Scammer Limitation

[Marth]

If a user has 2+ scam reports open, they cannot post on any marketplace/service-specific forum. This gives them the incentive to exit as much as possible before their ban. Their account status would change after the said reports are closed.

 

[Ivain]

How many times does this need to be suggested before people understand it's denied?
A scam report does not mean you're guilty, and it should not involve restrictions, else it would encourage petty scam reports for the sake of revenge or other childish actions.
If you're about to deal with someone, it's not difficult to quickly check the scam reports to see if it's open.
This suggestion does nothing significant to combat exit scammers. All it does is require them to time it a bit better, to execute 3 or 4 scams at the same time instead of 2.

The best thing you can do against scamming without harming innocent members is to keep careful watch, write down/record everything and don't trust people you haven't known for ages.

 

[Marth]

How many times does this need to be suggested before people understand it's denied?
A scam report does not mean you're guilty, and it should not involve restrictions, else it would encourage petty scam reports for the sake of revenge or other childish actions.
If you're about to deal with someone, it's not difficult to quickly check the scam reports to see if it's open.
This suggestion does nothing significant to combat exit scammers. All it does is require them to time it a bit better, to execute 3 or 4 scams at the same time instead of 2.

The best thing you can do against scamming without harming innocent members is to keep careful watch, write down/record everything and don't trust people you haven't known for ages.

Petty scam reports are always easy to close if there is evidence to support the innocent party.

Half the people on here don't take the precautions you are referring to. There's no "open report" tag or anything of that sort. It's not fair to assume people know what they're doing all the time. I'm thinking about the safety of new members here, not just experienced users who should know what they're doing as per your statement.

If you're willing to have a 5 minute instructional lesson with each new member, by all means feel free. You may argue that people who can't take the precautions aren't suited for browsing a market, which is understandable. But then you're talking about a majority of the community.

 

[omarhachach]

Innocent untill proven guilty.
There is no penalty to opening a scam report, so it could be used to attack people. And you are always innocent untill proven guilty, so you should not have any form of limitation/punishment.

 

[Ivain]

Petty scam reports are always easy to close if there is evidence to support the innocent party.

Half the people on here don't take the precautions you are referring to. There's no "open report" tag or anything of that sort. It's not fair to assume people know what they're doing all the time. I'm thinking about the safety of new members here, not just experienced users who should know what they're doing as per your statement.

If you're willing to have a 5 minute instructional lesson with each new member, by all means feel free. You may argue that people who can't take the precautions aren't suited for browsing a market, which is understandable. But then you're talking about a majority of the community.

If people don't know what they're doing, that's their responsibility. Not that of the site. Potentially innocent users should not have to suffer because people are too stupid to use basic common sense.
If we implement this, will it stop people being scammed? maybe 1 or 2. Will scamming be eliminated? nope. It slightly recudes the amount of scams that take place, in return for abandoning the basic principle of 'innocent until proven guilt', as others have said.

'That's not something you want any body of power to start doing, whether it's a national government or a bunch of people running a forum. The premise guilty until proven innocent would kill the forums if applied outside the scam reports. So I see no reason to apply it to scam reports other than to help a few ignorant people remain ignorant without consequence.

If you go on a random internet forum and risk large amounts of money on the services/products of total strangers who are almost completely immune to legal prosecution, you're foolish beyond words.
The only times I have gotten scammed was when I broke my own personal set of rules out of boredom or laziness (sending a finished product ahead and assuming they'll pay for it, for instance). While I adhere to them, I HAVE NOT GOTTEN SCAMMED ONCE!
Did it take a lot to come up with those rules?
In one way yes, it took me being scammed for $150 to come up with it. In another way, no, since it took a single scam (amount irrelevant) to come up with a set of rules that have not failed me since.
They're written in the wiki for anyone who wants to see them. They're no guarantee, but I've not had them fail so far.
If people are unwilling to spend a few minutes reading up on basic online self defense, they're not ready to be on a site unsupervised.

 

[Mick]

How many times does this need to be suggested before people understand it's denied?
A scam report does not mean you're guilty, and it should not involve restrictions, else it would encourage petty scam reports for the sake of revenge or other childish actions.
If you're about to deal with someone, it's not difficult to quickly check the scam reports to see if it's open.
This suggestion does nothing significant to combat exit scammers. All it does is require them to time it a bit better, to execute 3 or 4 scams at the same time instead of 2.

The best thing you can do against scamming without harming innocent members is to keep careful watch, write down/record everything and don't trust people you haven't known for ages.

Thanks Ivain.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.