Shhhii... bye harped

[Plznate]

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?p=6229677#post6229677

 

[Jake_]

Im Fucking Cooler Omg

 

[I'm Sleeping o.O]

What did she do? :'(

 

[Fatih]

 

honestly upset. if that other person got his shit back, jake technically didnt scam.

thats almost the same thing as the R2P/Plznate situation

 

[Feren Silver]

I honestly would like to seem him get unbanned, but their logical behind it makes sense. The same thing occurred with Inventor, but he was let back.

I think Harped genuinely didn't mean to scam.

 

Either way, what's the reason to his ban? An april fool's joke? That's stupid and pathetic. Tahar or whatever the hell his name is got his pumpkin back and Syed was the one who gave it to him.

So no reason why Jake should remain banned. Unless there's a part of the story that I'm obviously missing.

 

I think the staff has a little more insight on this situation than any of us. It's not our decision and making/posting threads/posts like this does not help the cause.

What more do they know? We definitely help the cause because we put our input and opinion on the situation.

 

[I'm Sleeping o.O]

Really? So when people hang the "____ for mod" sigs and shit, it helps the cause? They don't need it. It's their decision.

I doubt it.. Our opinions really don't matter.

Welcome to the communistic sythe forums. >.> but it says in the rules you can be unbanned if you fix it. in this case, give back the pumpkin.

 

[Plznate]

Ya, but there is the clause that gives the admins/mods the ability to do as they see fit regarding a ban.

I can understand why the situation appears sketchy, Nick's post is actually pretty logical. But knowing Jake I am inclined to believe that it happened as he said it did.

 

[Spyike]

How many of you really "know" the person on the other side of the screen? Unless someone here lives next door to Harped and/or whatever, you really have no clue who Jake is/was.. However, we do have the facts. He failed at a scam and could not even follow through when presented with the proof.. he had to give the pumpkin back. In my review of Harped's purchase habits, he never purchased a single thing over $40 at one time. This purchase was for $80 and he could not even provide the proof he "sent" the money as he said he did? Why did he not follow through? Another action which in my opinion was disrespectful was the way he presented his dispute(s).. In my opinion, it was like.. oh well you know you can't ban Harped, hurry up and let me back on, this was nothing that serious.. Hello? You scammed someone and got caught. You're fuckin out of here Hero!

Impressed with the decision for two reasons:

1. It was an attempted scam that failed. I am not a fan of members being able to give back the item and everything is forgotten. We should not allow them another chance to get it right.

2. The staff made a choice because it was the right thing to do, not public/popular opinion. The ban was justified.

Much respect toward our leadership today.. You've done well.

 

[wombakage]

Impressed with the decision for two reasons:

1. It was an attempted scam that failed. I am not a fan of members being able to give back the item and everything is forgotten. We should not allow them a chance to get the next scam right.

2. The staff made a choice because it was the right thing to do, not public/popular opinion. The ban was justified.

Much respect toward our leadership.. You've done well.

Tldr nd such

 

a TWC could be given :O

 

[1227]

How many of you really "know" the person on the other side of the screen? Unless someone here lives next door to Harped and/or whatever, you really have no clue who Jake is/was.. However, we do have the facts. He failed at a scam and could not even follow through when presented with the proof.. he had to give the pumpkin back. In my review of Harped's purchase habits, he never purchased a single thing over $40 at one time. This purchase was for $80 and he could not even provide the proof he "sent" the money as he said he did? Why did he not follow through? Another action which in my opinion was disrespectful was the way he presented his dispute(s).. In my opinion, it was like.. oh well you know you can't ban Harped, hurry up and let me back on, this was nothing that serious.. Hello? You scammed someone and got caught. You're fuckin out of here Hero!

Impressed with the decision for two reasons:

1. It was an attempted scam that failed. I am not a fan of members being able to give back the item and everything is forgotten. We should not allow them another chance to get it right.

2. The staff made a choice because it was the right thing to do, not public/popular opinion. The ban was justified.

Much respect toward our leadership today.. You've done well.

He hit it right on the spot

 

[Bring Me The Horizon]

Sorry guys. He's never being unbanned or getting TWC.

 

[Spyike]

There is a lesson here to those that use Sythe to conduct business.. Yes, believe it or not, some of us are here for an ingame reason, not the Spam Forum.. Once again, in my opinion, I would have never gone first to Harped based upon his buying/selling/trading history.. Just because he told us what kind of music he listens to which added significantly to his post count, he had no track record of business.. People take my advise and stop looking at post count as a sign of being trusted.. I myself look at a member's habits.. Are they a buyer, a trader and/or seller? Do they seem to have posts that support what they are doing? How long have they been with Sythe, not Post Count? Have you spent the time reviewing their posts for email(s)/msn(s) they've posted and then googled them to see if they're connected to another account? High value business transactions require much more prior to conducting the deal which is based upon too many factors to explain here. In short, as with this incident, look at the individual and what their habits are.. not post count. However, in ending let me say no one on this site is above becoming a scammer.. If anything your efforts are to identify/reduce the risk. In the event you find yourself being scammed, be able to provide proof and in my case, even say "Hello" where they feel protected/hidden.

My personal view of who Harped was based upon his Sythe habits/review of posts.. He was after Moderator status.

 

[Necromancer24]

I agree with spyike. But I think the decision was too harsh. Maybe just a market ban would've sufficed. I personally dislike harped, but i don't agree with his ban.

 

[Jerittude]

Yeah cause he "doesn't send the $80 then ignores the guy and apparently "eats dinner" that fits perfectly.

 

[Fatih]

There is a lesson here to those that use Sythe to conduct business.. Yes, believe it or not, some of us are here for an ingame reason, not the Spam Forum.. Once again, in my opinion, I would have never gone first to Harped based upon his buying/selling/trading history.. Just because he told us what kind of music he listens to which added significantly to his post count, he had no track record of business.. People take my advise and stop looking at post count as a sign of being trusted.. I myself look at a member's habits.. Are they a buyer, a trader and/or seller? Do they seem to have posts that support what they are doing? How long have they been with Sythe, not Post Count? Have you spent the time reviewing their posts for email(s)/msn(s) they've posted and then googled them to see if they're connected to another account? High value business transactions require much more prior to conducting the deal which is based upon too many factors to explain here. In short, as with this incident, look at the individual and what their habits are.. not post count. However, in ending let me say no one on this site is above becoming a scammer.. If anything your efforts are to identify/reduce the risk. In the event you find yourself being scammed, be able to provide proof and in my case, even say "Hello" where they feel protected/hidden.

My personal view of who Harped was based upon his Sythe habits/review of posts.. He was after Moderator status.

Spot on.

 

[Necromancer24]

Nick's post on his first dispute was spot on.