I think that while any user has an open scam report with valid proof against them, there account be restricted temporarily until it is resolved or they are banned so they cannot continue to scam if they are.
- Type
- Suggestion
- Status
- Denied
Restricted Accounts
- Thread starter jakey2_0
- Start date
- Status
PebbleHost
High performance, consistent uptime and fast support. Minecraft hosting that just works.
I disagree
As Eclipse said, a caution tag, which is an idea similar to yours was denied several times. The caution tag less punishing for the "scammer" which could likely mean that this idea will be denied as well
Also, some scam reports are false accusations, which is another reason why this idea and the caution tag was denied.
As Eclipse said, a caution tag, which is an idea similar to yours was denied several times. The caution tag less punishing for the "scammer" which could likely mean that this idea will be denied as well
Also, some scam reports are false accusations, which is another reason why this idea and the caution tag was denied.
That’s why I said if there is valid proof they should be restricted, if it’s some kid who just makes a scam report with nothing then they don’t get the caution tag
If their was valid proof why wouldn't they just be banned?
Say the scam filer said the other person charged back when they actually did not, they should be allowed to argue there case and not be immediately banned.
You said if there is enough proof. Meaning if there is enough proof they did charge back.
They still could have faked proof, so they should be able to state there case.
All-in-All this idea seems too farfetched and would probably cause outrage for the people getting their accounts restricted and them complaining that it's false, I see it doing more harm than good.
I'd like to point out this, negative rep and scam reports are basically the current equivalent of a caution tag or a warning to people. If a person is was scammed by someone, he would likely file a scam report or put a negative rep with the neg saying something on the lines of "DNDW scammed me scam report open". That should be well enough of a sign to you. PLUS, if there are rumors going around that that specific person is scamming, then you shouldn't deal with the supposed scammer. It's up to you to make the right decision.
Going off what Ivain said one time
"If you wanna check if a user is safe to deal with, check their rep and check the scam reports yourself, so that you can read it and see if it's relevant to your case.
It's not the site's job to wrap you in swaddling at the cost of other members."
"I've seen people open scam reports because someone they ordered something from didn't reply for an hour. An hour is NOTHING. If people will open scam reports for such a tiny delay, they'll open them for anything, and defamation of users like this isn't gonna help."
I used to side with these ideas, but now I totally agree with him.
I also came close to getting a scam report against me because I fell asleep mid-deal, he was threatening me in my sleep to make a scam report against me. Even though I did give the item to that user, some people are very paranoid and if a person isn't replying when they think they're supposed to, they will take action. Imagine if I were to have gotten my account restricted for that.
Last edited:
And who's the judge of that, exactly? Trust me when I say from experience that it's often difficult to say at first glance whether someone's 'proof' is valid even in normal reports.
Scam reports exist because it is vital to hear the story from both sides and attempt to mediate between them before staff take any action. The one exception is if one side confesses to the scam and declares to lack any attempt to try to refund or otherwise make repairs to the other side.
Suggestions like this one go directly against that principle. If the proof is clear enough that something like this becomes prudent, the person in question would be banned anyway. If proof is not clear enough to ban immediately (aka there's no direct confession from the user, only images etc), then it is not clear enough for something like this to be implemented either.
We allow negative reputation about scams to be given because there needs to be SOME form of warning, but we also require an open scam report to be linked. This is to prevent accusations based on non-existent or already-closed scam reports.
And before anyone says that there could be a tag-thingy that does the exact same thing as the negative reputation, lemme use an analogy.
Let's say you're being held by the police on suspicion of being part of a robbery. The difference between a negative reputation and a tag would be a log in a public police database plus word-of-mouth versus a spokesman of the police appearing on the news talking about you being the suspect.
If you were guilty, then you generally deserve the consequences of the latter. However, if you were NOT guilty, then you absolutely don't deserve those consequences, yet they'd be very difficult and often expensive to get rid of.
As such, I generally advocate for such cases not being shouted out publicly (aka via the news) until a court decision has been made. Not that I have the power to enforce this on a national level, but I often wish I could.
Lastly, to anyone doubting the impact of false accusations, look up the consequences for any man falsely accused of rape. It can DESTROY their lives. And while the consequences of being called a scammer block-game forum are several orders of magnitude less, there is still no reason to force those consequences on someone who may not even be guilty.
There's already an open method to this, using negative reputation and instead of a "tag" it shows all examples of reasons to or not to trust a user. Scam reports are often rejected due to lack of evidence or being fake all together. Using a "caution" tag would just dub the user as untrustworthy when they may be a great dealer!
This has been suggested a few times in the past, and each time it is we deny these suggestions. It is important that we don't limit users when there's no reason to do so. Just because you've got a scam report on you, it doesn't mean that you should be penalised.
Denied, thanks for the suggestion.
Denied, thanks for the suggestion.
- Status
