will rarely look at the scam report itself before making a judgement.

 

[Ivain]

So what if the scam report is pending? What do we do then?
Obviously a clear solution could be to leave a neutral/negative rep to warn people but a tag on a profile simply saying “SR Pending”, nothing that discredits them or makes them seem harmful, just a warning to investigate more and be careful.

Yeah, a neutral rep could be a thing because it does not show up immediately in people's faces and allows for FAR more detail than just a tag. I'm not fully opposed to that, as long as it details what the scam report is for and leads directly to the report if clicked.

 

[Doge]

I'd actually like to open this suggestion thread up again to get more input.

Doge I know that you were against this in the past but I can't remember why, can you explain?

If anyone else has more input about this I'd love to hear it. My perspective is still that we are a marketplace and giving users as much data as possible to make a decision about doing deals is for the best.

My reason for being against it was the warnings in Verringer times. The system was much different (everything was 1 point and there were no set guidelines as there is now) A lot of 2015 users, myself included have some expired ones from then that still show up. If expired ones weren't displayed, it'd be fine IMO.

 

[Mick]

My reason for being against it was the warnings in Verringer times. The system was much different (everything was 1 point and there were no set guidelines as there is now) A lot of 2015 users, myself included have some expired ones from then that still show up. If expired ones weren't displayed, it'd be fine IMO.

Claiming that because a previous manager of the site did sometimes give false warnings doesn’t mean that all (or any) of the warnings you received were false. I was a moderator when you first joined the site and you were breaking the rules quite often, that doesn’t mean that you’re not going to get deals because you have broken rules 3 years ago.

Implementing this will help people to decide whether to go first with a user or not, which is far more important than a single users problem with having their valid warnints from the past.

 

[Fawks]

I don't mind showing off my 53 warning points as I doubt they'd affect my services as I've told people about them in the past

 

[Bastille]

It's a good idea !

 

[Vaporize]

I'd actually like to open this suggestion thread up again to get more input.

Doge I know that you were against this in the past but I can't remember why, can you explain?

If anyone else has more input about this I'd love to hear it. My perspective is still that we are a marketplace and giving users as much data as possible to make a decision about doing deals is for the best.

Well, personally for me. I found out this marketplace by looking up Minecon 2016 (back when it was about to happen I bought tickets and was curious to see what other people are saying) once the event was over and I had 3 left over capes I attempted to sell them as I only have one account, as one would. Although, because I was so eager to get them off of my hands I completely forgot to read the rules and posted two threads. Both threads were taken down and I received warning points: https://gyazo.com/257451385a5da181e11db908c4396e73 . I personally wouldn't care if some of the harsher punishments were posted, but this would tarnish people's reputation if used incorrectly. I would regulate this a bit by not including such petty punishments such as the two received above as they don't have anything to say about my personality, my judgement, and so forth.

 

[MisfitNerd]

Well, personally for me. I found out this marketplace by looking up Minecon 2016 (back when it was about to happen I bought tickets and was curious to see what other people are saying) once the event was over and I had 3 left over capes I attempted to sell them as I only have one account, as one would. Although, because I was so eager to get them off of my hands I completely forgot to read the rules and posted two threads. Both threads were taken down and I received warning points: https://gyazo.com/257451385a5da181e11db908c4396e73 . I personally wouldn't care if some of the harsher punishments were posted, but this would tarnish people's reputation if used incorrectly. I would regulate this a bit by not including such petty punishments such as the two received above as they don't have anything to say about my personality, my judgement, and so forth.

If people see that, they’ll probably ignore that you once tried to sell cape codes unknowingly. It’s not entirely uncommon. People just want to see if you act toxic or simply cause problems for others. That’s what’s going to make or break your potential business dealings.

 

[Mick]

If people see that, they’ll probably ignore that you once tried to sell cape codes unknowingly. It’s not entirely uncommon. People just want to see if you act toxic or simply cause problems for others. That’s what’s going to make or break your potential business dealings.

Not only is this useful for the services forums but it would also be great for the recruitment forum. If someone's offering management services and they have 50 warning points you should probably know that before you hire them as that is pretty important information.

I'll move this to pending, if anyone else has any more input or would like to change my mind, please reply to this thread.

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Mick]

This is something that I assumed we've already implemented, but I was told that we haven't. I remember when this suggestion was made what a big deal it was and how controversial the change would be, and I think that now isn't the time to make such a change when there are many adamant people against the change. Moving forward it's something that I'd like to consider further and discuss with the community, but I don't see us accepting this anytime soon given how much stuff we have on our plate that people want far more.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion