Updating http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer/1331084-attention-all-skype-proofs-must-

[LoLAccounts]

Requesting for rule whereas showing a Skype chat alongside the users Skype profile window should no longer be considered evidence in proving the identity of said user.

With windows 8.1(unsure if this includes windows 8, or 10), you are able to have a Skype profile window open and still browse through Skype chats, without the window automatically closing. This both voids and renders these pictures useless in proving someone's identity in a scam report.

I am requesting that this be changed to either view the users Skype through Skype Screenshare, TeamViewer or similar. This would both ensure all disputes are created with proper evidence.

This should apply for any and all users, at least for those using Windows 8 and up.

 

That's definitely a problem... Can anyone confirm this?

 

[Laptop65]

Like someone couldn't get funky with Photoshop anyway and do some clever image editing, but this is definitely a lot easier and less hassle to do.

 

[video]

Would video recordings work? People have to show themselves right clicking and viewing profile while the chat is open

 

[Laptop65]

Would video recordings work? People have to show themselves right clicking and viewing profile while the chat is open

Even then you could be pretty clever and do some "video" (see what I did there?) editing so a different ID shows up.

But this would be very difficult to do if you are using the Windows "fade" effects, so maybe request people submit the video proof with the Windows fade in effects enabled.

 

Is it the downloaded version on the desktop or the general version the Windows 8 comes with?

 

We are trusting in people when they report, if they fake it they get banned. I'd rather not see it edited.

If at the end someone does fake it, the staff will find out.

 

Would video recordings work? People have to show themselves right clicking and viewing profile while the chat is open

The real question is, would the average victim bother to upload video recordings when many can't be bothered or know how to upload a screenshot?

There are a lot of reports that don't get completed because many users don't know how to, or can't be bothered to upload screenshots. This would only increase with video recordings being a requirement, even with a full on tutorial sticky.

 

[LoLAccounts]

An easy way to fix this is to use Skype Screenshare with whomever the scam report is made by. This would not only prove it, but allow a staff member to see evidence first hand and apply proper measures accordingly.

 

[Yung Bamf]

I support, can see how this would be a problem.

 

[uJesternWind]

Would many people actually fake it though? Here's how I see it going down:

User falsely reports victim, victim gets banned

Victim disputes ban, shows proper evidence, user who reported gets banned

 

[LoLAccounts]

Would many people actually fake it though? Here's how I see it going down:

User falsely reports victim, victim gets banned

Victim disputes ban, shows proper evidence, user who reported gets banned

#1 Accusor claims to have been scammed on 1000m 07

#2 Defendant forced to pay 1000m 07 because the evidence shows so. Defendant can't go against the deciscions of a moderator, what a moderator says goes.

#3 Accusor is given 1000m 07 and Defendant isn't banned for supposed scamming

#4 Evidence arises which clears the Defendant from all charges, and shows the evidence was faked from the start

#5 Accusor leaves the website having earned 1000m 07, for free.

This is why we need to get rid of this type of verification when it comes to scam reports. Moderators will simply have to be working more indepth than before. When a person is scammer, handling the dispute properly and thorough is what matters.

 

Its fine for reports. We have a dispute forum for people to come and say that it isn't correct if need be; and people know this when falsely reporting, that's why it rarely happens. It helps us weed out the reports where someone has been impostored and we can show them their mistake because they're just innocent victims. If someone wants to doctor a screenshot they'll do it whether Skype allows this or not. The other party can then come forward and give their side and additional proof.

We don't need to change our requirements and it isn't as big a deal as is being made out.

 

Screenshare is a thing

 

[Carbon]

No support for this, yes the problem exists, but it's counterable if the other person cares. If the person opening the scam report shows fake logs with another Skype, the person defending themselves can show the real skype chats to a staff member via Screenshots, or Screenshare

 

[LoLAccounts]

Ultimately this isn't my choice, but don't say it was never suggested.

Requesting for this to be closed.

 

[Superfluous]

We are trusting in people when they report, if they fake it they get banned. I'd rather not see it edited.

If at the end someone does fake it, the staff will find out.

this + roary's post sum up my feelings

 

addressing the posts requesting videos or screen sharing, quite honestly we don't have time for that. We amass a copious amount of reports weekly.
As well, not everyone has the capability for video uploading and/or editing. Screens are used because even a toaster can open paint and an image host.

 

[LoLAccounts]

addressing the posts requesting videos or screen sharing, quite honestly we don't have time for that. We amass a copious amount of reports weekly.
As well, not everyone has the capability for video uploading and/or editing. Screens are used because even a toaster can open paint and an image host.

The discussion is long over.

I have requested for this to be closed, check reply #17
http://www.sythe.org/14865841-post17.html

 

The discussion is long over.

I have requested for this to be closed, check reply #17
http://www.sythe.org/14865841-post17.html

You've presented a valid issue to the staff team, opening a discussion. My post was hours after the last response, meaning "long over" was quite the unnecessary comment. I don't appreciate your response. Though you did create this thread, there were replies from both sides of the spectrum. This could lead to an issue of monetary loss for our members, thus is an important discussion to be had.