[Carl Elias]

I think it makes more sense to remove the thread link necessity.

Less restrictions hopefully means more people will use contracts if they're easier.

If me and you are talking in chat and want to make a trade it's way easier to just throw up a contract and make the trade than make an entire thread for it.

I've only used the contract system once, but I agree that I have seen random threads made solely for the contract to be made. Maybe there can be a button on the chat or PM's that initiates a direct contract without a thread? Or a step further, the author of a thread would see a button on each post of their thread (similar to the quick love or PM buttons) that would allow them to initiate a contract based off the PID?? Just a thought to make it easier than needing the thread link and it still link the contract to some conversation on-site.

---

Another thing I wanted to throw out there (this may already be a thing) is possibly forcing users to read & acknowledge the Contract System rules before even accessing the Marketplace threads? I feel like this information is shared when members join, but HF has A LOT of features, and it is easy for new members to miss important things like this. This could be beneficial for users who do not use contracts earlier on when they join HF, and forget about it and get scammed.This leads to my next point

Natural consequence probably for not checking the rules, but an occasional reminder that the user must read, check a box & click accept may be useful and shows HF is putting a proactive measure by increasing awareness. Maybe all members must acknowledge it yearly if they are active in the market/high-scam-risk forums. This would also help give HF more points to use if a victim reaches out after acknowledging those rules and still got scammed for working off site. Just a thought -- not that 90% of the people who get that pop up will actually read it.....

[Blazin]

I always ask customers to open a contract. Good update.

[Artisan]

Thanks for going back to the previous policy. I have always been an advocate for contracts and always will be.

[Sholi]

Nobody was closed on "zero proof", I took a precautionary action (bans) while I reviewed. I believe an ongoing social engineering attempt to actually have these accounts closed has been going on. This is why I did mention threat-actors like BKRandy because it's entirely possible a scammer ring is operating on HF targeting members off-site. It's a weakness in policy I'm always struggling with.


Autobuy Links should be part of HF Contract Templates for Vendors. The new policy is about intentionally avoiding them. So you should be fine if using Templates.

I meant direct links to websites. I remember that being allowed on sales threads.

So say there is a contract button, but there is also a direct link to the website in the thread design. Purchases could be made without the contract.

[Endorphins]

Love this enforcement. Receipt is very important guys! Sure it won't make you not get scammed or lose money but at least the scammer will get his record tainted.

[vyactor]

Seems like more safer way to make deals. Every people who contacts me off-site I make sure we create a contract before proceeding.

[jcole]

Not a problem for people that follow the rules. Thanks for looking out for the best interest of buyers and sellers.

[Omniscient]

I think it makes more sense to remove the thread link necessity.

Initially it was not required but over time it became obvious we needed it. Mainly because without the requirement people can make fake Contracts to raise their Credibility too easily. I suppose if nonsense threads are being created then that's now what they are doing too. So the next step is to ensure any threads linked to a Contract have some validity to them or maybe something more creative.

I've only used the contract system once, but I agree that I have seen random threads made solely for the contract to be made.

An adjustment is obviously needed in that regard. Coming soon. I have to think on the problem more and consider a good way to deal with it.

I meant direct links to websites. I remember that being allowed on sales threads.

That's Vendors only and is still allowed. No change there. Again this is about intentionally avoiding Contracts. Generally speaking the issue is nearly never the Vendors group. Yesterday bans had only one Vendor.

[Confound]

So quick question to clarify - MM is not required in a contract, but if one of the parties in the contract requests a MM, the other party cannot refuse not using the MM. Is that correct?

What if you are also a MM on site?

[Omniscient]

So quick question to clarify - MM is not required in a contract, but if one of the parties in the contract requests a MM, the other party cannot refuse not using the MM. Is that correct?

What if you are also a MM on site?

Correct, but the one party requesting it must pay the MM fee too. And I don't see how it's different if the seller also offers MM service. You'd obviously need a 3rd party to be a MM.

[Py_Dev]

Great addition to the forums here. It makes me feel uncomfortable when people refuse contract.

[Game]

Great addition.

To me, if you refuse a contract, it’s because you don’t want to be accountable for the deal and that’s an instant red flag. You either don’t trust your product and don’t want to risk getting a negative review, or you’re looking to scam.

[Komodo]

Initially it was not required but over time it became obvious we needed it. Mainly because without the requirement people can make fake Contracts to raise their Credibility too easily. I suppose if nonsense threads are being created then that's now what they are doing too. So the next step is to ensure any threads linked to a Contract have some validity to them or maybe something more creative.


An adjustment is obviously needed in that regard. Coming soon. I have to think on the problem more and consider a good way to deal with it.


That's Vendors only and is still allowed. No change there. Again this is about intentionally avoiding Contracts. Generally speaking the issue is nearly never the Vendors group. Yesterday bans had only one Vendor.

What if contracts without threads didn’t give you a credibility rating?

I get what you’re saying, but I think the easier the contract system is the more people will use it.

For example convo business deals, or deals where they don’t want to make a thread and it be public knowledge what they’re buying, etc.

[Dragosthethird]

Correct, but the one party requesting it must pay the MM fee too. And I don't see how it's different if the seller also offers MM service. You'd obviously need a 3rd party to be a MM.

Would we be allowed to refuse to use a certain middle man. Not saying outright refusing to use a middleman but if the person who requests the middle man decides to use a middle man that I don't trust would I be closed for refusing that middle man and saying I want another one.

[Binance]

So you mean those sellers you see with hundreds of expired contracts with new members who were initiated but never accepted only to lure them offsite will get clapped?
this is great news.