Tagging High Risk DNF Members with a Red Flag - Please vote Now!

[CureCancer]

Tagging High Risk DNF Members with a Red Flag is going to help reduce fraud and scams on DNF. Our community is important to all of us and I expect something to be done about High Risk Members of this board.

If any member that receives a negative I trader rating should be flagged with a Red Flag.

If member is accused of selling stolen domains
If member is accused of selling domains with fake stats, etc,

the reason I'm mentioning this request is simple, in the past members that were involved in such acts were left to continue to browse and trade on DNF. Not sure what threads I'm referring too, but I'm 100% sure we had this discussion several times about DNF members not being banned or banned for their negative actions.

A tiny Red Flag Icon can protect our well respected DNF Community from scammers and @HOLES!

If your with me, please vote now - YES or NO to tag High Risk DNF members!

For example, if this member is not banned for ever, then he should be tagged with a RED FLAG
http://www.dnforum.com/f557/beware-u...ad-398287.html

[Credit]

Good idea

[Tia Wood]

If any member that receives a negative I trader rating should be flagged with a Red Flag.

BAD IDEA! for several reasons:

1) Anyone can accuse anybody of anything. Where is the "proof"? We cannot go calling "witch!witch!" each time somebody says so. The iTrader rating system is open and automatic.

2) We are adults. We should be trusted to do our own due diligence before dealing with anybody.

The ONLY way to make something like this fair is a "trial" of back and forth posts, giving BOTH parties opportunities to present their evidence and work it out.

It has always been highly encouraged here that people work out their own own differences, in private and between themselves. Unless that person is a downright fraud, they should be called out but not without the opportunity to defend themselves. Otherwise, there is too much potential for abuse and drama that should NOT be on these forums (as if we don't have enough).

Bottom line: maybe a good idea in theory but I don't think it would be a fairer system than what we already have in place.

[amplify]

I believe that the iTrader system would work better than a red flag, if those who dealt with transactions actually left iTrader rating and buyers actually read the comments and looked at them.

[CureCancer]

BAD IDEA! for several reasons:

1) Anyone can accuse anybody of anything. Where is the "proof"? We cannot go calling "witch!witch!" each time somebody says so.

2) We are adults. We should be trusted to do our own due diligence before dealing with anybody.

The ONLY way to make something like this fair is a "trial" of back and forth posts, giving BOTH parties opportunities to present their evidence and work it out.

However, it has always been highly encouraged here that people work out their own own differences, in private and between themselves. Unless that person is a downright fraud, they should be called out but not without it being fair for all. Otherwise, there is too much potential for abuse and drama that should NOT be on these forums (as if we don't have enough).

Could not disagree with you more!

If the Red Flag is not issued, then the member will continue to Trade as the victim of the crime/scam/theft builds his case!

Senior DNF Members on this board including myself are very active in protecting our Community. All it takes is team work.

RED FLAG must be issued as soon as a member issues a warning.

If you consider yourself a member of our community, then witch hunting should not be an issue for you! Unfortunately you sound like someone who only cares about herself and wants only to trade and jump into threads to post her view on this matter or any other issue!

Red Flag is a winner in every part of the warning stage. The OP will also be Red Flagged if they falsely post information.

I believe that the iTrader system would work better than a red flag, if those who dealt with transactions actually left iTrader rating and buyers actually read the comments and looked at them.

Unfortunately itrader only does so much, Scammers on DNF were not banned and left to trade. New Members of DNF who don't know better were victims! They also stated that they never checked the itrader rating of the scammer.

[Tia Wood]

Dude, don't make a call for action and then attack the people that disagree with you. That is the dumbest way to "drum up support".

Good luck.

[CureCancer]

Dude, don't make a call for action and then attack the people that disagree with you. That is the dumbest way to "drum up support".

Good luck.

No one is, as I mentioned - you only like to get involved in such issues with your point of view, I can't recall any support or help from your end when our community has been a target of crime/fraud/scam. Let's be honest with one another and not get angry!

If you are to busy with your Domaining Tasks, their are people like myself who are willing to volunteer and assist our DNF Members and our Domaining Community with such matters and raise the Red Flag on anyone who is in the way of honest trading.

[Tia Wood]

No one is, as I mentioned - you only like to get involved in such issues with your point of view

What the F-- is the point of this thread then???

I can't recall any support or help from your end when our community has been a target of crime/fraud/scam.

What are you smoking???? Have you not read the Patty thread?

[DC20]

I agree in principal, I just had a DNF user back out of a $10k offer....but there should be a better way, more like the *bay feedback model where only users that actually started a transaction could leave feedback.

For instance, if a user posts a domain for sale or appraisal they could be tagged as the seller automatically. If a user replies with an offer, or even sends a PM with an offer, the buyer could mark it as an offer. If the seller accepts the offer, this is marked in the system and now either party may leave feedback for the other.

A bit of work with PHP, and that's all it should take.

[amplify]

Unfortunately itrader only does so much, Scammers on DNF were not banned and left to trade. New Members of DNF who don't know better were victims! They also stated that they never checked the itrader rating of the scammer.

If they never checked the itrader, then what’s to say that they will never check the red flag either?

I agree with you in wanting to implement something to protect users, but it has already been done with the iTrader rating system.

A red flag system could cause mass confusion and chaos in my opinion. What if someone never bought anything from you, never had contact with you, but gave you a red flag? How long would it take to prove you're not supposed to have a red flag? In the meantime, how much in sales would you lose while being red flagged?

[CureCancer]

If they never checked the itrader, then what’s to say that they will never check the red flag either?

I agree with you in wanting to implement something to protect users, but it has already been done with the iTrader rating system.

A red flag system could cause mass confusion and chaos in my opinion. What if someone never bought anything from you, never had contact with you, but gave you a red flag? How long would it take to prove you're not supposed to have a red flag? In the meantime, how much in sales would you lose while being red flagged?

I disagree, if you look next to your AVATAR - you will find useful information below it, itrader, etc... about the member. When a member is involved in a negative trade/crime/etc - then a RED FLAG will be placed either next to his USERNAME above his AVATAR or below his USERNAME the RED FLAG will be viewable by everyone... rather then clicking on the itrader link to get info!

or

Last Online: Today 03:01 AM
iTrader: (40)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,441
DNF$: 63 [Check]
 (High Risk Trader)

I'm only asking for this option, if the member is not banned for ever from DNF!

[amplify]

Last Online: Today 03:01 AM
iTrader: (40)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,441
DNF$: 63 [Check]
(High Risk Trader)

Just because that person has 40 iTrader doesn't warrant that they are a good seller. A serious buyer would sift through it to see if they want to continue the deal.

Now on to my next part: appeals process & losing sales because of the red flag alone without the basis of a knowledgeable case as with iTrader feedback.

What if you were red flagged without even being involved with a sale with that person?

[CureCancer]

Just because that person has 40 iTrader doesn't warrant that they are a good seller. A serious buyer would sift through it to see if they want to continue the deal.

Now on to my next part: appeals process & losing sales because of the red flag alone without the basis of a knowledgeable case as with iTrader feedback.

What if you were red flagged without even being involved with a sale with that person?

As mentioned if the OP is responsible for making false statements, then he or she will be the one FLAGGED!

You have joined this community recently, let me assure you we have people in our community who have continued to scam and take advantage of our trading world. You just jumped on the wagon, this issue has been a big problem for our community for a long time now. Something has to be done!

[amplify]

I agree with you that I am new, but does that mean my opinion has no weight in the matter as well? All of us are paying forum members and you wish to have opinions.

You say the OP is flagged? My question is: by whom? The moderators, people who reply, or just anyone with a mouse and computer?

In the case of the last two people (people who reply & a person with a mouse and computer): they could flag any one of your sales.

What rules would you consider being implemented in order for the red flag idea to work and to protect the seller also?

Some I thought of: only a moderator or higher membership can flag a user if 1) the user has had more than 2 questionable posts, 2) reported by more than 3 exclusive or 2 platinum member for questionable sales or 3) more than 3 negative iTrader-- but why not just ban them if that's the case?

[CureCancer]

I agree with you that I am new, but does that mean my opinion has no weight in the matter as well? All of us are paying forum members and you wish to have opinions.

You say the OP is flagged? My question is: by whom? The moderators, people who reply, or just anyone with a mouse and computer?

In the case of the last two people (people who reply & a person with a mouse and computer): they could flag any one of your sales.

What rules would you consider being implemented in order for the red flag idea to work and to protect the seller also?

Some I thought of: only a moderator or higher membership can flag a user if 1) the user has had more than 2 questionable posts, 2) reported by more than 3 exclusive or 2 platinum member for questionable sales or 3) more than 3 negative iTrader-- but why not just ban them if that's the case?

As mentioned in some previous cases, members were not banned and left to scam again!

I like your idea, if 5 or more Exclusive Members Red Flag a member, the Red Flag Activates... a MOD or ADMIN then can investigate the issue and decide if a BAN is the next option!

This way our community can raise the RED Flag until the MODS/ADMINS get involved. Fast, Quick effective system that can protect us.

[amplify]

I like your idea, if 5 or more Exclusive Members Red Flag a member, the Red Flag Activates... a MOD or ADMIN then can investigate the issue and decide if a BAN is the next option!

Now that you've added some kind of sensible rule to the flag, I like it.

[CureCancer]

Now that you've added some kind of sensible rule to the flag, I like it.

I just came up with the idea, it takes a community to make it work.

[keyser]

I dont really like the idea myself, for the reasons exposed by MegaNerd.
Keep it cool Batman

[Anthony Ng]

Sorry to say, but this (red tagging *suspicious* members) is a VERY BAD idea. I can't even imagine how it could be put into practice in a realistic manner.

To decipher it a bit more: In an advanced civilized society, people are presumed innocent. Guilty by suspicion is a very dangerous threat to the rule of law. Try that, and we're back to the dark days.

[south]

I can appreciate the concept, but agree that it is no better than the itrader system. People should always research a member if they plan to do a high dollar transaction in advance. Take into account number of posts, go read some of those posts, see who they have dealt with in the past, etc. Naturally, everyone starts from zero, so newbies must be given a chance. And if you have any suspicions, you can always use an escrow service.

Edit: Perhaps if the itrader display next to the username was not a cumulative sum, as it is now, but rather displayed number of positive as well as number of negative right there. Just a thought.