[Suggestion] Legalize truth-telling

Minecraft Name:
dork1877


Suggestion:
If someone is convicted of scamming (not just accused of it) then anyone referring them as a scammer should not be warned for it.

Reason:
Peer pressure works. If people know they will get publicly called out on their scamming, then they might be less likely to lie cheat and steal. If you don't want to be referred to as a scammer, you shouldn't scam.
It is NOT harassment, it is NOT flaming, it is NOT libel, it is NOT defamation to call someone by the title of their activities. If its true, everyone should have the right and the duty to tell people the truth.


Other Information:
Alternatively, there should be a tag for players that are convicted as scammers. Depending on the severity of the offense, the length of time the tag is attached to the player name.

for example

[President] dork1877 [Scammer]

I know this will never happen but I still want to suggest it.


Link to this plugin:
NA

 

Have you ever read the book "The Scarlet Letter"?

I think I understand all of your points, and I thank you for the time it took to express them in a response to my suggestion.

I think the (another) feedback thread wouldn't be that bad of an idea.
but
There is an active griefer list in the Mayors+ forum, why can't there be an "active scammer list" in the general forum? Both are rules that have been broken, both are supposed have rectified their misdeeds right? Why is one offense allowed to track but not another? Would it be allowed?

I have two thoughts...

There is no movement on relaxing the rules to allow users to tell their fellow users that the person offering a (maybe fake, non-existent melonsword/dination feature) in trade that the person they might be buying from is a convicted scammer?

Wouldn't YOU want to know that before you proceed with the transaction? Why does the user (justly) warning his/her fellow users of the convicts past get issued a warning? I abhor this practice because you are protecting the bad from the good at the cost of the innocent.

One should still not be allowed to spam, or flame, but a simple reminder to those not in the know should be allowed.

Not an ad hominem attack, but a simple reminder that someone has a checkered past.

I just don't get how it's "harassment" when its the truth.

I understand they staff feels that they have rectified their wrongs, but obviously they haven't learned if they keep doing it. Maybe this goes back to my feeling that scammers get off way too easily... but alas that is covered in a different thread.

2nd thought also related to another thread. Even if a new "safe trader" forum thread will be helpful, I find it likely that it will probably just end up helping those that don't need help. In previous dork incarnation, I was an active forum user. There is a marked difference between the forums users and the forum-non-users. I understand that some people don't enjoy active engagement with the community in a BB type format. They want to "chat" and they do that in game. These people are the kind of people that don't know how to do safe trading, or who to trust and who not to trust. These are the people that would benefit from users giving them a heads up that the person offering something for sale is a convicted scammer. They don't know because they don't scour the complaint forum. As part of my previous leadership I was keenly aware of the difference between the forum trolls like myself and the users that had nothing to do with it. The leadership structure made decisions based on the fact that some people just don't "do" the forums. I guess what I am saying is that just because it is posted on the forums doesn't mean that the message being transmitted is going to make it to its intended receiver.

 

I understood that Jets, and I would like to pursue that proposal. But my argument is that there is already one thread that allows the tracking of Griefers. Why can't there be a thread that tracks scammers as well?

 

Thank you kind sir.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

 

No movement on relaxing the rules on this supposed "flaming" eh?
I still have yet to have a cogent explanation why telling the truth about someone is a warn-able or even ban-able offense.

As long as one doesn't engage the offender or his/her defenders in pedantic bickering, there should be nothing wrong with stating the obvious truth...

...right?

 

from the sound of it, it doesn't look look like that is going to be possible
and
i think the days are numbered for the griefer list in the mayors forums.

gods forbid we track the bad people out in the open...

 

My take on your pro and con list is that the pros greatly outweigh the cons.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

 

• Scammer would be outcast by society, they would be hated by everyone. how is this bad? if you scam, you are worthy of hatred and being cast out.
• Scammer wouldn't really have a second chance, once their publicly branded, they may never be trusted, liked, or traded with again, even after the tag is removed. ok, save it for repeat offenders. and yeah you are your reputation. you should live and die by it.
• Would lead to more crimes being committed by angry people angry at the scammer. They would probably swear at them, harass them, try and scam the scammer, possibly even grief the scammer. i personally would never engage in any of these activities because they are against the rules of the community. if individuals decided to perpetuate this then they should be dealt with by the authorities and given due punishment. the title would just be a label not a call to action.
• Scammer would probably leave ECC and not come back, because everyone would hate them. I can count plenty of people who have scammed, turned around, and become some really great members of ECC. that is great. i am glad to hear that. its always nice to see people turn over a new leaf. but sadly, i doubt the people they originally scammed would feel the same way (as a general rule, maybe not every case).

 

to turn it around on you...


i could (and do) make the same argument for the people that fall prey to these scammers. They are more than likely going to be resident or below and more than likely relatively new to the community (thats why the fall prey to the scammers). These individuals are are also going to be soured on the community as well, thus depriving Andrew of his new user base.

imo

i would rather protect the new naive people than the sneaky underhanded new people.

 

• Scammer would be outcast by society, they would be hated by everyone. how is this bad? if you scam, you are worthy of hatred and being cast out. Whatever happened to second chances? If someone left and told how ECC was a "mess up once and your dead" server, then we would have less people play. I am not advocating a 1 strike rule. i am advocating a way to make it so that repeat offenders are visable to the community.
• Scammer wouldn't really have a second chance, once their publicly branded, they may never be trusted, liked, or traded with again, even after the tag is removed. ok, save it for repeat offenders. and yeah you are your reputation. you should live and die by it. I disagree, life is not just your reputation, this seems to be a very narrow view of life. you are being too literal. when i say you are you reputation and you should live and die by it, i mean your reputation on the server, or in the community.
• Would lead to more crimes being committed by angry people angry at the scammer. They would probably swear at them, harass them, try and scam the scammer, possibly even grief the scammer. i personally would never engage in any of these activities because they are against the rules of the community. if individuals decided to perpetuate this then they should be dealt with by the authorities and given due punishment. the title would just be a label not a call to action. But scammers scam and it's against the rules. People would definitely break rules against scammers because of how much they hate scamming. i have never advocated breaking the rules to enact vigilante justice on scammers. but what you are using as an argument against my position is protecting the guilty at the cost of the innocent.
• Scammer would probably leave ECC and not come back, because everyone would hate them. I can count plenty of people who have scammed, turned around, and become some really great members of ECC. that isgreat. i am glad to hear that. its always nice to see people turn over a new leaf. but sadly, i doubt the people they originally scammed would feel the same way (as a general rule, maybe not every case). Maybe not every case? Most cases. I have seen tons of cases where the person doesn't scam again. Yes, sure, some do, but not nearly all. i'm not willing to state how many do or do not turn over a leaf. but what i am saying is that i would much rather have protections for those that are not guilty, than for those that are.

 

thread officially derailed
thanks jason