Answered Fixed "Think Twice" label

[RocketF22]

My objection stems from the fact that it looks like the "website" or moderators have assessed your usage of the forum and have evaluated that you are sketchy...

Everyone is sketchy until proven otherwise

 

[ikeo1]

My objection stems from the fact that it looks like the "website" or moderators have assessed your usage of the forum and have evaluated that you are sketchy...

You’ll get over it, everyone had the same feeling with the caution signs at first. If you’re a new account, that’s kind of the point. Once people become accustomed to no one way payments like Zelle or PP or maybe we should do that instead .

No Zelle or PayPal

 

[Modizilla]

Sure, but the label implies that the moderators have already determined that I am sketchy(based on some evidence).. That is very different than "be cautious because he is not an established member." This is my opinion and I see that discussing it is getting me nowhere.

 

[e6n5j8o8i]

Just participate in forums. Get your messages past the minimum and it'll be gone. Please stop crying.

Well, it was put up for discussion. Can't fault people for discussing?

 

[e6n5j8o8i]

The evolution of the label

New Member
New Member
New Member | Think twice

If it went to:

Lurker

yes, it is meant to get people to think twice about new accounts. I even put highlights on Deposits, one way payments etc. I’m not going to accept, just let them learn the hard way for new users here. It’s a lot of money for buyers and relatively little OR none to sellers. It makes the board more active which people complain about or helps the site and also helps weed out some people. If you meet in person, it’s not a big deal.

Fair enough. Thanks for at least putting it out for comment - I think it shows you guys care about input from the group at least to hear different opinions.

 

[ikeo1]

Sure, but the label implies that the moderators have already determined that I am sketchy(based on some evidence).. That is very different than "be cautious because he is not an established member." This is my opinion and I see that discussing it is getting me nowhere.

I actually changed it, maybe this gets the point across without the bluntness of it

Well, it was put up for discussion. Can't fault people for discussing?

You can tell he’s fluffing, but that’s ok, it’s expected since it’s newly implemented. In a year, it’ll be standard.

 

[RocketF22]

I actually changed it, maybe this gets the point across without the bluntness of it

You can tell he’s fluffing, but that’s ok, it’s expected since it’s newly implemented. In a year, it’ll be standard.

Im not fluffing lol. But I paid my dues to not be branded as a new member by engaging in different conversations here. Most of the people who were upset about it, had it removed by the 3rd page.

 

[ikeo1]

Im not fluffing lol. But I paid my dues to not be branded as a new member by engaging in different conversations here. Most of the people who were upset about it, had it removed by the 3rd page.

I wasn’t talking about you, there’s some folks obviously padding the stats. That’s ok..

 

[Wolkenflieger]

My objection stems from the fact that it looks like the "website" or moderators have assessed your usage of the forum and have evaluated that you are sketchy...

My point exactly. It's a scarlet phrase (like the Scarlet Letter), and it smears all new members with the same sketchy "possible scammer" brush. The "New Member" label should already take care of that.

 

[RocketF22]

My point exactly. It's a scarlet phrase (like the Scarlet Letter), and it smears all new members with the same sketchy "possible scammer" brush. The "New Member" label should already take care of that.

The phrase was changed already

 

[ikeo1]

My point exactly. It's a scarlet phrase (like the Scarlet Letter), and it smears all new members with the same sketchy "possible scammer" brush. The "New Member" label should already take care of that.

New member doesn’t though, that’s been proven many times over.

 

[ikeo1]

The phrase was changed already

Hopefully it’s enough to get the point across, it might switch back though if people still getting scammed.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

New member doesn’t though, that’s been proven many times over.

I don't know that you've actually proved that. Are people on gun forums especially gullible? I think not. We could probably help people not get scammed without tarring all new members. I heard you changed it for now, and thank you for that.

Is there any Universe in which your warnings for new members would make you less gullible? Or, are you already a savvy critical-thinker who isn't easily scammed? I know it wouldn't make a difference for me. I'm already extremely vigilant about these things, but I'm also a dedicated critical-thinker and it's been a topic of interest for decades.

This is why I am very careful with whom I do business.

And, people will STILL get scammed. Gullible people really cannot be saved from these things with a simple warning, and some will simply learn the hard way.

How do you convince someone that pet psychics are frauds?

Answer; you can't. You can't make people smarter, especially not in a hurry. Why else would humans be irrational if they were more...rational?

Critical thinking is more than a marketplace skill, it's a life skill.

 

[ikeo1]

I don't know that you've actually proved that. Are people on gun forums especially gullible? I think not. We could probably help people not get scammed without tarring all new members.

I see it on my end, we’ve seen an increase in people getting scammed and I have to evaluate them all. I think you’re making a lot of assumptions based on data you don’t have.

Like I tell other people, why do you think I’d make this change if it wasn’t happening? I don’t like to waste time on things just to have people angry and moan about how we were cool but now we suck cause their flair changed

 

[Wolkenflieger]

I see it on my end, we’ve seen an increase in people getting scammed and I have to evaluate them all. I think you’re making a lot of assumptions based on data you don’t have.

Like I tell other people, why do you think I’d make this change if it wasn’t happening? I don’t like to waste time on things just to have people angry and moan about how we were cool but now we suck cause their flair changed

I'm a lifelong critical-thinker, and even if you're correct, it doesn't mean that your method has a good cost/benefit. Is it worth tarring all new members to save a few gullible noobs? I don't think so. Why not treat everyone like adults without the scare tactics?

We can prevent car fatalities by preventing everyone from driving too. There's always a cost/benefit calculus and we can't insulate everyone from every scam.

Granted, I KNOW you're trying to help and I applaud all of the work you've done. It's obvious that you care, and you're a skilled and switched-on moderator/owner, but at the end of the day you have to let the adults adult, and maybe reinforce best-practices. It's a cost/benefit thing.

As they say, "Buyer Beware". Caveat Emptor!

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

I think it’s funny that it’s the same dudes who are so vocally against any feature designed to protect the community from bad actors.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

I think it’s funny that it’s the same dudes who are so vocally against any feature designed to protect the community from bad actors.

I suppose you side with the gun-grabbers because they aim to save lives? Oh NO? Hoist by your own petard...again.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

I see it on my end, we’ve seen an increase in people getting scammed and I have to evaluate them all. I think you’re making a lot of assumptions based on data you don’t have.

Like I tell other people, why do you think I’d make this change if it wasn’t happening? I don’t like to waste time on things just to have people angry and moan about how we were cool but now we suck cause their flair changed

An effective solution isn't always the ideal solution.

Case in point, gun bans. Banning standard mags and suppressors. The goal is to save lives, but at what cost. Freedom?

The prosecution rests.

 

[RocketF22]

Its really not this serious to keep going on and on about why you dont like it. It doesnt even effect you. I can see new members being upset about it but why do you care so much?

And it's already been changed...again. I dont think there needs to be anymore discussion on this topic

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Its really not this serious to keep going on and on about why you dont like it. It doesnt even effect you. I can see new members being upset about it but why do you care so much?

In which Universe do you only care about that which directly affects you? I'm sure you're against a lot of practices that don't impact you directly.