[Omniscient]

Some recent events are now forcing me to officially implement some policy changes.

This was previous policy: Marketplace Violations
7. Refusing to use the HF Contract system with a member you want to deal with.

Updated:
7. Anyone refusing to use HF Contracts will be closed.
8. Anyone refusing to use a Middle-man in HF Contracts will be closed. MM has to be paid by the party requesting it.
9. All off-site deals must still use an HF Contract, if not, you will be closed.
10. If a pattern of avoiding Contracts is apparent, you will be closed.

Basically it's time to go back to previous policy about proactively encouraging on-site deals and the use of HF Contracts. Why? Because avoiding Contracts is exactly how scammers get victims. I nearly never hear complaints about deals when an HF Contract is used and with the Contract it's more clear about who is in the wrong on the deal. While I know many feel the Contract system is just an additional step that's an annoyance, I have to weigh the cost of scams to the reputation of the site.

Recently had a contact about someone rather upset and accusing a handful of members of being involved in a scammer ring. I'm accused of helping them of course if I do nothing short of closing their accounts. But how can I justify that under policy based on some random member making a vocal complaint? This is why we have policies, they aren't just guidelines for members, they are guidelines for myself and Staff too. Without policy this place would be chaos. I don't want scammers on the site. I don't want members being scammed. Scams though are always a two-way street, the scammer and the victim. I don't understand why HF gets the blame of an off-site scam but we do. They don't contact the admins of Discord or Telegram, they contact me.

Another issue is false accusations. This would not be the first time that one or more members have a vendetta and use the scammer accusation attempting to get their account closed. That's why I need an HF Contract. I have no proof that two parties were in a deal without them. And current policy very clear that we won't get involved in Deal Disputes without a Valid Active HF Contract.

If you think my policies are overly harsh keep in mind we literally have threat-actors actively finding victims on HF and I'm pretty sure BKRandy and Blunt are on the site right now under reputable accounts just waiting for a Big Score. I'm trying to protect all members.

Stop being pricks and use HF Contracts if you're a buyer and sellers, if you don't accept a Contract, you will be CLOSED.

Thank you.

[Hero]

Not your fault that members deal offsite and get scammed. It's a way to teach them something for life. Stupid way to lose money, but only if they don't learn from it.

[Sholi]

Does it apply to payments made through autobuy links on the thread?

Like do you still need contracts when the user does not use it?

[MFUK]

Okay So if someone comes to me to buy something that ain't on HF I have to get them to them to make a contract ?

[Omniscient]

But what does it have to do with 5 guys getting closed with zero proof? These are not scam ring leaders they are social shitposters and technologists with tenure... Meanwhile the complaint comes from some 140 post (all begging btw) rat? It just seems very strange from the surface.

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.

Does it apply to payments made through autobuy links on the thread?

Like do you still need contracts when the user does not use it?

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.

[Omniscient]

Okay So if someone comes to me to buy something that ain't on HF I have to get them to them to make a contract ?

If they aren't an HF member then no Contract required. If the sale originated from another source, that's fine too. But if the buyer does want to initiate and HF Contract, you better say yes because refusal is now a policy to close your account for the violation.

This isn't gonna stop all scams but I do hope it leads to less scams.

[SwimmingPool]

Good stuff. Should make it a bit more difficult for scammers to keep accounts.

[Clue]

If they aren't an HF member then no Contract required. If the sale originated from another source, that's fine too. But if the buyer does want to initiate and HF Contract, you better say yes because refusal is now a policy to close your account for the violation.

This isn't gonna stop all scams but I do hope it leads to less scams.

Would the only way to enforce this be for the buyer to send you proof of denial of contract?

[Cloudy]

I don't think I'd ever deal without a contract even with "friends" that I "trust". Just easier that way and easier to prove if anything goes bad. Good change.

[Omniscient]

Would the only way to enforce this be for the buyer to send you proof of denial of contract?

Or a cancelled initiated HF Contract...or a pattern of that. Unofficially it's been a policy that those avoiding Contracts are potential scammers and this just makes it more official.

[Komodo]

Cool idea, thanks for implementing.

I did notice something the other day I believe can help with small / direct 1 time trades.

Having the option to make a contract without a Thread Link is currently impossible. I see some people use random threads they have made or they just open a thread and immediately close it for the sale.

[Omniscient]

Cool idea, thanks for implementing.

I did notice something the other day I believe can help with small / direct 1 time trades.

Having the option to make a contract without a Thread Link is currently impossible. I see some people use random threads they have made or they just open a thread and immediately close it for the sale.

Good point, I too have seen that behavior. I may need to add additional requirements of the thread.

[Pr0m3th3us]

I like it. I thought all HF venders should of been using the contract system anyways.

[Komodo]

Good point, I too have seen that behavior. I may need to add additional requirements of the thread.

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.

[Prawnster]

I make sure to use contracts with anyone that I do deals with from HF haha even if they contact me off-site, definitely deters potential scammers.

Even if I've known them for a good while - If the first point of contact originally was HF, we using a contract if they want any goods or services.

Good change, thanks Omni.

---

Good point, I too have seen that behavior. I may need to add additional requirements of the thread.

+1 on the "must have a thread" requirement, instead of spamming threads I tend to just use the thread ID on one of my existing threads (whichever one is at the top), if we had an option of not requiring threads would be great imo.