Principle Outstanding Questions Concerning Leanbean901

[Honest Iago]

I want direct answers please.

1. Why is he not banned when the rules clearly state:

• If your Sythe account (or any other account like Powerbot, Runescape etc) is hacked, and the hacker scams with that account, your Sythe account will be banned. You must reimburse all scammed members before the staff will consider unbanning you.
  
• If your Skype (MSN, AIM etc) account is hacked, you will only be responsible if a private message was sent from your Sythe account to confirm this method of communication.

However sufficient reports without this requirement will still result in the account being banned until the situation is cleared up. But in order for the scammed user(s) to be eligible for reimbursement, there must be a Sythe PM.

REF: http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer...skype-scam-reports-must-contain-sythe-pm.html

Never states when said PM will be received. As far as I am concerned rules are made to be followed. So what is the answer to this?


SOME THINGS TO MULL OVER:
The main issue is there is no evidence that a hack ever occured. So staff is letting Leanbean901 off on simply his word alone. Evidence has been provided that
A. Leanbean901 Confirmed the skype account was his.
B. Leanbean901 has multiple paypals
C. Leanbean901 paypal limit was reset on the day of the scam. Exactly 1 month after he had redeemed for me last.
D. Leanbean901's supposed hacker had knowledge of me an Leanbean901's previous trades which is impossible unless he was Leanbean901.
E. Leanbean901 was online while the hack was going on.-- He was on sythe but not on his skype?
But because Leanbean901 says "Nope wasn't me I was hacked. I was online at the time I was hacked but knew nothing of it and I didn't request a ban until after the hack and scam but I swear it wasn't me." he gets off scotch free.
F. I remember I had to PM leanbean for his skype. Why? Because he does not post it publicly. When I look through his posts it only shows his staff activity, his skype isn't there either. So how did the hacker get his skype to hack?

This random hacker also knew what limit I was referring to, and knows about the moneypak redemption game? The hacker had a SSN verified paypal AT THE READY? Man this hacker sure had his game down... my question: why go for small shrimp like leanbean901?



Look:

At 5:40 I PM leanbean901. He sees he's implicated his skype and sends out the spam messages as a cover up 1 minute later. My guess, he forgot he had PM'd me at all and once he saw he did he tried to do damage control.

EVERYONE BE CAREFUL THEY ARE HANDING OUT BANS NOW TO SILENCE US. KOED TRIES TO GET ANSWERS CONCERNING THE PLAUSIBILITY OF LEANBEAN'S SKYPE HACKING AND...:

 

[SkullPi]

It's hard to tell because that's an unclear rule that is posted. There isn't a time frame for when receiving a private message for confirmation is.

With your ruling on the issue, are you suggesting that if you have a year old private message, stating someones Skype (who could be inactive, happens to get 'hacked') - you can use that as valid evidence for a report?

 

[upuser]

It's hard to tell because that's an unclear rule that is posted. There isn't a time frame for when receiving a private message for confirmation is.

With your ruling on the issue, are you suggesting that if you have a year old private message, stating someones Skype (who could be inactive, happens to get 'hacked') - you can use that as valid evidence for a report?

No the rule is perfectly clear. They should of put a time frame for the private message. But as the rules are currently he should be banned/refund.

 

What can you say about this? "You know what it meant."? You would only assume he interpreted the way you did. It's your fault for not wording the ruling correctly, making him correct in this case unfortunately.

Staff, please revise all rules so loopholes are not a thing. kthnx

If I had to decide on the outcome of this:

Leanbean is to pay half of the amount that hacker scammed for failure to rebut skype claims.
(He got his skype locked because of his negligence.)
(OP will only get half for partially being right and not all for failure to identify a hacker between the real leanbean, different methods make this possible.)

 

[Emperor Nero]

Do they really have to put a time frame? If you're using the market you should be intelligent enough to know that pming someone a month ago is a huge stretch of time and in that time things can happen. Does it really need to be spelled out in hours, minutes, and seconds?

 

Do they really have to put a time frame? If you're using the market you should be intelligent enough to know that pming someone a month ago is a huge stretch of time and in that time things can happen. Does it really need to be spelled out in hours, minutes, and seconds?

This rule makes him partially right, which should allow him to get half of the amount scammed from him. Read my first post with the edited comment for the outcome. Seems fair in my opinion.

 

[Emperor Nero]

It doesn't make him partially right. Rules aren't placed with exact wordings because they're made to be applicable in a large amount of situations. A month, to any sensible human being, is a long period of time. It is reasonable to expect a change in circumstances in a month.

 

Richard always tries to make the rules of this forum close as possible to real world rules/laws.

Ex: Pardons and damages to oneself, emotional, psychological etc.

Loopholes are to be taken advantage of poorly written rules. Lawyers are sure of this.

The rule should have been written better. That still doesn't make OP's actions absolute though.

 

[Honest Iago]

It doesn't make him partially right. Rules aren't placed with exact wordings because they're made to be applicable in a large amount of situations. A month, to any sensible human being, is a long period of time. It is reasonable to expect a change in circumstances in a month.

We are going by what's in the rules. No speculation. According to the rules leanbean is responsible, at least, partially. The same argument can be made for the converse. If it has been 5 minutes, 10 minutes is the PM invalid? It takes only a few seconds to change the password of a skype. I'm not talking about the actual hacking itself but to reset the password, as in type in the new password, it takes tops 2-3 minutes. So when is too soon? When is too late? Those questions can be debated until the end of time. As it stands here as long as leanbean901 confirmed his skype by PM he is responsible. The fact that he didn't notice his skype had been hacked even though he was online at the time is his fault, because he never got the e-mail- because he used a burner e-mail.

 

[SuF]

I disagree with this rule regardless. It should simply not exist.

 

[Emperor Nero]

Richard always tries to make the rules of this forum close as possible to real world rules/laws.

Ex: Pardons and damages to oneself, emotional, psychological etc.

Loopholes are to be taken advantage of poorly written rules. Lawyers are sure of this.

The rule should have been written better. That still doesn't make OP's actions absolute though.

In law there is reasonable expectation, look it up. It assumes that things that requires interpretation in the law will be followed through how a reasonable human would follow through in reading of the law. There is no argument to be made within the rule. As SuF is pointing out there are only the argument of rule itself existing, but as it is written the rule is perfectly valid. If the rule is thusly abolished there would be no retroactive actions taken against lean. I am not defending him because I don't even know him, I'm just saying there is a lot of hullabaloo over this and a lot of it is pointless.

For reference: http://m.businessdictionary.com/definition/doctrine-of-reasonable-expectations.html

 

[Koed]

Stillll waiting to hear how bean seemingly got his account locked in less than 30 minutes without access to the email he created the account with, or the password as the hacker surely changed it.

 

In law there is reasonable expectation, look it up. It assumes that things that require human action in the law will be followed through how a reasonable human would follow through. There is no argument to be made within the rule. As SuF is pointing out there are only the argument of rule itself existing, but as it is written the rule is perfectly valid. If the rule is thusly abolished there would be no retroactive actions taken against lean. I am not defending him because I don't even know him, I'm just saying there is a lot of hullabaloo over this and a lot of it is pointless.

For reference: http://m.businessdictionary.com/definition/doctrine-of-reasonable-expectations.html

I'm not taking sides either. Let's review this one more time for clarity.

"Due to the recent spate of hackings, we now require a SYTHE PM confirming the Skype you're talking to in order for a scam report to be considered valid."

It just says a pm is required to confirm you're talking to that said person. It doesn't state that it must be done for every trade.

Yes the pm was a month old, but it was the same goods that were being traded to the same person. Let's not forget to mention leanbean is a global moderator which does not make OP drop his defense. Remember they traded 3,500 worth of MP before so it's not far fetched to not assume the worse.

Leanbean was wrong for not securing his own skype account. Failure to recover his own skype account. And.. Locking his own skype account which may have held some answers.

Honest was wrong for not being more cautious of such a high valued trade.

Both users are wrong, so a split is justified.

 

[Lean]

Stillll waiting to hear how bean seemingly got his account locked in less than 30 minutes without access to the email he created the account with, or the password as the hacker surely changed it.

I'd love to know where you get the time frame of 30 minutes? To find the answer to your other question you can view the post made by Roary about it on the "evidence against leanbean thread" it's on page two or three.

 

[Emperor Nero]

I'm not taking sides either. Let's review this one more time for clarity.

"Due to the recent spate of hackings, we now require a SYTHE PM confirming the Skype you're talking to in order for a scam report to be considered valid."

It just says a pm is required to confirm you're talking to that said person. It doesn't state that it must be done for every trade.

Yes the pm was a month old, but it was the same goods that were being traded to the same person. Let's not forget to mention leanbean is a global moderator which does not make OP drop his defense. Remember they traded 3,500 worth of MP before so it's not far fetched to not assume the worse.

Leanbean was wrong for not securing his own skype account. Failure to recover his own skype account. And.. Locking his own skype account which may have held some answers.

Honest was wrong for not being more cautious of such a high valued trade.

Both users are wrong, so a split is justified.

Lean's negligence was not the cause of the scam. If the 'hack' was a live chat recovery there was no securing it anymore. It is an implication that is in the rule that a PM is required every time, because any reasonable person would know that with out it being an explicit statement. It doesn't make sense to allow a pm to cover a month worth of time when applied to a trade. If they traded every day there is a huge difference but even then if you take with someone everyday then you would probably know this person fairly well and notice a change in conversation and thus become suspicious.

 

Leans negligence is the cause of him not being able to show proof of time stamps, not being able to prevent the scam by recovering, and rebutting claims. He is at fault for trading on a skype account that can't be recovered by him if hacked. His punishment should be half of the original scam amount.

Edit: Both users should be held responsible for their individual mistakes.

 

[Delta Squad]

Lean's negligence was not the cause of the scam.

that's not true at all, if he used a legit email, he would have been able to recovery his skype back upon knowing when it was taking almost instantly, and perhaps even preventing the scam.

 

[Emperor Nero]

that's not true at all, if he used a legit email, he would have been able to recovery his skype back upon knowing when it was taking almost instantly, and perhaps even preventing the scam.

Perhaps. Maybe, if it was reported. The thing is maybe you should be banned because perhaps you're responsible for some negligent rule breaking in the past. We don't punish people for what may have happened. Again if the user had gotten a PM as the rule implicitly States for this particular trade none of this would be up for discussion. How do we know that this isn't a ruse orchestrated by a group in an attempt to seek retribution against him? We don't. We don't have anything from either side.

If anything let this be a lesson to never trade like a dumb ass and assume things off anyone.

 

Perhaps. Maybe, if it was reported. The thing is maybe you should be banned because perhaps you're responsible for some negligent rule breaking in the past. We don't punish people for what may have happened. Again if the user had gotten a PM as the rule implicitly States for this particular trade none of this would be up for discussion. How do we know that this isn't a ruse orchestrated by a group in an attempt to seek retribution against him? We don't. We don't have anything from either side.

If anything let this be a lesson to never trade like a dumb ass and assume things off anyone.

What has leanbean done to anyone? He seems like a chill dude, I just want what's right.

Shoutout to BigboiBets

 

[Honest Iago]

In law there is reasonable expectation, look it up. It assumes that things that requires interpretation in the law will be followed through how a reasonable human would follow through in reading of the law. There is no argument to be made within the rule. As SuF is pointing out there are only the argument of rule itself existing, but as it is written the rule is perfectly valid. If the rule is thusly abolished there would be no retroactive actions taken against lean. I am not defending him because I don't even know him, I'm just saying there is a lot of hullabaloo over this and a lot of it is pointless.

For reference: http://m.businessdictionary.com/definition/doctrine-of-reasonable-expectations.html

So as I stated before, what timeframe is a "reasonable" one. That's all left to interpretation. So timeframe should be discounted. We are taking the rule at face value and at face value the only thing required is a PM.