Scam Reports

[OG]

1.6 Do not disrespect, harass, hate on, or troll another person or group.
1.6.1 Do not post content whose sole purpose is to degrade or disturb the peace of another member or person.
1.6.2 Do not continue to send a member content, or content regarding them after being asked by them to stop.

The rule in place right now should be changed, if a user were to exit scam they could scam multiple people and leave before the scam report is even up

and we're not allowed to warn in shoutbox as it is against rules

if anything scam reports shouldn't have to be approved by a mod to be public, if a scam report is done on a user most people wouldn't deal with them and its just a way to be cautious.

scam reports has always been an issue on the site, and it truly takes forever to get a user banned something should actually be done

 

[Sloth]

While I do believe the scam report process in its current form has some flaws, we still need to preserve a sense of a fair trial. All the evidence and arguments still need to be made.

 

[OG]

While I do believe the scam report process in its current form has some flaws, we still need to preserve a sense of a fair trial. All the evidence and arguments still need to be made.

yeah which is why scam reports could go public right as you post it like other sites, if the report is considered junk it'll be junked

 

[Strobe]

I agree with OG, a simple warning to Deal with Caution in the chat box should be allowed, as it could prevent many people from these exit scams that have been happening.

 

[Sloth]

yeah which is why scam reports could go public right as you post it like other sites, if the report is considered junk it'll be junked

The reason the system in place isn’t like that is because there’s a chance they post sensitive information within a report that regular members of the community have no business knowing. Also labeling people as a scammer before they’ve been dealt with in a report could potentially ruin an innocent member’s reputation

 

[OG]

The reason the system in place isn’t like that is because there’s a chance they post sensitive information within a report that regular members of the community have no business knowing. Also labeling people as a scammer before they’ve been dealt with in a report could potentially ruin an innocent member’s reputation

I see where you're coming from, but at the same time if someone was innocent they'd prove so in the scam report as well and others can vouch if that was really you or not

and if you scam I have no remorse for you its just a scum thing to do

 

[Justis]

I disagree with your suggestion, however, I don’t disagree with your observation of a problem.

I believe a better solution would be to have a tab on each user’s profile where scam reports on them can be located, including those which are not yet public. Only the title and date would be visible.
This would resolve the concern with having a massive “There is a scam report on this user”, making them look like a serious hazard, when it may just be a miscommunication or someone thinking they deserve more than what they do.
It would also resolve the concern with forgoing moderation the section, which would be that sensitive information may be disclosed, or that it will become a cesspool of deconstructive conversation by the community.

Moreover, it would help people locate closed scam reports on someone that they’re thinking of dealing with, to identify any concerns which may have arisen during other users’ business interactions with them.

 

[SUPAH]

ofc the mods disagree lol

 

[haa]

i agree w this wholeheartedly. coming from someone who actively uses another site/marketplace, the way they handle 'scam reports' is much more logical.

1) they have a 'community alert' section. meaning if someone is sketchy/scamming, a user can post there, alerting the other users to deal with caution with the user
2) staff are actually active. a report will be made, and one of the numerous reputable staff members will reply, and ban the user if the user is convicted and proven guilty.
3) when their version of a scam report is open, there is an alert on their profile that says 'there is an active dispute on this user'
4) people who are staff on the other site are actually known members of the community. no offense to any staff but before they were staff i didnt have any clue who they were. users with years of experience/rep should get staff, not 2018 newgens who are 'mature'

everything on here is WAY too formal. if you want people to actually be swiftly dealt with, you need support from your community, and need to put trust in places where people deserve to be trusted.

 

[haa]

i agree w this wholeheartedly. coming from someone who actively uses another site/marketplace, the way they handle 'scam reports' is much more logical.

1) they have a 'community alert' section. meaning if someone is sketchy/scamming, a user can post there, alerting the other users to deal with caution with the user
2) staff are actually active. a report will be made, and one of the numerous reputable staff members will reply, and ban the user if the user is convicted and proven guilty.
3) when their version of a scam report is open, there is an alert on their profile that says 'there is an active dispute on this user'
4) people who are staff on the other site are actually known members of the community. no offense to any staff but before they were staff i didnt have any clue who they were. users with years of experience/rep should get staff, not 2018 newgens who are 'mature'

everything on here is WAY too formal. if you want people to actually be swiftly dealt with, you need support from your community, and need to put trust in places where people deserve to be trusted.

Ok, "Nettor"

 

[Zyger]

An issue with this though would be invalid scam reports due to people falling for impersonators.

It would be annoying to have to constantly deal with those types of reports if they went public right away, as it may take longer for staff to check it, and in the meantime it would drive away a lot of customers from whoever the report is on.

I reckon scam report threads should still require approval before becoming public, but if the deal was off site, then proper proof should be required linking them together in the initial scam report post. If there's no proper proof linking them, then the thread should be deleted.

This is because it ends up wasting a lot of time for the people involved as usually the first question the scam resolvers ask is something along the lines of "Can you prove that the [discord, kik, telegram] actually belongs to the user?".

This would also speed up the process for other scam reports since there would be less to have to deal with.

 

[Harry]

I made the same suggestion, yet members from this site are all braindeads so they say "Oh it's better taking 3 months to be public so the guy has 3 months to scam than making it public istantly"[DOUBLEPOST=1562157369][/DOUBLEPOST]
No it won't, never happened on other websites, why should it happen here. This is the only forum with 6 pages of scam reports still unsolved.

This was already addressed above; it's due to personal information potentially being posted on the report, which obviously shouldn't go public at all (and this couldn't be prevented if they were publicly posted instantly).

Further, I'm not sure what you're exactally trying to say here - of course, 3 months is a long time to wait, and such backlog should no longer exist, but we would rather that than potentially exposing users' personal information to the entire community.

but if the deal was off site, then proper proof should be required linking them together in the initial scam report post. If there's no proper proof linking them, then the thread should be deleted.

This would be good - if everyone followed and knew about it. For users who recently joined the community, they might not have a clue about such a requirement, and it would end up in their scam report being 'deleted'.

Such a requirement would need to be clearly stated, and what about users who are unsure of how to gather such evidence? Do we simply ignore/delete their reports?

 

[Zyger]

This would be good - if everyone followed and knew about it. For users who recently joined the community, they might not have a clue about such a requirement, and it would end up in their scam report being 'deleted'.

Such a requirement would need to be clearly stated, and what about users who are unsure of how to gather such evidence? Do we simply ignore/delete their reports?

It could be edited into the scam report application with examples of how to do it, and if they're unsure of how to gather it, then the report usually ends up being closed anyway.