Tie scam reports to user profiles with the outcome

[Siigari]

First, let me start with some pretext. I feel scam reports should have three outcomes:

1) Guilty, did not pay back and is punished [User Banned/Suspended]
2) Guilty, but paid back and see below [Report Closed]
3) Innocent, and not punished, nor shown anywhere but scam reports section as "innocent" as discussed below [Innocent]

Alright, now that we've got that out of the way, I feel it is important for people who attempt to be less-than-honest on this site to be marked. If a user attempts to scam somebody, they should be permanently tarnished with a reputation that is visible so people are wary of doing business with them.

WHAT SHOULD BE SHOWN:

In a post sidebar under their Premium/Supreme status:
Scam Convictions: # (have 3 as an example)
1, 2, 3 <- link to threads (this is for people who hide their profile from the public)

In their profile:
Under the tabs, Scam Convictions could be shown and link to all threads.


I believe these marks could disappear with time, given that new business is done, and they have earned enough positive reputation points.

I feel that if a user has a scam report filed against them but is fully innocent of it then it should not appear. But if a user ATTEMPTS to scam, or SUCCEEDS in scamming then these either issue enough warning points that they can come back, and should be marked for the future, or they are permanently banned and it doesn't matter.

These are just my thoughts. I feel that somebody who scams and does 'a good deed' by returning the product or money should not be washed clean. They're liars, cheaters, thieves and scammers and should be marked as such until they have provably learned their lesson.

We're not here to parent, no. But the job of the moderators who are checking these scam reports should feel a duty to protect other members of the forum. Thanks for listening.

 

[Justis]

If the person who was "scammed" but then was paid back feels they have been wronged, they should certainly be allowed and encouraged to leave some negative reputation on the user's profile, with a link to the scam report.
However, there are many members who's profiles are not over 3 months old, and are unable to do this.

Would you suggest that this be reduced, so that more people who are wronged can express that appropriately?
Or would you be willing to allow MCM to decide when someone has done wrong, and leave a negative reputation point on their profile with a link to the scam report? I'm not sure how I feel about that.
It's very difficult to determine someone's intentions, and we already take a risk in banning innocent members or letting scammers go free with ban or no ban scam reports.
Adding another layer on top of that, ban, no ban, or no ban and bad reputation, I feel might only overcomplicate things.
Which is why, while I don't want wrong-doers going free... I'd rather leave that to the members of the community to determine the reputation of that member.

 

[M6Gaming]

I feel scam reports should have three outcomes:

1) Guilty, did not pay back and is punished [User Banned/Suspended]
2) Guilty, but paid back and see below [Report Closed]
3) Innocent, and not punished, nor shown anywhere but scam reports section as "innocent" as discussed below [Innocent]

There are more outcomes than those listed, you can't simply limit them to three.

Let me also point out the following:

I feel it is important for people who attempt to be less-than-honest on this site to be marked. If a user attempts to scam somebody, they should be permanently tarnished with a reputation that is visible so people are wary of doing business with them.

I believe these marks could disappear with time, given that new business is done, and they have earned enough positive reputation points.

You just contradicted yourself. If you reach the requirements to leave reputation, you may do so yourself as followed by this rule:

10.2 When accusing someone of scamming, a scam report must be linked. This scam report must be created by YOU.

We're not here to parent, no. But the job of the moderators who are checking these scam reports should feel a duty to protect other members of the forum. Thanks for listening.

Our duty is being fulfilled well enough, thank you very much. It is the "duty" of our Members to do their own research on a user they wish to deal with, upon using the search button you may find past scam reports created on anyone or the way a member behaves/reacts to certain situations.

WHAT SHOULD BE SHOWN:

In a post sidebar under their Premium/Supreme status:
Scam Convictions: # (have 3 as an example)
1, 2, 3 <- link to threads (this is for people who hide their profile from the public)

In their profile:
Under the tabs, Scam Convictions could be shown and link to all threads.

I do not see this system working in the near-future, "convictions" are like warnings on our Forums. We'd rather keep warnings discrete with the user receiving them, or all warnings would be public for each other to view already. A suggestion making them public was already declined in the past.

It may make it easier to find past reports on a user, but at the same time - many would be soured by wanting to change their history. That's why you do your own research on a member, to see if they are the right person to deal with from your own perspective.

I disagree.

 

[Siigari]

There are more outcomes than those listed, you can't simply limit them to three.

Alright, what would you add?

You just contradicted yourself.

No, I didn't. As in real life after punishment, people are released back into the world. If they prove themselves rehabilitated then they can seal or purge their record. But this comes with both time and showing no regression to previous activities.

Our duty is being fulfilled well enough, thank you very much. It is the "duty" of our Members to do their own research on a user they wish to deal with, upon using the search button you may find past scam reports created on anyone or the way a member behaves/reacts to certain situations.

I understand you say its their duty but a large portion of the forums here I have witnessed to be mostly impulsive teenagers; some with more money than sense. There are people seeing this forum for exactly that and preying on users. Now, I agree with the sentiment that if a user does no harm, we cannot penalize (often despite red flags SCREAMING otherwise) so I'll stay with you there. But for us to allow it to happen and continue happening to kids is unfair, and it just gives the unsavory scammers a free pass.

I do not see this system working in the near-future, "convictions" are like warnings on our Forums. We'd rather keep warnings discrete with the user receiving them, or all warnings would be public for each other to view already. A suggestion making them public was already declined in the past.

Then call them warnings. I don't know your system, I was just making a suggestion based on what I know.

It may make it easier to find past reports on a user, but at the same time - many would be soured by wanting to change their history. That's why you do your own research on a member, to see if they are the right person to deal with from your own perspective.

I don't understand what you mean 'many would be soured.'[DOUBLEPOST=1477762113][/DOUBLEPOST]

If the person who was "scammed" but then was paid back feels they have been wronged, they should certainly be allowed and encouraged to leave some negative reputation on the user's profile, with a link to the scam report.
However, there are many members who's profiles are not over 3 months old, and are unable to do this.

Would you suggest that this be reduced, so that more people who are wronged can express that appropriately?

I'll break the quote here to respond to that one question pointedly.

No.

I believe that user profiles should allow for vouches and devouches. My experience was when I had a successful scam report with M6, he removed my devouch from the user's profile. That felt like I was getting penalized for something somebody else did. I wanted it to serve as a warning, but I was not allowed to leave it. The reputation system exists for people to do business, not to report scams. Positive rep denotes a great transaction and all went well, neutral rep meant there might have been some snags but things came out cleanly in the end, and negative rep might mean that a user feels they were put out, but that the deal was done in a way where a scam report might not be necessary (for example, saying "I have $5 award for providing X to me", then in private telling them it's actually a $5 gift card to Amazon. It could be added to say scams are negative rep-worthy, because that is truly a deal gone bad.

It's very difficult to determine someone's intentions, and we already take a risk in banning innocent members or letting scammers go free with ban or no ban scam reports.
Adding another layer on top of that, ban, no ban, or no ban and bad reputation, I feel might only overcomplicate things.
Which is why, while I don't want wrong-doers going free... I'd rather leave that to the members of the community to determine the reputation of that member.

This is where I say I agree with not being reactive, because that would put undue stress on moderators. Reports help separate the weed from the chaff, and over time if enough user reports are submitted that can result in sanctions. Let's let that system remain the way it is, and let members continue to report what they think is not right, and let moderators make the final decisions.

 

[Justis]

I just want to clarify real quick that the reputation system is not just for business transactions.
It is a system for all users to express their opinion of another member on the site.

rep·u·ta·tion
ˌrepyəˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: reputation; plural noun: reputations

1. the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something.

As it is defined, simply the community's collective opinion of a member. No more, no less.
If this opinion is formed during the during the process of a scam report, that is perfectly valid.

 

[Siigari]

I just want to clarify real quick that the reputation system is not just for business transactions.
It is a system for all users to express their opinion of another member on the site.

rep·u·ta·tion
ˌrepyəˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: reputation; plural noun: reputations

1. the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something.

As it is defined, simply the community's collective opinion of a member. No more, no less.
If this opinion is formed during the during the process of a scam report, that is perfectly valid.

Alright let me clarify then,

I think people should be able to issue reputation to new members, but keep the new member limit in place but restricted until they either receive a certain amount of reputation, or a certain amount of time passes. I don't think it would be fair for mods to have to go in and clean up after new member neg rep spam for no reason other than to cause problems (which is probably why that rule is in effect.)

 

[M6Gaming]

Alright, what would you add?

I wouldn't add this system in general because reports cannot be categorized as such. They're currently: "Closed" "Suspended" or "Banned" through the thread - making this suggestion somewhat pointless. What is the reasoning for throwing money around to have a custom developed feature to show a TAB with Scam Reports users are featured on? Seems a bit hard to even create in general.

How will reports on multiple users/parties be organized? Confusion is all I see.

No, I didn't. As in real life after punishment, people are released back into the world. If they prove themselves rehabilitated then they can seal or purge their record. But this comes with both time and showing no regression to previous activities.

We do not "forgive and forget".

I understand you say its their duty but a large portion of the forums here I have witnessed to be mostly impulsive teenagers; some with more money than sense. There are people seeing this forum for exactly that and preying on users. Now, I agree with the sentiment that if a user does no harm, we cannot penalize (often despite red flags SCREAMING otherwise) so I'll stay with you there. But for us to allow it to happen and continue happening to kids is unfair, and it just gives the unsavory scammers a free pass.

There are rules and guidelines in place, making no "free passes". Then again, you're suggesting to add a new tab to show listed Scam Reports with their outcome - apparently not adding it gives them a "free pass"? That's a very poor argument.

When a Scam Report is resolved, it's archived; not removed or trashed. Please tell me where the "free pass" is because the outcome is already being shown.

I believe that user profiles should allow for vouches and devouches. My experience was when I had a successful scam report with M6, he removed my devouch from the user's profile. That felt like I was getting penalized for something somebody else did.

Not my problem you take things that way, the recommended course of action is to not be so saddened by it but to do something known as "moving on".

Alright let me clarify then,

I think people should be able to issue reputation to new members, but keep the new member limit in place but restricted until they either receive a certain amount of reputation, or a certain amount of time passes. I don't think it would be fair for mods to have to go in and clean up after new member neg rep spam for no reason other than to cause problems (which is probably why that rule is in effect.)

This is exactly why the rule is in effect:

I don't know your system, I was just making a suggestion based on what I know.

So you learn how our Forums work, then you use it correctly.

Users looking at past scam reports, viewing the outcome of them (simplest way by looking at a thread prefix) and deciding if it's someone they look to work with is the best way. Then again, the only time you should be warning others is if they have a current Scam Report on them - As far as past experiences go, you can review their services through the business thread or use the reputation system once you've reached the requirements to do so.

I quite frankly see no reason to add it. It's not as if resolved reports are being wiped or erased from history, but stamping them on user's profiles is not a 100% way to change their ethics. Closed reports are usually unpunished users found innocent, or issued with a couple of points for low-offences (usually misunderstanding cases). Suspended reports are the medium-offences (breaking regular rules), usually users with no history of doing such things are suspended. Banned reports are the exit-scams, regular scams, and refusal to repair the issue or works towards a resolution. Obviously each report differentiates, making an outcome different. But that would be the basic outline.

You also want to remove these "marks" once they "fix themselves", "redeem" or such; with all respect - We're not interested in accepting a whole separate appeal section just to have these removed from user's profiles. A whole new set of "How we will be doing this" will need to be planned just for it. It's a lot more work then you think, and even implementing it would be worth questioning as stated in the start of my post.

TL;DR - You're required to do your own research on a Member. We're not going to do everything for you.

 

[Siigari]

TL;DR - You're required to do your own research on a Member. We're not going to do everything for you.

So, to be blunt, are you the final say in this matter or is it actually open for discussion and votes by other members, then possible implementation by staff?

I thought you had this section for people to make suggestions and for others to also put their input, ideas, suggestions and disagreements into it. But from what I'm reading you type, you are the final word in this and no suggestions to the system will be implemented.

Am I reading this right?

And, to address what you actually said, you don't have to do everything for us. Your work is done in the scam reports section - which we are grateful for - and then it would be listed in their profiles for all to see. That's automated.[DOUBLEPOST=1477766648][/DOUBLEPOST]Okay, I am gonna jump on this.

Banned reports are the exit-scams, regular scams, and refusal to repair the issue or works towards a resolution. Obviously each report differentiates, making an outcome different. But that would be the basic outline.

Then why wasn't the user I reported banned? You suspended him. Was he just "breaking the rules" or was he ACTIVELY STEALING?

 

[Cyprus]

Mate, I have a scam report on me, for changing my profile, no i don't want people to see it on my profile and think that I'm a scammer.. Thanks but nope.
Some people might got scam reports for like "forgot to pay 60 cents" and some "on purpose delayed loan of 100$ then i chargebacked so he answered anyways"

 

[Jayson]

This would simply make most of the people loose their good reputation, such as sending a payment through G&S instead of F&F which if the client paid all their money, the client now gets a scam report simply from pressing the wrong button. And bringing it back up, Xenforo add-ons aren't always cheap and spending $100 to save people from researching for 3 minutes is not worth it. Scam reports also are not everything. I've lost $ before, but that was $0.60. Sure, I should of created a scam report-but over $0.60? They were a good person but simply didn't have the money.