Who will define confirmed scammer?
You mean like those with type 2 or 3 flags?
How many members on average per month get a type 2 or 3?
For those that are conclusively proven to scam then sig ban, no pms, no starting threads etc is a good idea.
I would ban them completely.
Topic: Should confirmed scammers lose the ability to send PM? - page 2. (Read 447 times)
I'm not against such idea, but as you say, trust system isn't moderated and it's very unlikely that such restriction will be implemented. Though, before trust systemadded scammer tags to some members and I think that some people still have such tag.
I haven't received messages from someone with negative trust or active flag against him recently, so I don't remember, is it any kind of warning is displayed there? If not, it should be. Something similar when you receive PM from newbie. But warning should be bigger and brighter.
I haven't received messages from someone with negative trust or active flag against him recently, so I don't remember, is it any kind of warning is displayed there? If not, it should be. Something similar when you receive PM from newbie. But warning should be bigger and brighter.
If a forum rule is created for confirmed scammers and is enforceable by the mods based on a certain criteria, wouldn't that make trust moderated?
What would determine a confirmed scammer may be a barrier; we have had debates even among top ranking members about correct use of feedback and flags, so such a restriction would lead to lots of drama.
It would also create a false feeling of security as other members would assume anyone who can pm them are less likely to scam.
P.S; I would suggest members with active flags have a warning banner show up when they message other members or newbies, below x days total log in time. I do not know if this is currently implemented, but it could help to protect forum members.
What would determine a confirmed scammer may be a barrier; we have had debates even among top ranking members about correct use of feedback and flags, so such a restriction would lead to lots of drama.
It would also create a false feeling of security as other members would assume anyone who can pm them are less likely to scam.
P.S; I would suggest members with active flags have a warning banner show up when they message other members or newbies, below x days total log in time. I do not know if this is currently implemented, but it could help to protect forum members.
This shouldn't even be a debate able issue although, won't that be equivalent to a ban because, they seem pretty much like the same thing to me. At least they could cause no further damage to the forum and it's legit users. Though, in other for the later corrective measures to be implemented on suspects, the aligations should be verified to be true and in cases where the scammer has refused to return that which has been taken should the victim request for a refund. At that point, we are sure the scammer deserves what he or she gets (permanent/temporal ban or restriction from posting or pm).
Actually, that's the used of trust system and flagged in the forum so that community will help moderators to deal with this kind of issue. There is a lot of additional work for moderators if user with red tag as scam will be banned too and we don't need anymore the negative trust system if that implement because all negative trust in that case are already removed in the forum. Theymos want this forum to become an open forum that's why trust system is unmoderated.
Everyone should read the forum rules and features in meta during there first visit so that they will inform on how forum works especially the trust system function. No one will be scam if everyone read the Do's and Don't here. The problem was most of the newbie are too careless on dealing here.
This shouldn't even be a debate able issue although, won't that be equivalent to a ban because, they seem pretty much like the same thing to me. At least they could cause no further damage to the forum and it's legit users. Though, in other for the later corrective measures to be implemented on suspects, the aligations should be verified to be true and in cases where the scammer has refused to return that which has been taken should the victim request for a refund. At that point, we are sure the scammer deserves what he or she gets (permanent/temporal ban or restriction from posting or pm).
Yeah it might be a good idea if a user has a trust flag and at least 10 more supporters than opposers on it...
But can't newbies pm newbies so they could just make a new account?
But can't newbies pm newbies so they could just make a new account?
We know the scam on this forum is not moderated, and that we have hundreds of scammers who have negative feedbacks and active flags that should warn all members to stay away from them when it comes to trading or any other type of activity that can result in financial loss.
Yet despite these visual warnings, many fall victim to these same scammers who send them PMs and offer various methods of earning, or help with unconfirmed transactions, blocked crypto exchange accounts and similar things.
What would definitely make their job harder is the automatic ban on sending PMs to everyone or at least to lower ranks. While some may say that everyone should take care of themselves, watch Trust ratings and always be vigilant - why not take away the most powerful weapon of scammers right now - and that is to prevent them from doing their dirty work in the background via PM.
Yet despite these visual warnings, many fall victim to these same scammers who send them PMs and offer various methods of earning, or help with unconfirmed transactions, blocked crypto exchange accounts and similar things.
What would definitely make their job harder is the automatic ban on sending PMs to everyone or at least to lower ranks. While some may say that everyone should take care of themselves, watch Trust ratings and always be vigilant - why not take away the most powerful weapon of scammers right now - and that is to prevent them from doing their dirty work in the background via PM.
Jump to: