naming scammers rule

[The Professor]

Thats because you accuse them publicly and potentially from an unreliable source for all other users to see which is what that rule tries to prevent.
I assume that this list works in the same way as the Habbo unsafe traders list which started up back when we moderated the Trading section, in order for a user to be added 3 different users must provide solid evidence of 3 different trades in which the user is seen as untrustworthy. Therefore the sources involved become reliable (providing 100% solid proof) as well as numerous (from 3 different users and 3 different trades). Although I'm not familiar with exactly how this list works, you're probably best to ask Youheard or MBE about how it all works.

If I am correct, evidence of only one trade where the person in question has scammed is enough to get that person on the list. Waiting for the person to do it 3 times is illogical imo, and I'm sure the smods who came up with the list are thinking the same thing.

The rule should be edited really, either to something like "You may only cliam someone is a scammer if they are making a trade with another user in the TRADE forums only, anywhere else is not acceptable and thus calling the user(s) scammers. It is down to the trader which could trade the scammer to accept your post and not trade with the scammer or not. D onot hassle anyone which has been called a scammer by anyone."

It shouldn't, because that is not the case. It is still illegal to publicly accuse anyone of scamming, but with solid evidence and the agreement of Youheard/MBE that person can be added to the unsafe list.

[the wombats]

Essentially, yes, that is what it is but it would be wrong to call it that as it is not our job to pass any judgement on what trades other users commit to, we can provide recommendations though based on previous experiences.

there we go, you've just admitted it's a place to put peoples names down who scam or have scammed. :rolleyes:

[Nick-]

Every user knows that list is "the scammers list" you might not say its called that but its known as that, and it always is. :rolleyes:

The rule should be edited really, either to something like "You may only cliam someone is a scammer if they are making a trade with another user in the TRADE forums only, anywhere else is not acceptable and thus calling the user(s) scammers. It is down to the trader which could trade the scammer to accept your post and not trade with the scammer or not. D onot hassle anyone which has been called a scammer by anyone."

That doesnt stop innocent users being victimized by other vindictive users :S

If I am correct, evidence of only one trade where the person in question has scammed is enough to get that person on the list. Waiting for the person to do it 3 times is illogical imo, and I'm sure the smods who came up with the list are thinking the same thing.

It shouldn't, because that is not the case. It is still illegal to publicly accuse anyone of scamming, but with solid evidence and the agreement of Youheard/MBE that person can be added to the unsafe list.

Thats a question for Youheard/MBE as I don't control any part of that list and how it works.

And other users can call it what they want, we cant stop that, we just refer to it as a recommendation system or a 'proven to be untrusted list'

[today]

That doesnt stop innocent users being victimized by other vindictive users :S

I didnt say it would, its down to the user to research about the trade, check their posts, threads and see what other's think of them. :rolleyes:

As i said if "dave" created a thread in runescape trading forum wanting some money for "so many items" and that "Craig" wanted to do this trade though "Matt" posted and said "he's untrusted, i got scammed" though even though "Craig" say that post he could still accept or deny the deal, its really down to him.

Play.com / eBay.co.uk they both use "reputation" and "comments/feedback" why cant we? Oh wait, you damn fools of admins messed up Reputation so others can buy it, damn that idea went out the window, get me?

Fools.

[Nixt]

Thats because you accuse them publicly and potentially from an unreliable source for all other users to see which is what that rule tries to prevent.
I assume that this list works in the same way as the Habbo unsafe traders list which started up back when we moderated the Trading section

It was a safe traders list - we stuck to the rules; you're allowed to say people are safe.
What is basically being said is that this system has it's flaws, as did the safe traders list. But this thread does essentially contradict the no naming scammers rule, and you can find as many loopholes as you want it doesn't change that fact.

[Nick-]

I didnt say it would, its down to the user to research about the trade, check their posts, threads and see what other's think of them. :rolleyes:

As i said if "dave" created a thread in runescape trading forum wanting some money for "so many items" and that "Craig" wanted to do this trade though "Matt" posted and said "he's untrusted, i got scammed" though even though "Craig" say that post he could still accept or deny the deal, its really down to him.

Play.com / eBay.co.uk they both use "reputation" and "comments/feedback" why cant we? Oh wait, you damn fools of admins messed up Reputation so others can buy it, damn that idea went out the window, get me?

Fools.

First of all, being rude will get you no where with Habbox Staff

The reason the list was created was to provide a reliable recommendation system for other users to judge whether a trade would be hassle free.
The words of 1 user saying that another user has scammed is far less reliable than proof of 3 different trades from 3 different users all of which resulted in the user being scammed because there is no way of telling if the individual user who is accusing is being vindictive or not.

It was a safe traders list - we stuck to the rules; you're allowed to say people are safe.
What is basically being said is that this system has it's flaws, as did the safe traders list. But this thread does essentially contradict the no naming scammers rule, and you can find as many loopholes as you want it doesn't change that fact.

Fair point, I realize now that comparing the two lists was unjustified and invalid.

[today]

First of all, being rude will get you no where with Habbox Staff

The reason the list was created was to provide a reliable recommendation system for other users to judge whether a trade would be hassle free.
The words of 1 user saying that another user has scammed is far less reliable than proof of 3 different trades from 3 different users all of which resulted in the user being scammed because there is no way of telling if the individual user who is accusing is being vindictive or not.

But you cant deny Habbox Staff "****** up" the reputation system, when it could be so much better and solve this

Though you'll say "what about users who want to trade with no reputation" well its a risk to take, but its down to the trader.

You'll come up with some other reason and try to blab on as you do, but go ahead! :rolleyes:

[joshuar]

eBay use a public reputation system, besides the reputation system isn't purely for use in those forums, they could get 1000 good reps for all their posts and 1 bad rep which takes off 1 point for scamming, they are still looking good with 999 good rep.

That list is there to inform as Nick- said, however, that is set by Forum Management, and normal member show evidence. The rule should be updated to state how to put people on that list I think. However, it doesn't really bother me if people name scammers or not.

[today]

eBay use a public reputation system, besides the reputation system isn't purely for use in those forums, they could get 1000 good reps for all their posts and 1 bad rep which takes off 1 point for scamming, they are still looking good with 999 good rep.

That list is there to inform as Nick- said, however, that is set by Forum Management, and normal member show evidence. The rule should be updated to state how to put people on that list I think. However, it doesn't really bother me if people name scammers or not.

Then why cant Habbox, oh wait we dont use plugins of course :rolleyes:

You should have TWO lists, one which has trusted users and another "un trusted (aka scammers)" and anyone can post their review on any trader, then its down to the people who want to trade to RESEARCH about the trader, if not there fault, they ****** up not anyone else.

Pure lazyness in the end, so the two list's is good and before you say "they would get full people cant find names" use the search button

[Nick-]

But you cant deny Habbox Staff "****** up" the reputation system, when it could be so much better and solve this

Though you'll say "what about users who want to trade with no reputation" well its a risk to take, but its down to the trader.

You'll come up with some other reason and try to blab on as you do, but go ahead! :rolleyes:

Actually I do agree that buying reputation should not be allowed as its essentially pointless reputation which is against Habbox Forum rules.
I've never liked the fact that you can basically buy trust and credibility on the Forum without earning it.

Also, Mr.Sam showed us a great way of providing vouches similar to the reputation system but public, for all users to see, after a trade occurred the user would add feedback (similar to eBay) which could be shown in the Users profile. Unfortunately it was a plug-in and hence dismissed.