I realise jsp has a alot of "scammers", thieves, and i want to form a forum in witch they can redeme themselfs by post services, i know i havent been with jsp long
and i can already tell the defualts, and i want to help change it, this is how, the "locked" profile must post services free of charge or low pay and link to a mediator.
they will then do a number of services depending on the reason they were locked, inorder to keep this legit i think it should be complete free of charge, ex: rushing,
rush a few people and have them recommend you to a mediator witch whoms profile will be linked to thread, i know it sounds like alot of work mainly for the mediators
but i think it will clean up jsp real well. tell me what you think and more ideas are always ok.

This post was edited by magerange836 on Aug 28 2011 05:56pm

hmm it should be.

No. Doing good deeds doesn't take away from the fact that you scammed. To get unlocked you must repay all scams then you can be considered for an unlock. I agree with the way it is currently run.

its not mentioned on how many deeds tho, whether the person decides it "worth" being unlocked or not, maybe they have a high amount and want to get that amount over the weekend, they should be able to,
and, not able to just unlock willy nilly givin 1 chance and then its perma.

I'd have to agree. Doing good deeds doesn't make a person learn from their bad decisions and mistakes. Either they pay back every scammed .01 fg and 'prove' they know better or stay locked.

(Only exception should be for people wrongly accused/ framed or someone locked because they share an IP with someone greedy)

People should not do good deeds in order to get unlocked. (which will not happen anyways)
People should do good deeds because they feel like helping others.

Being unlocked should require full payment of all scams and nothing less.

Voted No, sorry.



You cannot know if it actualy is another person or the same person that is on the same IP.
Therfore both will be locked, and in order to get unlocked all scams on same IP must be paid.

This post was edited by FantaExotic on Aug 28 2011 06:20pm

(Only exception should be for people wrongly accused/ framed or someone locked because they share an IP with someone greedy)[/QUOTE]

this is what i was kinda going at, see i was wrongly accused of being a mutli to someone on my friends list.

I forgot to mention, being backed by sufficient and valid enough proof. Otherwise it's nearly impossible to prove how 'innocent' someone is online.

This post was edited by Secret on Aug 28 2011 06:21pm

ye, i guess i see where the people are coming from, my mistake just having an idea.

IP sharing has nothing to do with being tagged; guilt by association is decided by the guilt of the association, not by IP address; IP doesn't even deserve mention here. And to disambiguate 'good deeds', the deed is not good unless the person has really made a change. Because doing acts that benefit others doesn't mean that the person who performs the acts is doing it out of goodwill, such acts are impossible to judge in terms of 'good' or 'bad' in their own right. A good person could have a lapse and scam, too, but that out-of-character act is what matters in terms of red tags. To be sure, I don't mind the idea of a forum for people with red tags to try to redeem themselves; in fact, one already exists. However, that forum isn't about posts or services. It just exists to start the process.

Further, if someone does something to get a Scammer tag, I don't think that person should know exactly how the tag can be removed or how long that might take; otherwise, the person could exploit the system just to get un-tagged. Instead, I think it should remain a process and a mystery. Good deeds--truly good deeds--should be a part of the process. But any special place designed to specify, invoke, promote and judge those good deeds will be problematic if it's too specific or narrow. So the suggestion in this topic doesn't work for me in its current form. Maybe there's some other way to frame the idea that's at heart here (namely, redemption through good deeds). I think the current system works really well, exactly because it enables the possibility of getting un-tagged without giving away all of the ingredients. It allows the person who made a mistake or who did something wrong to start making the right choices. In the end getting un-tagged is up to the person who got the red tag(s); he or she just doesn't always realize it. It isn't a conscious choice, because it involves doing enough (whatever it is) to be redeemed. I wouldn't want it any other way.



Don't fault yourself for trying to help others

This post was edited by RewtheBrave on Aug 28 2011 06:33pm