Restoring the confidence at the Invites Section

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.
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.

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.

[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...