Restoring the confidence at the Invites Section

[Cabalo]

As many of the older members around here might have noticed, during the past year or so, there has been a dramatic drop in the users' confidence when they decide to offer their invites in public.
This comes from the fact that FST is a site with open registrations, and a lot of people create many accounts to fit their own agendas. It's quite hard to control this, when most of them lurk in the shadows and attack via PM, and ask for the invite, without being scrutinized in public.
Let's face it, some sites don't care at all about what users do with their invites, and some do care a lot. To each, their own.
The perfect situation would always be when you invite someone you know, but as we know, it's an utopia.
The fact is that if we removed the giveaways section, it would be done somewhere else. Same happens with the trading, but that's a whole other issue not to be brought to this thread, and that will be addressed in a nearby future in its proper section.

The bottom line is this: we are considering being more active when helping members to decide whom they should give their invites to. And we have a situation to discuss with you all, so that we can tweak it, before practicing it.

Here it goes:
The member A decides to do a giveaway and offer one invite.
Members X and Y apply for the giveaway accordingly to the conditions A decided earlier.
Member Z decides to contact A via PM and not to expose himself in public.

Member A reaches the conclusion he doesn't know whom to pick.
He can then contact one of the mods here and get a return status about each member that would fit into any of these categories:


Unique account
Dupe account of some previous one
Proxied or shared IP


This obviously won't solve the issue of the bad invitees who won't use the tracker, but it will help the members to make a choice having certain conditions under their control. This is done to help the members who want to share invites, but who are in the wild when they see members they never heard of, or that seem suspicious.

So, bring on the fight. Is this a good idea, a crappy one, what would you change or add? This is not even nearly a foolproof situation, but it's a measure to help minimize certain... hazards that emerge.

This could be fine tuned with some hacks to it.


Youde have to be the thread starter.
Thread would mention giveaway is subject to inquiry.
Youde click a button below thier avatar.
It would be between the bt rep and the report button.
That request would then post to a private section.
The section would be similar to the report section.
The member who requested and Staff could read it.
The basics would be posted for thread starter.


This would require that a hack to be installed.
Not sure when rossco would be able to this though...

[pone44]

That is a good idea. Is a step forward and will help with all the dupe account requests.Maybe give others peace of mind inviting someone in a giveaway or doing one at all.

members will do giveaways,trade no matter what. better to look out for deception and things that could get someone in trouble like inviting a member to a site they were disabled from.

[Albo Da Kid]

I wonder why this wasn't thought of before, it's a great idea.

[Frankthetank1]

I think stricter rules for one would really help. Like no trading, account swapping, have low level invites and make people wait untill ten reps for other invites. I like your idea though. How about implamenr a negative rep is also another idea. Forinstance I invite someone they not only get banned from the site but also never even rep me on the first place. On the other hand I invite someone else and they become a VIP user the next day. But why can't we let people know about the bad. Maybe we should rep the invitee too but a month later.

[Glitterstep]

Its a great idea,but this means more WORK for you guys...

and cabalo looking forward to hear more from you as a Mod ;)

[brightsid]

You know my opinion about dupe accounts and things like that.If it is just a status answer (yes or no) probably there isn't a problem. I know you care about privacy so there is a thick line here.
On the other hand there is nothing wrong to use share ip or proxy to access FST is it?
Even dupe accounts are allowed so since a lot of things are happening in private something like that would only help the newcomers who want to giveaway invites and don't have enough "friends" to ask in pm

[ovisan]

Go on Cabalo, I see you are all shiny now... tell us about who gives you the right to accuse someone in public without proofs.

[awaited]

It is a great idea, should definately be implemented.

[kooltilldend]

ooh Cabalo's a mod now?...nice so now I have more contacts in the staff :happy:

seriously though, the idea's great but it does mean more work on the part of the staff and the inviter...and although, the staff maybe willing to chip in the extra effort...i'm not too sure, if the inviter would be willing to do the same

[thefinger]

Good idea. :fst:

[db_la_23]

gr8 idea keep it up

[Fishy2]

I think its potentially a great idea even though i don’t really know much about trading and invites, surely anything that would help prevent people abusing any system would be good?

However there is also a case for privacy, maybe anyone that wanted some privacy should go through a staff member only? If that were implemented would that stop the issue of people not wanting to be “seen in public”? :naughty:

[Cabalo]

well, about the privacy thing, only the user in question would know there is a dupe, but no names would be revealed of course.
besides, one can have multiple accounts, but only one will have working PM's, so asking for an invite can only necessarily be done via that same account. Absolutely no other info is returned no matter how hard the user ask.
about the shared IP's, there are quite a lot of them here as it would be expected. After all we will only be telling the guy who is offering the invite that the requester has a shared IP, and let him make his own mind. No other judgement is made.
Besides, no judgements are made by us when doing these actions, they're just helpers to the other users, so that they are not totally blindfolded in some occasions.

[QPD]

The ideea is great!!! I ask Cabalo to allow me sending him a Pm with a few sugestions.

[kooltilldend]

why would you wanna send him PM for suggestions? post it here as I'm sure others would like to hear them too

[Swift]

Sticky !

[Totti]

Sounds like a really great idea.... it will absolutely give the inviters a lot more confidence to do giveaways and will wash away the riff raff :) i just hope this will work and not fall apart like the middleman has.....

[QPD]

After a second thougt, i belive Cabalo made it clear about privacy.So my PM is no longer important.I was thinking of a scale of trust based on activity, rep points, activity on other trackers and so on.

[brightsid]

In order to ask a question like that there must be a pending public giveaway or anyone has the right to ask the staff about other members?

[Funkin']

I also think it's a good idea. But will this work both ways? Meaning, if I see someone make a request, and if I'm able to help with an invite and he appears to be a descent member here, can I contact staff and ask if he's a dupe account?

I'm sure others here have came across this problem when wanting to invite someone, you just weren't positive if you should or not.

[n00bz0r]

undoubtedly a step in the right direction.. hope ya guys are able to handle the 'load'..
btw.. gratz on turnin blue, cabalo ;)

[IdolEyes787]

Maybe I'm a glass half empty kind of guy but I don't see what prevented anyone from doing that before.

Also there is absolutely no guarantee that the " checked on" member couldn't simply have a dupe account through a server or something so you are only really feeding someone a false sense of security.

If determining who is "safe" and who is not was that simple then I doubt that tracker staff ( who are a lot more tech savvy than I at least am) would themselves have such a hard time tracking down traders and dupes.

No offense like ,just the world as my tiny brain sees it.:idunno:

[Totti]

Maybe I'm a glass half empty kind of guy but I don't see what prevented anyone from doing that before.

Also there is absolutely no guarantee that the " checked on" member couldn't simply have a dupe account through a server or something so you are only really feeding someone a false sense of security.

If determining who is "safe" and who is not was that simple then I doubt that tracker staff ( who are a lot more tech savvy than I at least am) would themselves have such a hard time tracking down traders and dupes.

No offense like ,just the world as my tiny brain sees it.:idunno:

You are right with what you say but their is never going to be a way of filtering out ALL the bad members but this way will at least bring down the number to some degree and will give a "sense" of security in the giveaway section and a positive vibe that is missing there now

[ovisan]

I wonder what the 'mighty' Cabalo's got to say about those who publicly accuse other fst users of trading without proper proofs. And also about those who ask others to do that in their place and then hide behind the curtains

[The_Martinator]

Maybe I'm a glass half empty kind of guy but I don't see what prevented anyone from doing that before.

Also there is absolutely no guarantee that the " checked on" member couldn't simply have a dupe account through a server or something so you are only really feeding someone a false sense of security.

If determining who is "safe" and who is not was that simple then I doubt that tracker staff ( who are a lot more tech savvy than I at least am) would themselves have such a hard time tracking down traders and dupes.

No offense like ,just the world as my tiny brain sees it.:idunno:

A false sense of security is better than no sense at all, imo. Fact is that GAs are not a safe way to invite people. In fact I know a few people who have lots of invites and aren't even looking for anyone to invite to places (even those that are generous with invites) because they're uber paranoid (can 't blame them tbh). This forum has a GA section and if this could help "revive it", then that's all good.

As for the idea itself, apart from what Idol said I see nothing wrong with it. I have no idea how much work it would pose for the staffers involved (I imagine not a lot individually but at a big forum it starts to add up).

PS: My suggestion, the staffer in question could add his personal opinion on the person "investigated" (if he has one, that is).

PPS: I think it was meant for REQs also, Funkin. Semantics, gotta hate 'em. :lol:

[Frankthetank1]

nothing is going to be fool proof but making it harder on them to cheat and steal can't hurt. Also people that give out invites need to ask for profile links and prove the ss,s are real. Does anyone do that?


Maybe I'm a glass half empty kind of guy but I don't see what prevented anyone from doing that before.

Also there is absolutely no guarantee that the " checked on" member couldn't simply have a dupe account through a server or something so you are only really feeding someone a false sense of security.

If determining who is "safe" and who is not was that simple then I doubt that tracker staff ( who are a lot more tech savvy than I at least am) would themselves have such a hard time tracking down traders and dupes.

No offense like ,just the world as my tiny brain sees it.:idunno:

[Cabalo]

A false sense of security is better than no sense at all, imo. Fact is that GAs are not a safe way to invite people. In fact I know a few people who have lots of invites and aren't even looking for anyone to invite to places (even those that are generous with invites) because they're uber paranoid (can 't blame them tbh). This forum has a GA section and if this could help "revive it", then that's all good.

As for the idea itself, apart from what Idol said I see nothing wrong with it. I have no idea how much work it would pose for the staffers involved (I imagine not a lot individually but at a big forum it starts to add up).

PS: My suggestion, the staffer in question could add his personal opinion on the person "investigated" (if he has one, that is).

PPS: I think it was meant for REQs also, Funkin. Semantics, gotta hate 'em. :lol:
I think that doing that would be putting to much emphasis on our personal view on the issue, and easily we could be considered biased, for a world of reasons. Better to stay away from that. :ermm:
Besides, when the users post in public, it's part of this forums' history, everyone sooner or later will be scrutinized by some other members. It has worked in the past, it's a mechanic that helps the OP when he leaves the thread open time enough. Unless he is one of those that is rushing his invites to get quick rep points.


I also think it's a good idea. But will this work both ways? Meaning, if I see someone make a request, and if I'm able to help with an invite and he appears to be a descent member here, can I contact staff and ask if he's a dupe account?

I'm sure others here have came across this problem when wanting to invite someone, you just weren't positive if you should or not.
Good question. It could be taken in advantage by some users to try to obtain additional info on some other members, even if they were never willingly in the mood to invite him. I guess it would have to be analyzed situation by situation.


Maybe I'm a glass half empty kind of guy but I don't see what prevented anyone from doing that before.

Also there is absolutely no guarantee that the " checked on" member couldn't simply have a dupe account through a server or something so you are only really feeding someone a false sense of security.

If determining who is "safe" and who is not was that simple then I doubt that tracker staff ( who are a lot more tech savvy than I at least am) would themselves have such a hard time tracking down traders and dupes.

No offense like ,just the world as my tiny brain sees it.:idunno:
True. but i never said we would take any responsibility if we were fooled. At least, we've tried to help. We're not foolproof and love beer.

[The_Martinator]

I get that part Cabalo. I figure the user requesting you to look into someone will know that an opinion will always be biased. It has to be taken as such, but that doesn't mean you can't get anything from it. I guess you have a point, though, as most people would consider the words of a mod as law. :P

[Cabalo]

Precisely. And then we would take all the blame if something went wrong.
I also hope that everyone will understand that the result of the query is not the main factor they should take in account, but a small helper.

[RealitY]

As many of the older members around here might have noticed, during the past year or so, there has been a dramatic drop in the users' confidence when they decide to offer their invites in public.
This comes from the fact that FST is a site with open registrations, and a lot of people create many accounts to fit their own agendas. It's quite hard to control this, when most of them lurk in the shadows and attack via PM, and ask for the invite, without being scrutinized in public.
Let's face it, some sites don't care at all about what users do with their invites, and some do care a lot. To each, their own.
The perfect situation would always be when you invite someone you know, but as we know, it's an utopia.
The fact is that if we removed the giveaways section, it would be done somewhere else. Same happens with the trading, but that's a whole other issue not to be brought to this thread, and that will be addressed in a nearby future in its proper section.

The bottom line is this: we are considering being more active when helping members to decide whom they should give their invites to. And we have a situation to discuss with you all, so that we can tweak it, before practicing it.

Here it goes:
The member A decides to do a giveaway and offer one invite.
Members X and Y apply for the giveaway accordingly to the conditions A decided earlier.
Member Z decides to contact A via PM and not to expose himself in public.

Member A reaches the conclusion he doesn't know whom to pick.
He can then contact one of the mods here and get a return status about each member that would fit into any of these categories:


Unique account
Dupe account of some previous one
Proxied or shared IP


This obviously won't solve the issue of the bad invitees who won't use the tracker, but it will help the members to make a choice having certain conditions under their control. This is done to help the members who want to share invites, but who are in the wild when they see members they never heard of, or that seem suspicious.
This could be fine tuned with some hacks to it.


Youde have to be the thread starter.
Youde click a button below thier avatar.
It would be between the bt rep and the report button.
That request would then post to a private section.
The section would be similar to the report section.
The member who requested and Staff could read it.
The basics would be posted for thread starter.


This would require that a hack to be installed.
Not sure when rossco would be able to this though...

[ovisan]

You always admire what you really don't understand.

[sez]

The idea is well founded though its obviously liable to abuse.But I figure you guys are adept enough to tell the legit from the phony check requests.

Aside from the aforementioned suggestions I think its also a good idea if you let the party being checked know that they are being checked.It not only gives them a chance to back out of the invite application if they are indeed going to turn out albatross but also avails an opportunity for you guys to hear a second side of a story that might as well not add up to the first one.All in all it serves to ease your job.

As for long term sustainability,I like to be the optimistic type but I think with this one its gonna reach a point where it'll be too much work combined with a host of other wearisome factors that will eventually lead you guys into ditching the idea or adjust it to be material for a select few sites.

[hagckz0r]

I appreciate the idea, though I don't believe it would give some shocking results, besides .. giveaways on FST are pathetic or I am not the giveaway dude.

Well I suppose, it could be a start :D

[Cabalo]

This could be fine tuned with some hacks to it.


Youde have to be the thread starter.
Youde click a button below thier avatar.
It would be between the bt rep and the report button.
That request would then post to a private section.
The section would be similar to the report section.
The member who requested and Staff could read it.
The basics would be posted for thread starter.


This would require that a hack to be installed.
Not sure when rossco would be able to this though...
great! That would fully automate the process and keep it clean for everyone involved.

[tesco]

As many of the older members around here might have noticed, during the past year or so, there has been a dramatic drop in the users' confidence when they decide to offer their invites in public.
This comes from the fact that FST is a site with open registrations, and a lot of people create many accounts to fit their own agendas. It's quite hard to control this, when most of them lurk in the shadows and attack via PM, and ask for the invite, without being scrutinized in public.
Let's face it, some sites don't care at all about what users do with their invites, and some do care a lot. To each, their own.
The perfect situation would always be when you invite someone you know, but as we know, it's an utopia.
The fact is that if we removed the giveaways section, it would be done somewhere else. Same happens with the trading, but that's a whole other issue not to be brought to this thread, and that will be addressed in a nearby future in its proper section.

The bottom line is this: we are considering being more active when helping members to decide whom they should give their invites to. And we have a situation to discuss with you all, so that we can tweak it, before practicing it.

Here it goes:
The member A decides to do a giveaway and offer one invite.
Members X and Y apply for the giveaway accordingly to the conditions A decided earlier.
Member Z decides to contact A via PM and not to expose himself in public.

Member A reaches the conclusion he doesn't know whom to pick.
He can then contact one of the mods here and get a return status about each member that would fit into any of these categories:


Unique account
Dupe account of some previous one
Proxied or shared IP


This obviously won't solve the issue of the bad invitees who won't use the tracker, but it will help the members to make a choice having certain conditions under their control. This is done to help the members who want to share invites, but who are in the wild when they see members they never heard of, or that seem suspicious.
This could be fine tuned with some hacks to it.


Youde have to be the thread starter.
Youde click a button below thier avatar.
It would be between the bt rep and the report button.
That request would then post to a private section.
The section would be similar to the report section.
The member who requested and Staff could read it.
The basics would be posted for thread starter.


This would require that a hack to be installed.
Not sure when rossco would be able to this though...
Not for a while.
I'm not writing anything new for vB3, and there's higher priorities in the vb4 todo list atm.

[kukushka]

idk, maybe i'm the only one who did this, but for me it feels much more comfortable to ask profile links with verifying that they're actually belong to the guy who asks on common trackers, so if something will go wrong, i could report the guy to staff at the trackers he mentioned. maybe it would make sense to implement system to check on guys even if giveway holder don't have no tracker that the possible inviter belongs to.
but the thing is i have some hesitations that the battle for activity in this section is a bit lost and reform won't revive it... won't like to see cabalo's efforts wasted in vain so gl

[Cabalo]

Here goes a bump.

[cinephilia]

why not simply make a guide about cautions to take before giving an invite ?

[Cabalo]

why not simply make a guide about cautions to take before giving an invite ?
Do you think anyone would read it?
(ok, it was a rhetorical question)

[brightsid]

all this new refuges atmosphere makes things worse

[pone44]

If they don't read it then at least it is there for them to see, it's on them. Or put some kind of penalty (loss of request privileges,something)for breaking another members trust? There would have to be proof, no BS. That is just a thought.




why not simply make a guide about cautions to take before giving an invite ?
Do you think anyone would read it?
(ok, it was a rhetorical question)

Could help the more naive members. I had a buddy start posting here and am glad I told him how things are with invites, etc because he would be lost. Would not know about the politics. It would not hurt. Most would not need it but at least if someone says "i did not know that" then we can direct them to the guide like sites do when a member breaks the rules. Thing is that the forum is dealing with people from different sites but they all have similar rules, requirements. Could be useless or save someone new to forums a lot of bashing, bans. :P