[Closed] Staking forum

Maybe a standard etiquette that a stakee has to be vouched for by an established member who believes they are trustworthy?

Hi amplifyd,

I don't think such general restrictions make much sense because you can easily apply them on your own.
You can simply set limits for yourself like: "I won't stake a basic member or someone with less then 200 posts"

Cheers,

Pascal

banning them should work for gold+ scamers...

Originally posted by Pascal
Hi amplifyd,

I don't think such general restrictions make much sense because you can easily apply them on your own.
You can simply set limits for yourself like: "I won't stake a basic member or someone with less then 200 posts"

Cheers,

Pascal

Perhaps, however its still annoying to go through the 50% of posts where the people asking for stakes have bronze status and <50 posts.

know what you mean, but I don't think we should exclude anyone here
and in the end traffic is not that high, we still have about 10 day old posts on first page
so when you are active in the forum you pretty fast know the names of the guys you want to stake

minimising staking to gold + members will only be a disadvantage for the forum.
u can track players activity by going to
www.officialpokerrankings.com

Hi Guys,

Please keep posting your feedback. I will have a meeting with my colleagues tomorrow and will try to look possibilities/ solutions from all perspective.

Thank you as always for providing us with your comments and wanting to make the staking forum a better/improved place for our members.

Speak to you tomorrow
Ingrid

I agree that blocking lower status people and/or the ones with few posts is not a good idea, even person with few posts can be a good one to have a deal with.

I think there should be a template in the forum, which applicants/stakers should use when creating staking threads.

Something like:

In my opinion, it would be way easier to go through staking threads, because you would know where to look at. Now some people just write one long paragraph with all the info in it and to find out what's it about you need to read it all which consumes time and is quite annoying.

P.S. I could help you out with the template

A template would be cool, but only to make it easier to quickly skim the applications. I myself am not a big fan of restricting it to Pokerstrategy status, mainly because I'm bronze myself

In all fairness, most of the scammers you can look right through. I do agree some do some crafty work to deceive us all.

The best thing I could 'offer' is some system where one can see how many stakes a person has run and how positive the feedback was for the staker. I know there is a feedback thread for this, but let's be fair, no one uses that system to its potential. Without a doubt I find the Wall Of Shame a very good idea, but I'd like to see a Wall Of Fame too, with the Pokerstrategy screennames of people who can be trusted.

It would be good to have a reputation system for staking or smth. This way people can build trust/reputation.

Excluding bronze/silver members would kinda suck because not everyone plays tracked accounts, HOWEVER something needs to be done about some of the ridiculous staking threads. I mean seriously, I read one earlier and I had no clue what the guy even wanted?

The staking wall of shame should definitely be emphasised more, and should have a list of people on the front page of the wall w/ common screen names of scammers.

It might be an idea to restrict the forum to just regular English community members, sure it'll become a bit of a smaller area, but whilst volume of people staked will be lower, quality of stakes would be higher and perhaps there may even be more stakes since reputation of staking & ROI would be higher.

Perhaps also an idea to have someway to verify who a person actually is (do the accounts belong to them? do they live where they say they live? etc.)

Maybe some kind of way to review the staking applications before they are processed so that they can be shortlisted or something? I mean not to pick any out imparticular, but stuff like the following just spams up the section:
https://forums.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=131725

I mean I have no clue what the above is talking about, he provides absolutely no detail as to what he wants to play etc. and quite frankly just spams up the staking section.

Just a few ideas, ill try and think of some more.

Originally posted by NIVEKii
I know there is a feedback thread for this, but let's be fair, no one uses that system to its potential.

And that's the problem, if people would look at it more seriously, they would post(sorry, i haven't posted there too) their feedback. I think that stakee should also take initiative and ask his backers to post a feedback after the deal has finished(stakees references should post there too).

There's actually no need for a Wall Of Fame, the ones, who already had succesful deals, always tell that(and usually post a link or uses same thread) so you already know about that person. The question here is how to easily filter through 1st time posters in staking forum

Also one other point, regarding vouches, I honestly don't think mods/admins should vouch for people like:
https://forums.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=130260

Obviously it's kind of the moderator here to give the guy a vouch, but if for example this guy wasn't as trusted as the moderator had assumed, the moderator could potentially have cost people who were unsure about staking in the first place, some money because they thought that the stake was legit etc.

Originally posted by fusionpk
Maybe some kind of way to review the staking applications before they are processed so that they can be shortlisted or something? I mean not to pick any out imparticular, but stuff like the following just spams up the section:
https://forums.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=131725

This sounds good If it's technically possible...

Originally posted by fusionpk
Also one other point, regarding vouches, I honestly don't think mods/admins should vouch for people like:
https://forums.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=130260

Obviously it's kind of the moderator here to give the guy a vouch, but if for example this guy wasn't as trusted as the moderator had assumed, the moderator could potentially have cost people who were unsure about staking in the first place, some money because they thought that the stake was legit etc.

That's not bad, BUT the fact that the person who vouches is a moderator/admin shouldn't affect stakers decision.

I made a suggestion a couple of days ago about online screen names needing to be a mandatory part of your stake request.

No rule for posting screen names in staking forum?

Well, I'm not sure it's fair to request the screen name. Some people don't like giving out all their screennames on public forums but still sell shares.

I definately see the issue but there is always gonna be scammers when there is "free money" up for grabs. I personally would just never bother stake someone unless I knew them, for the obvious riscs that follow.

It's a tricky subject

Originally posted by Bigniux

Originally posted by fusionpk
Maybe some kind of way to review the staking applications before they are processed so that they can be shortlisted or something? I mean not to pick any out imparticular, but stuff like the following just spams up the section:
https://forums.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?threadid=131725

This sounds good If it's technically possible...

We have spoke about this following suggestion and of course there are pros and cons. Some fantastic feedback in the thread and I am sure we will get the most +ev solution for stakers, stakees, moderators and PokerStrategy. We are here to provide a service that you want/enjoy and will endeavour to do the best we can.

Thanks again.

Hey folks,

while it is technically possible to essentially moderate comments (meaning a moderator has to approve them before they become visible), we don't see this as a viable option, as it would basically require one person to do that and nothing else nonstop - and please keep in mind, we're mainly a poker school, not a staking platform

We do, however, appreciate your concerns about the current state of the staking forum and we will increase the level of moderation in there to clean up the current mess and keep it tidy in the future.

Regards,

Hadi