Vouching / Un-Vouching

[JoeyK.]

i wud luv to just post in every single thread saying SCAMMERRR !!
cos we all know everyone on

Yes, it's apparent that even staff in the past have scammed. In truth, anyone can at any time, regardless of the past deals that they've done.

However, many members have such extensive lists of past trades and vouches that members normally feel secure trading them, as that risk is far lower if the person has, in the past, proven themselves to be trustworthy. I can think of only a few that really have that kind of a record on Habbox.

It's dangerous to make blanket statements like that however, as I'm sure not 'everyone' on Habbox scams. A fair few, maybe, but not all.

Anyway, our system now, in my eyes, works; no one forces you to trade with anyone, and it's clear that you do so at your own risk. By Runescape rules you shouldn't be doing it all, but if you choose to, I would suggest doing so with someone you really know and trust.

[Wyked]

Hmmm, i guess it would be ok, but i think that can cause arguements so i wouldn't recommend it. This may also be indirectly accusing that person of not being trusted.

I shall double check for you because if im honest, im not sure.

But I see no point in having the rule

the text that moderators leave

"do not accuse someone of scamming etc"

is basically leaving the un-vouch there? as it still poitns to the person calling the thread started a scammer

[Wizzdom]

But I see no point in having the rule

the text that moderators leave

"do not accuse someone of scamming etc"

is basically leaving the un-vouch there? as it still poitns to the person calling the thread started a scammer

Exactly what i thought when i first became a mod. But that user gets an infraction, which then hopefully they wouldn't do it again. If they do continue, another infraction is given. These infractions add up and then they would receive a ban.

[Wyked]

Exactly what i thought when i first became a mod. But that user gets an infraction, which then hopefully they wouldn't do it again. If they do continue, another infraction is given. These infractions add up and then they would receive a ban.

Which resorts to them making the comments on another account, the account getting banned, and then the cycle repeats, still with all the remarks of being called a scammer left there?

[Wizzdom]

Which resorts to them making the comments on another account, the account getting banned, and then the cycle repeats, still with all the remarks of being called a scammer left there?

This is their choice, however if we recognise this person constantly making new accounts then im sure the management would not tolerate this and the member may be permed by Ip.

[Wyked]

This is their choice, however if we recognise this person constantly making new accounts then im sure the management would not tolerate this and the member may be permed by Ip.

Many many many many people have been IP "banned" from this site, I used the term banned very loosely indeed, they're back within 5-10 minutes

Personally if what mod's changed it too was something more... vague, then i'd see a point in the rule, but at the moment, it just seems rather pointless?

Either the rule needs to go, or what is left when a moderator edits the post needs to be changed?

[Baller]

If you can't call someone a scammer..
you shouldn't be able to say someone's trusted.

end of :S

[Alkaz]

Surely is someone is selling something and no one replys with vouches then that could make them unsafe too?

[Typoh.]

i am with this idea tbh..

[Alkaz]

Im not sure on it atm