Proposal of a new rule

[Heads447]

Easy way to fix this is to not talk through anything but sythe.org when trading, which a 1 on 1 chat system should be put in for.

http://www.sythe.org/suggestions/1444829-messaging-system-not-shoutbox.html

^Aprove pls

 

[Delta Squad]

http://www.sythe.org/suggestions/1444829-messaging-system-not-shoutbox.html

^Aprove pls

had that thread in mind but din't know if it got denied.


i mean it would be a perfect fix for these issues as it would work on your account, so obvsly it would be able to negate the amount of scams, it should also save and pm you the chat logs upon request.


dunno why that thread died off.

 

[kmjt]

The bottom line is that you guys should always confirm that someone owns a Skype id by actually physically seeing that Skype id on someone's thread or profile. If it is not there, NEVER TRADE THEM. A pm alone is simply not enough.

A new rule would just screw new sellers over that are oblivious to these kind of scams. It is much easier for buyers to just be careful than expect a new seller to know clever imposter methods.

 

[kfjjjdst]

The bottom line is that you guys should always confirm that someone owns a Skype id by actually physically seeing that Skype id on someone's thread or profile. If it is not there, NEVER TRADE THEM. A pm alone is simply not enough.

A new rule would just screw new sellers over that are oblivious to these kind of scams. It is much easier for buyers to just be careful than expect a new seller to know clever imposter methods.

Well, to be honest, come to think of newcomers: Most of them do NOT know about this kind of stuff, therefore are a LOT more vulnerable to such traps.

I feel, that much like when you are hacked, keylogged, phished, etc, you are responsibly for [unwillingly] assisting a scam to happen via your sythe profile.

When you PM someone carelessly and allowed them to be scammed because you send a PM that doesn't clearly state who the person is talking to, you should be held liable, much like when you are phished, hacked, etcetera.

And new members wouldn't have to know about it; I mean you already have the PM REQUIRED implemented into the rules; Why would specifying how these PMs MUST look cause so much confusion?

I think it's necessary. I mean at the end of the day, honestly: this scam could be played out by a trusted member and a third person, because the trusted person knows that the victim will be shrugged off by saying: The trusted member was careless, but you were not careful enough, sorry for your loss.

That is not how these type of issues should be handled, imho.

http://www.sythe.org/suggestions/1444829-messaging-system-not-shoutbox.html

^Aprove pls

On a first glance it seems like a good idea, but wouldn't it be way too much hassle to implement something, that is pretty much like an IM / the PM system on sythe?

A simple small change to the rule already in placement would be enough, really.

 

[Delta Squad]

On a first glance it seems like a good idea, but wouldn't it be way too much hassle to implement something, that is pretty much like an IM / the PM system on sythe?

A simple small change to the rule already in placement would be enough, really.

not really, as people would still be getting scammed, who cares if its a hassle to put in, when it could litteraly save tens of thousands of dollars within a year.

 

[Swadq]

Discussion of that particular scam really isn't relevant here... I imagine it was omitted from the first post solely to prevent discussion of it here.

On topic though, I've changed my mind, I don't support this any more. I can't see a way for a rule to work with this, all we can ask is for buyers and sellers to exercise caution. It's not Sythe's responsibility, and I don't think we should put traders in a straightjacket if they want to use our site.

 

[kfjjjdst]

Discussion of that particular scam really isn't relevant here... I imagine it was omitted from the first post solely to prevent discussion of it here.

On topic though, I've changed my mind, I don't support this any more. I can't see a way for a rule to work with this, all we can ask is for buyers and sellers to exercise caution. It's not Sythe's responsibility, and I don't think we should put traders in a straightjacket if they want to use our site.

I understand what you are saying but hey; Why would you distinguish between being hacked and thus assisting to a scam or being careless and allowing a user to get scammed by that? [By sending a PM that is clearly missunderstandable].

I understand your point, but I think such a 'straightjacket' would actually force some users to be a lot more careful when PM'ing [therefore forcing them to make sure they are PM'ing the right person, so noone can get scammed under their name].

 

[Swadq]

I understand what you are saying but hey; Why would you distinguish between being hacked and thus assisting to a scam or being careless and allowing a user to get scammed by that? [By sending a PM that is clearly missunderstandable].

I understand your point, but I think such a 'straightjacket' would actually force some users to be a lot more careful when PM'ing [therefore forcing them to make sure they are PM'ing the right person, so noone can get scammed under their name].

That's a tough call really. Personally, I would say if a user has confirmed via PM that they are trading, then they should be held responsible for the scam. However, I believe it should be that user's responsibility to make sure that they have confirmed adequately, not a rule's.

 

Muzza and I have sorted the situation, I was careless and I'm taking responsibility. You need not comment on it further on this thread, cheers!

 

[Jay Zee]

Support, although not as a result of the Muzza situation - I think Roary did a great thing by paying him, when he had absolutely zero obligation to.

 

[ThePrestigedMuzza]

Support, although not as a result of the Muzza situation - I think Roary did a great thing by paying him, when he had absolutely zero obligation to.

That makes no sense, this suggestion was made due to inspiration of the report i made, if you feel that said person isn't liable how can you support such a suggestion? -.-, also i agree with Roary, its been settled, lets discuss future plans on improving our security rather then focus on a previous matter.

 

[Delta Squad]

shouldv'e only paid 50% as it was both yalls fault.

 

[Jake]

shouldv'e only paid 50% as it was both yalls fault.

Yeah, Prestige also made mistakes and messed up during that trade, it wasn't all Roary's fault.

 

[kfjjjdst]

Yeah, Prestige also made mistakes and messed up during that trade, it wasn't all Roary's fault.

shouldv'e only paid 50% as it was both yalls fault.

Guys, this thread isn't about what went down between Roary and ThePrestigedMuzza; That is mainly up to them and they have resolved it amongst themselves.

Looking for more on opinions on the suggestion, however.

Anyone else?

 

[Delta Squad]

Guys, this thread isn't about what went down between Roary and ThePrestigedMuzza; That is mainly up to them and they have resolved it amongst themselves.

Looking for more on opinions on the suggestion, however.

Anyone else?

no its not, but this thread IS about the type of scam that happened between, therefore the comments about it are still valid.

 

[ThePrestigedMuzza]

The bottom line is that you guys should always confirm that someone owns a Skype id by actually physically seeing that Skype id on someone's thread or profile. If it is not there, NEVER TRADE THEM. A pm alone is simply not enough.

A new rule would just screw new sellers over that are oblivious to these kind of scams. It is much easier for buyers to just be careful than expect a new seller to know clever imposter methods.

Sorry KMJT but if that is the case how come i had to payback 9m to people who got scammed when the evidence they provided was soley through pm and not my actual skype ID, do you just create double standards or just go with whatever suits you?


Here is evidence:
http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer-archive/1589940-theprestigedmuzza-scammer.html

 

[fairy tail]

i agree 100% , to be honest people should be held responsible for your actions regardless of intent,

 

[Delta Squad]

Sorry KMJT but if that is the case how come i had to payback 9m to people who got scammed when the evidence they provided was soley through pm and not my actual skype ID, do you just create double standards or just go with whatever suits you?


Here is evidence:
http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer-archive/1589940-theprestigedmuzza-scammer.html

You misread what he said.


HE stated that its best to find the persons contact info posted on a thread aswell, to help verify it is the legit person you are talking to.

Your sythe.org account was hacked, and according to the rules, requiring a PM for skype scams means you would have to pay them back, as you got careless and got your account hacked.

Your sythe.org account holds me credability then any form of contact be it outoook, yahoo,skype etc.


I know you on this tirade that you can do no wrong and know everything but you really should try to make an effort to understand what it is you are reading.

 

[ThePrestigedMuzza]

You misread what he said.


HE stated that its best to find the persons contact info posted on a thread aswell, to help verify it is the legit person you are talking to.

Your sythe.org account was hacked, and according to the rules, requiring a PM for skype scams means you would have to pay them back, as you got careless and got your account hacked.

Your sythe.org account holds me credability then any form of contact be it outoook, yahoo,skype etc.


I know you on this tirade that you can do no wrong and know everything but you really should try to make an effort to understand what it is you are reading.

No he stated that a pm from said person is simply not enough. Now I was hacked during that time but i'm only responsible for paying back players who can prove they were scammed. This person got paid back due to the fact that they provided a picture of a pm which just had a 3 versed skype conversation, which according to KMJT is not enough. Also note i did pay back those people because when i'm careless i don't think they should suffer hence why i'm supporting this thread, because when someone is careless others shouldn't have to suffer.

 

[Delta Squad]

No he stated that a pm from said person is simply not enough. Now I was hacked during that time but i'm only responsible for paying back players who can prove they were scammed. This person got paid back due to the fact that they provided a picture of a pm which just had a 3 versed skype conversation, which according to KMJT is not enough. Also note i did pay back those people because when i'm careless i don't think they should suffer hence why i'm supporting this thread, because when someone is careless others shouldn't have to suffer.

He is not stating that as a rule, nor is he stating it as a mod, he is stating as a trader for safe trading practices. HE is NOT stating you have to do those, he is suggestion you DO that to help make trades safer.

again, understand what it is you are reading.