Mods and ranks need some serious change in security

[O Lattes Forget]

I don't think the kind of hackers who frequent Runescape blackmarkets are that thorough to time a hacking attack like that.



Poorly worded rule, semantics, it is well known what the rule is for and what actions are punishable by it.

I agree. The rule is poorly worded. If a newcomer were to join and read that rule, they would think that they have done everything correctly. It does not anywhere say that the PM has to be for that trade. It simply states he must confirm his Skype onsite.

 

[Koed]

I don't think the kind of hackers who frequent Runescape blackmarkets are that thorough to time a hacking attack like that.



Poorly worded rule, semantics, it is well known what the rule is for and what actions are punishable by it.

It's a hell of a poorly worded rule. I sure as hell don't remember every invisible clause to the "Offical Rules" being downloaded into my head upon accessing this site. So are all our new members, or infrequent users expected to just magically know how things are done around here?

 

[Dayvid]

You never had to say you didn't feel bad. It's been evident from the beginning. Honest made his scam report, you showed your Paypal to Roary. Case closed. You didn't send him a word of acknowledgement that he just lost $2K. If this thread had never been made, that scam report would have never seen daylight, all you needed to do was bully Honest into thinking he was in the wrong and then be done with it. PMs for every trade aren't even in the official rules for fuck's sake, how about we fix that for a start?

I agree with this. The fact that Honest Iago didn't find out that Lean's skype was hacked until AFTER a staff member saw his thread confuses me.

I'm sure the rule was mostly used to make sure you're not speaking with an imposter. It sucks that they worded the rule so badly, but I guess nobody is going to take responsibility for their mistake. I've seen multiple scam reports where someone's Skype was used to scam and the person was forced to refund. Regardless of how long ago the PM was, it should still be used. A hacking only takes 30minutes to 1 hour. Honest Iago posted in his scam topic that there was no Skype Hack warnings for Leanbeans' Skype.

 

[O Lattes Forget]

It's a hell of a poorly worded rule. I sure as hell don't remember every invisible clause to the "Offical Rules" being downloaded into my head upon accessing this site. So are all our new members, or infrequent users expected to just magically know how things are done around here?

I second this. If it is not directly written in the rules that you must request a PM before every trade, you cannot assume everyone will do so and therefor the victim is not at fault here.

 

[Delta Squad]

just a tip doe, i when i personally redeem MPs i make them pm me the code on sythe.

i could easily scam a few thousand from people who just post me the code over skype with no prior chat. which is why i never have liked using skype for trading, its just to easy to scam people and cover it up, and these new rules with the require a pm etc just make it even easier,

its just so easy for dumb people to fall for stuff like that

 

[nodnarbusn]

Do you not feel sorry for his loss? Shame on you. That is an insane amount of money for most people especially online currency.

Feel sorry for what? That the kid is an easy target? That the kid has been scammed before and STILL doesnt trade safe? I mean damn it sucks that he lost that money but say hypothetically it WASNT leanbean, he is over here being dragged through the mud having accusations hurled at him left and right and you guys expect him to be apologetic?! Frankly if I were accused of all this Id tell all the accusers to suck my dick. If lean isnt guilty id say 60-70% of this thread including lago owes HIM an apology if anything.

Guilt is associated with the guilty, if you do nothing wrong there is nothing to be sorry for. Frankly if he were apologetic I believe outright every one of you would twist that as guilt. It would certainly be more suspect to me. If I were innocent and in his shoes I wouldnt fight tooth and nail defending my posistion publicly either, because it doesnt matter what ANY of you think. It isnt our decision, this is all just drama. The decision will be staffs and staffs alone in the SL. But I guess thats all based on perspective. Not saying you guys shouldnt keep digging, but you guys dont have anything quite CONCRETE yet. Keep the mudslinging down till there is something more definitive. Just sharing my perspective.

There have been a number of inconsistencies brought up while I was at work, I will continue to follow the thread(s).

 

[O Lattes Forget]

Feel sorry for what? That the kid is an easy target? That the kid has been scammed before and STILL doesnt trade safe? I mean damn it sucks that he lost that money but say hypothetically it WASNT leanbean, he is over here being dragged through the mud having accusations hurled at him left and right and you guys expect him to be apologetic?! Frankly if I were accused of all this Id tell all the accusers to suck my dick. If lean isnt guilty id say 60-70% of this thread including lago owes HIM an apology if anything.

Guilt is associated with the guilty, if you do nothing wrong there is nothing to be sorry for. Frankly if he were apologetic I believe outright every one of you would twist that as guilt. It would certainly be more suspect to me. If I were innocent and in his shoes I wouldnt fight tooth and nail defending my posistion publicly either, because it doesnt matter what ANY of you think. It isnt our decision, this is all just drama. The decision will be staffs and staffs alone in the SL. But I guess thats all based on perspective. Not saying you guys shouldnt keep digging, but you guys dont have anything quite CONCRETE yet. Keep the mudslinging down till there is something more definitive. Just sharing my perspective.

There have been a number of inconsistencies brought up while I was at work, I will continue to follow the thread(s).

Didn't really read tbh but..

Say your friend got shit faced and died in a car accident while driving drunk. You would still feel sorry or whatever for him even though the situation could have been avoided. Same shit man, yes, this could have been avoided. But leanbean901 is at fault here along with the horribly written rule.
Also, I'm not even involved with these people but I still feel sorry for the bro. He's out $2,000. That's a lot of money.

 

[Honest Iago]

Didn't really read tbh but..

Say your friend got shit faced and died in a car accident while driving drunk. You would still feel sorry or whatever for him even though the situation could have been avoided. Same shit man, yes, this could have been avoided. But leanbean901 is at fault here along with the horribly written rule.
Also, I'm not even involved with these people but I still feel sorry for the bro. He's out $2,000. That's a lot of money.

I don't NEED SYMPATHY. I need justice. Carry out the rules and I will be satisfied. Simple.

My situation is not the issue at hand. Leanbean has some SERIOUS NEGLIGENCE ON HIS PART. Starting with his not having a valid e-mail linked to his skype.

 

There is negligence on both parts*

 

[O Lattes Forget]

I don't NEED SYMPATHY. I need justice. Carry out the rules and I will be satisfied. Simple.

My situation is not the issue at hand. Leanbean has some SERIOUS NEGLIGENCE ON HIS PART. Starting with his not having a valid e-mail linked to his skype.

I agree. You should be repaid. You did follow the rules.
I'm just saying that on a man to man level his attitude right now is sickening. I'm really sorry about your loss and I know that won't fix it but I truly hope you get refunded bro.

There is negligence on both parts*

The victim did follow the rule technically.. But I see what you're saying. You should never assume though. Someone should make a thread with a new rewritten rules and see if the community agrees.

 

[Honest Iago]

There is negligence on both parts*

The difference is I admitted my negligence way back. Leanbean901 has yet to do so.

My negligence cost me $2000. Leanbean901 should, if the rules are carried out, cost him his account.

 

[Koed]

There is negligence on both parts*

I think everyone realized that when the umpteenth post was made about Honest not sending a PM. That was the only shred of negligence he displayed.

 

[Dayvid]

The difference is I admitted my negligence way back. Leanbean901 has yet to do so.

My negligence cost me $2000. Leanbean901 should, if the rules are carried out, cost him his account.

This 100%. It's actually more negligence for a GLOBAL not to know his own Skype information. Which is utterly ridiculous

 

But is his negligence really to blame? Or is it he is his own hacker? Or neither?

Him being negligent =/= him being his own hacker

So which one is it? His negligence came with the aftermath of the scam. Your negligence came before the scam. So his negligence really isn't to blame for you being scammed. Therefore, the only argument you can pursue is that he is his own hacker.

So far, there is no real proof he is his own hacker. Just speculation and "what if's".

 

[nodnarbusn]

Didn't really read tbh but..

Say your friend got shit faced and died in a car accident while driving drunk. You would still feel sorry or whatever for him even though the situation could have been avoided. Same shit man, yes, this could have been avoided. But leanbean901 is at fault here along with the horribly written rule.
Also, I'm not even involved with these people but I still feel sorry for the bro. He's out $2,000. That's a lot of money.

Your scenario is irrelevant, the person in the scenario is my friend. Not some random I trade occasionally.

This is not the first time lago has been scammed due to his negligence. I do not feel sorry for someone who is careless and does not learn from their mistakes.

 

[Koed]

But is his negligence really to blame? Or is it he is his own hacker? Or neither?

Him being negligent =/= him being his own hacker

So which one is it? His negligence came with the aftermath of the scam. Your negligence came before the scam. So his negligence really isn't to blame for you being scammed. Therefore, the only argument you can pursue is that he is his own hacker.

So far, there is no real proof he is his own hacker. Just speculation and "what if's".

Lean has been given more than enough chances to redeem himself at least a little bit. Instead we got more convenient excuses. How many coincidences does it take?

If he had access to his original email set on his SKYPE LIKE HE SHOULD. HE would be able to prove he didn't fake his hacking. That is half the evidence and the other half is the fact of the days of the trade. THERE IS NO REASON HE DOESNT HAVE ACCESS TO HIS ORIGINAL SKYPE EMAIL Other then he is lying because the emails aren't there.

 

Coincidences and what if's aren't proof that he is his own hacker, just as coincidences and what if's aren't proof that he isn't his own hacker.

Both sides are equally without any solid proof.

 

[SkullPi]

So, although I am relatively new, I want to state a couple things. A lot of people are repeating the same post over and over. Can we just agree on somethings, get them out of the way, and everyone can refrain from posting them?

We can all agree that:

1. Honest Iago should have asked for a private message before the trade.
2. Leanbean should have used a real email along with real details for his Skype account.
3. Poor trading habits were used throughout the transaction, costing both parties something important, one being actual currency, the other would be hatred and immature attacks.
4. The Sythe.org rules have grey areas, that could use touch up (referring towards the rule based upon receiving a private message, which should state they should receive one for every trade, before the actual trade takes place.)

I know this can't be redone, and I hope everybody can learn from this. Unfortunately, it seems that further proof of Leanbean being his own hacker, has came up as just accusations and there isn't anything sufficient. I am not going to side for anyone, but the fact that we're arguing and debating about this, really shows immaturity and peoples true colors. I understand the staff's judgement may not be right at some times, so I assume, but unless there is solid evidence, there is nothing they can do about the speculations.

I hope everyone can agree on the above, and form a more mature and just conversation regarding the issue on hand. There is a lot of actions that can be learned from this, on both older members, high valued traders, and newer, less experienced members.

If the list needs to be updated, feel free to let me know. Have a good day.

 

[Koed]

Coincidences and what if's aren't proof that he is his own hacker, just as coincidences and what if's aren't proof that he isn't his own hacker.

Both sides are equally without any solid proof.

When it comes to being a trusted $1000+ donor and global mod, you don't just win by default. Sorry but that's not how it works anywhere. He has been called upon to bring his Skype, like he should have, because that precaution would have saved him. He does not, that's unfortunate for him, in the same way it's unfortunate that Honest is out two grand. Honest isn't getting his two grand back just because he can't prove there's a hacker, why should Lean keep everything when he's in the same spot? He has too much power, and if this happens again in the future for more, what are you going to say? There is no proof Lean didn't hack himself, and all the evidence points to that being the case. You can't just ignore that because he doesn't admit it.

 

[Delta Squad]

There is negligence on both parts*

isn't there examples in the past that if it is half the other parties fault, that they owe half? wasnt r2p facing the same thing with the guy who got banned after trading < which was then not put to his fault as the guy was a ex scammer etc, but that isn't valid here>