💡 Introduce a marketplace rule where payment must be propertionate to the work requested. For exa...

[mossy frigate]

Please discuss this idea civilly, don't forget to vote on this idea in #📝︱server-suggestions!

[unique hollow]

^ Users will not receive warnings for this, but only reminders, unless those reminders are ignored.

[muted tinsel]

Good idea but very hard to enforce and review of peoples offers will be subjective, therefore different depending on which mod is doing it

[unique hollow]

Maybe setting a minimum pay of like R$500 or $1.75 per task could help.

[muted tinsel]

already is implemented

[unique hollow]

Nope! That's just for the entire post. It's not enforced per task. I was also thinking of enforcing different minimums on a per skill basis (e.g: scripters 1k, builders 1.5k, etc)

[bold juniper]

whats proportionate is entirely subjective

and itd just complicate the marketplace more than it is right now. people already have problems with making the price above 500r, imagine if there were 5 different cost categories and theyd have to guess which their work falls into

the idea itself isnt bad but itd be near impossible to execute, at least without major drawbacks

[unique hollow]

1. Explicitly enforce a R$500/$1.75 per skill requirement (rather than just for the entire post). Believe this is already the case, but it's not explicitly outlined.
2. Proportionate is indeed subjective, hence not insta-warning for this. Instead, just giving reminders and/or deleting the post.
3. "imagine if there were 5 different cost categories and theyd have to guess" - This isn't the case and you generally speaking know the skills you're hiring in your post anyways, so a requirement on a skill-basis is actually pretty enforcable.
   It's not 'near impossible to execute', even taking drawbacks into consideration. You could gradually implement new rules to the marketplace at a slow pace to ease users into it.

[bold juniper]

still reminding / deleting the posts does give space to subjectivity

what someone would delete another person wouldnt

and what do you mean by the 3.? you as the user?

[unique hollow]

That's why a per-skill requirement would maybe be better suited.

[bold juniper]

some people undervalue themselves, thats why they put <500

or want (nearly) free shit

[unique hollow]

As a user, you know the skills that you're hiring. If there are explicit rules stating that the minimum pay for, say, a scripter is 1K, then you have to explicitly say so in your post as well. The same goes for other skills like clothing design.

[bold juniper]

that does make more sense implementation wise, but then wheres the line between something counting as a separate skill

oh wiat

i read it wrong

i understand now

different skills having different reqs

[unique hollow]

^

[bold juniper]

yeah that would be relatively easy to understand for users

[unique hollow]

I still stand by the fact that because of marketplace moderator discretion as far as "proportionate payment" goes, maybe no warnings period as long as the pay offered meets the minimum requirement for each skill that is requested. And the "proportionate pay" should be determined on what each skill is asked to do, according to the post.

[ornate lily]

** You are now Level 34! **

[unique hollow]

Alternatively you can also just say, [minimum requirement for the requested skill] per task which should mostly make the pay proportionate to the work requested.

[bold juniper]

but then i would argue that there are tasks that really arent worth 500 robux (so theyre sold/bought in batches)

for example something stupid easy like a small icon could be worth 200 (just making up the numbers here) so people resort to selling them in groups like 5 for 1000

[unique hollow]

At the end of the day you have to strike a balance. Some users won't be happy with the change, I know. At the same time, the #💵︱hiring channel is filled with offers that are hardly worth anybodies time. I can pull up an example in less than a minute if you really want me to. The marketplace needs a bit of a revision to make it more worthwhile for freelancers.

[bold juniper]

i agree the marketplace could use some revisions but thats not a process that can be solved with just a suggestion or two

management will have to talk about that for a while

[unique hollow]

And also, making several icons does not have to be classed as several tasks, but could be classed into one. There's some ambiguity here but if it is explicitly defined in the rules, that should be fine. Something along the lines of "repetitive tasks will be classed as one task, for example making several icons will be classed as one task".

You can't continue to treat users like little kids where you have to state every little small thing (like you are suggesting RSC should do). Instead, you should treat us more like adults. If you can't follow the rules, then get the fuck out. It should be that kinda simple.

[bold juniper]

people will look for loopholes

its always been the case and always will be

rules should be well defined

and also not to mention i can continue to treat the users like little kids because they are

the average person is about 14 in this server

and thats only talking about the ones who say theyre over 13, im sure a lot lie

youre forgetting this is a roblox server at the end of the day

[unique hollow]

I know, and staff should not tolerate that. If users make a genuine mistake then they should be forgiven and perhaps the warning revoked (though I work in the philosophy of giving verbals instead of officials to begin with). But if someone is maliciously finding loopholes, you just punish them further. I have a clause in my own server's rules, and even in agreements with clients, that staff (or in the case of agreements, I) have full discretion over any loopholes found.

Rules should be clearly defined, yes, but a reasonable person will understand that not everything can always be covered. It's not that hard to not break the rules and in the event where a rule was broken that was poorly written, they can be forgiven and have their warning removed provided it was a genuine mistake based upon a lack of documented rules.

I know that the average userbase here is 13 (and I wouldn't be surprised if younger), but I don't really think RSC should be ran like this because it generally promotes the "haha I found a loophole remove my warning NOW!" type of behavior or where users will act in such a way where it is kind of a violation of the rules, but not really because it's not covered by the rules.

[bold juniper]

changing the whole moderation dynamic is also not an easy step to be done

it has to be done very and i mean very slowly

defining rules clearly (and somewhat concisely) is important regardless of having no loophole rules or not as well