People With Pardoned DNT

[xKyyL]

Describe the problem:
People on Sythe should be held more accountable for performing scams in the past. How it stands currently, you are able to get an infraction removed by appealing or asking for a pardon. I agree with appealing and over ruling an infraction because generally this is done because the result isn't satisfactory. I don't agree with completely removing easy ways to find infractions.

Right now you need to use the search function to find peoples past infraction history. The issue with this is that if they are active on Sythe, and in a lot of cases are donators, it is not as simple to find this kind of information.

What current rule(s) tackle this problem:
None.

Explain the change:
I believe every past infracted member of Sythe should have a PERMANENT black mark to warn potential buyers who they are communicating with. Either something within the profile on the first page or on every post similar to a TWC but smaller and on the right side where join date, post information, and referrals are. This would directly help new buyers that request PMs, check profiles, or are simply browsing the sale pages. I don't think this should apply for people who have DISPUTED the infraction, but only for those that simply received a PARDON to return to the community.

Explain why this change will fix the problem:
New users won't have to do any extra work to find past infractions on Sythe users that are still active and can easily bury their past infractions.

Side-effects:
Some old infracted members will not like this as it could potentially harm future sale opportunities but I think this is required due to so many returning infracted members. Users that have used Sythe without any infraction are more clearly justified and are also rewarded for good trading ethics.

 

[President]

Describe the problem:
People on Sythe should be held more accountable for performing scams in the past. How it stands currently, you are able to get an infraction removed by appealing or asking for a pardon. I agree with appealing and over ruling an infraction because generally this is done because the result isn't satisfactory. I don't agree with completely removing easy ways to find infractions.

Right now you need to use the search function to find peoples past infraction history. The issue with this is that if they are active on Sythe, and in a lot of cases are donators, it is not as simple to find this kind of information.

What current rule(s) tackle this problem:
None.

Explain the change:
I believe every past infracted member of Sythe should have a PERMANENT black mark to warn potential buyers who they are communicating with. Either something within the profile on the first page or on every post similar to a TWC but smaller and on the right side where join date, post information, and referrals are. This would directly help new buyers that request PMs, check profiles, or are simply browsing the sale pages. I don't think this should apply for people who have DISPUTED the infraction, but only for those that simply received a PARDON to return to the community.

Explain why this change will fix the problem:
New users won't have to do any extra work to find past infractions on Sythe users that are still active and can easily bury their past infractions.

Side-effects:
Some old infracted members will not like this as it could potentially harm future sale opportunities but I think this is required due to so many returning infracted members. Users that have used Sythe without any infraction are more clearly justified and are also rewarded for good trading ethics.

System is currently fine.

Permanently handicapping market parties isn't a good idea. People are already evading. Your change will incentivize this even further, or they will seek out other trading platforms — which reduces activity.

No support

 

[xKyyL]

System is currently fine.

Permanently handicapping market parties isn't a good idea. People are already evading. Your change will incentivize this even further, or they will seek out other trading platforms — which reduces activity.

No support

I would argue that the person handicapped themselves by making the choice to scam. Using Sythe is a privilage, not a right. Once you've been given that chance to come back, why not display that kind of information? If people were actually interested in selling on Sythe they would have accountability.

If they are not interested, they can leave. Giving new and honest sellers more opportunity.

Additionally, majority of the people that would have blackmarks don't contribute to the community apart from the autobump they get to use on there 20+ threads. I doubt this would change how majority of these users operate in general.

On another note, majority of these sellers don't even use Sythe as a trading platform, but more as an advertisement platform. Sending users to their discord, then directing them to different communities and selling platforms anyways. This means that sellers don't care about staying on Sythe to perform trades and are more interested in the views Sythe gets as such an old selling platform.

Sythe community is dead so it should be treated as more of a selling and trading platform.

 

[President]

I would argue that the person handicapped themselves by making the choice to scam. Using Sythe is a privilage, not a right. Once you've been given that chance to come back, why not display that kind of information? If people were actually interested in selling on Sythe they would have accountability.

If they are not interested, they can leave. Giving new and honest sellers more opportunity.

Additionally, majority of the people that would have blackmarks don't contribute to the community apart from the autobump they get to use on there 20+ threads. I doubt this would change how majority of these users operate in general.

On another note, majority of these sellers don't even use Sythe as a trading platform, but more as an advertisement platform. Sending users to their discord, then directing them to different communities and selling platforms anyways. This means that sellers don't care about staying on Sythe to perform trades and are more interested in the views Sythe gets as such an old selling platform.

Sythe community is dead so it should be treated as more of a selling and trading platform.

That may all be true, but it's still an extra push in the back to evade. It's unlikely that users who aren’t known for their integrity would put themselves at a disadvantage in this hypercompetitive market.

As for your second point: exactly—that's my point. If it's dead, then why would users, whom you've now permanently handicapped, bother to advertise here if there's minimal influx to their Discord (your change would cause this)? It would kill the website even more.

 

[xKyyL]

That may all be true, but it's still an extra push in the back to evade. It's unlikely that users who aren’t known for their integrity would put themselves at a disadvantage in this hypercompetitive market.

As for your second point: exactly—that's my point. If it's dead, then why would users, whom you've now permanently handicapped, bother to advertise here if there's minimal influx to their Discord (your change would cause this)? It would kill the website even more.

I don't believe it would kill the website more because the people using the website, majority of the time, are auto bumping anyways. Why would they stop auto bumping if they paid for it?

Lets say these people do leave. This now gives new sellers a chance to begin making a name for themselves. If people are ban evading, they take that risk to further their punishments. As they do now.

I would much rather a big seller make a new account, evade, and get punished for his actions then waste potentially 100s of customers time with an exit scam after being allowed back into the community after a year or two.

The damage would be considerably lower if they were forced to evade like you said. Or they could grow a pair and own up to there mistakes, if they truly were a mistake. Accountability should be everything in a hypercompetitive market, and the honest sellers should prosper. Not the shady big guy.

 

[President]

I don't believe it would kill the website more because the people using the website, majority of the time, are auto bumping anyways. Why would they stop auto bumping if they paid for it?

Lets say these people do leave. This now gives new sellers a chance to begin making a name for themselves. If people are ban evading, they take that risk to further their punishments. As they do now.

I would much rather a big seller make a new account, evade, and get punished for his actions then waste potentially 100s of customers time with an exit scam after being allowed back into the community after a year or two.

The damage would be considerably lower if they were forced to evade like you said. Or they could grow a pair and own up to there mistakes, if they truly were a mistake. Accountability should be everything in a hypercompetitive market, and the honest sellers should prosper. Not the shady big guy.

The other way can be argued just as easily: someone with a tainted reputation might be more successful at exit scamming on a new account, precisely because that new account isn’t tainted. It’s therefore speculative whether exit scams are more or less likely to happen under the current model or yours. The impact being bigger or smaller is speculative too. You'd need data to make a proper comparative analysis of these sorts of claims.

What is clear, however, is that people would have more incentive to evade under your model. They'd also be less likely to pay their debts after being caught scamming, since there's no chance of being pardoned. This would impact the CRF, and debtors wouldn't get partially repaid like they do now.

Part of the problem you're describing is also tackled by the vouching system, which allows for negative reviews and general reputation. Very often, when someone wants to make a transaction, the first thing they do is ask someone they trust for a credible market user.

 

Good in theory, but sythe dies on the spot if implemented. Before the pardons were somewhat reasonable, now it's more so forgive everyone cause site is dead

 

The other way can be argued just as easily: someone with a tainted reputation might be more successful at exit scamming on a new account, precisely because that new account isn’t tainted. It’s therefore speculative whether exit scams are more or less likely to happen under the current model or yours. The impact is speculative too — you'd need data to back that up.

What is clear, however, is that people would have more incentive to evade under your model. They'd also be less likely to pay their debts after being caught scamming, since there's no chance of being pardoned. This would impact the CRF, and debtors wouldn't get partially repaid like they do now.

Part of the problem you're describing is also tackled by the vouching system, which allows for negative reviews and general reputation. Very often, when someone wants to make a transaction, the first thing they do is ask someone they trust for a credible market user.

I agree but what about pardoning ex bond holders who contact family members and someones college over 150$? No debts so what's the argument here lol

 

[President]

I agree but what about pardoning ex bond holders who contact family members and someones college over 150$? No debts so what's the argument here lol

I outlined what I think should be the main rule — obviously there can be exceptions. Stuff like doxxing or swatting should always be a permanent yeet IMO.

 

IDk i kinda like this idea, Possibly some kinda of a dot system that u can maybe click on someones profile that can open up any links to scam reports and such.

As for @President Saying it will reduce activity, why would we want more active scammers then a less active market with no scammers?

 

[OsrsSkillz]

No Support, I don't think it's fair to judge one action (Scam) on someone for the rest of there life sorta thing, I think the punishment is fair as it is and I don't personally think they Pardon enough people looking at the odd old pardon.

Gooc idea though, Nice suggestion.

 

No support - President summed it up great.

 

[xKyyL]

No support - President summed it up great.

If possible, could you elaborate on this? Does this mean your worried Sythe will die for giving scammers permanent black marks?

I want to make this clear. This is NOT about the people that are pardoned. This IS COMPLETELY about new and future users of this website. It gets brought up time and time again about how new users don't use the information provided to them to prevent scams. This completely fixes that issue. You think new members will stay if they are scammed? Absolutely not.

 

[xKyyL]

The other way can be argued just as easily: someone with a tainted reputation might be more successful at exit scamming on a new account, precisely because that new account isn’t tainted. It’s therefore speculative whether exit scams are more or less likely to happen under the current model or yours. The impact being bigger or smaller is speculative too. You'd need data to make a proper comparative analysis of these sorts of claims.

What is clear, however, is that people would have more incentive to evade under your model. They'd also be less likely to pay their debts after being caught scamming, since there's no chance of being pardoned. This would impact the CRF, and debtors wouldn't get partially repaid like they do now.

Part of the problem you're describing is also tackled by the vouching system, which allows for negative reviews and general reputation. Very often, when someone wants to make a transaction, the first thing they do is ask someone they trust for a credible market user.

Your trying to tell me right now that they would have better luck on a new account? The overall understanding is that new members SHOULD NOT even try to sell things on Sythe because they would get low balled for having no actual vouches. Then are told they must complete services for pretty much free to build up a reputation which would allow them to sell things at the price they want. I would absolutely LOVE to see some of these scammers TRY to ban evade, do a bunch of free services, then get caught. That would be the ultimate retribution.

Most people would rather just move on. If they scammed, that isn't a bad thing. If they don't want to payback the debts, why would we want them back in the first place? The users that are interested in using this platform will do what they must. Those people that are practicing good sales should never even have to worry about this.

When someone receives a DNT it's because they have went out of there way, in most cases, to harm someone in the community. Why not make it known if they want to come back?

In the real world, accountability is everything. We should hold those who harm others accountable.

You want to see Sythe grow? Protect your users.

 

If possible, could you elaborate on this? Does this mean your worried Sythe will die for giving scammers permanent black marks?

I want to make this clear. This is NOT about the people that are pardoned. This IS COMPLETELY about new and future users of this website. It gets brought up time and time again about how new users don't use the information provided to them to prevent scams. This completely fixes that issue. You think new members will stay if they are scammed? Absolutely not.

People that are active on this website would rather let Sythe rot then have potential and a second chance of life?

Quite busy so these may be short/sweet:

- This suggestion ultimately goes against the pardon process.
- Users will just evade more versus try to pardon if they are still going to have some sort of "blackmark" labeled on them
- This suggestion won't make Sythe die as users will just switch to evading vs trying to pardon

 

[xKyyL]

Quite busy so these may be short/sweet:

- This suggestion ultimately goes against the pardon process.
- Users will just evade more versus try to pardon if they are still going to have some sort of "blackmark" labeled on them
- This suggestion won't make Sythe die as users will just switch to evading vs trying to pardon

Gotcha. Thanks for your opinion, Kanye.

 

[President]

Your trying to tell me right now that they would have better luck on a new account? The overall understanding is that new members SHOULD NOT even try to sell things on Sythe because they would get low balled for having no actual vouches. Then are told they must complete services for pretty much free to build up a reputation which would allow them to sell things at the price they want. I would absolutely LOVE to see some of these scammers TRY to ban evade, do a bunch of free services, then get caught. That would be the ultimate retribution.

That “overall understanding” is shaky at best. Newcomers have the option build vouches/a reputation in more ways than one. By buying an established shop, bulk-flipping gold, or pumping out micro-trades. We’ve seen brand-new accounts grab quick trust and then exit-scam. The idea that a fresh profile is automatically crippled just isn’t true. I’m not claiming new accounts always beat “tainted” ones; I’m saying both scenarios are speculative. If you want to know which model breeds more scams, you’d need real data, not gut feelings.

Most people would rather just move on. If they scammed, that isn't a bad thing. If they don't want to payback the debts, why would we want them back in the first place? The users that are interested in using this platform will do what they must. Those people that are practicing good sales should never even have to worry about this.

This one is hard to follow

When someone receives a DNT it's because they have went out of there way, in most cases, to harm someone in the community. Why not make it known if they want to come back?

It already is public. Every pardon request is posted and permanently archived for anyone to read, so transparency isn’t the issue here.

In the real world, accountability is everything. We should hold those who harm others accountable.

You want to see Sythe grow? Protect your users.

This is Sythe, not a court of law. Accountability is only one piece of the puzzle: deterrence, restitution to victims, and even the chance for rehabilitation also matter. Some systems lean heavy on punishment; others focus on getting money back to the people who lost it. A policy that blocks any path to repayment might feel tough, but it can leave victims worse off and push bad actors to vanish for good.

Edit: also agree with what @Kanye said

 

[xKyyL]

That “overall understanding” is shaky at best. Newcomers have the option build vouches/a reputation in more ways than one. By buying an established shop, bulk-flipping gold, or pumping out micro-trades. We’ve seen brand-new accounts grab quick trust and then exit-scam. The idea that a fresh profile is automatically crippled just isn’t true. I’m not claiming new accounts always beat “tainted” ones; I’m saying both scenarios are speculative. If you want to know which model breeds more scams, you’d need real data, not gut feelings.

Sounds like its worth trying it. With no real understanding of the results. You can sit there and say "without data" but without actually attempting to create the data, your claims are just as outlandish.

This one is hard to follow

This is simple. The ones that want to stay WILL do whatever it takes to stay. The ones that don't want to be on Sythe can piss off. Rightfully so, as a scammer, can walk right out the door.

It already is public. Every pardon request is posted and permanently archived for anyone to read, so transparency isn’t the issue here.

This IS the issue. The idea is that, although public, you need to jump through hoops for this information. Which people have proven time after time that they won't jump through those hoops.

If you're worried about people coming back and ban evading. You should take it upon yourself to catch these people @President. I'm confident, as an ex staff member, you would understand the avenues required to assist with this.

You give off the impression you care about the well being of Sythe.

 

[President]

Sounds like its worth trying it. With no real understanding of the results. You can sit there and say "without data" but without actually attempting to create the data, your claims are just as outlandish.

Sythe isn't a lab where you can run trials until people lose money.

Anyway, we switched from blanket permabans to DNT for a reason: DNT gives scammers a motive to repay, and the CRF gets victims made whole. Under the old model (and your model) this isn't the case.

If they don't want to payback the debts, why would we want them back in the first place?

This is simple. The ones that want to stay WILL do whatever it takes to stay. The ones that don't want to be on Sythe can piss off. Rightfully so, as a scammer, can walk right out the door.

To respond to a point you raised earlier: I’d argue that most victims would gladly accept repayment, even if it means the scammer gets a (temporary) DNT and a shot at rejoining the community.

A one-size-fits-all solution doesn’t do the situation justice, as people are very different and live under different circumstances. Financial desperation in Third World countries, gambling issues, or even doing something dumb while drunk. Many of them later regret it. People grow up; younger users, in particular, tend to do dumb things on this platform. If they’ve learned from their mistakes and repaid their debts, they deserve a shot at trading on equal footing with everyone else.

This IS the issue. The idea is that, although public, you need to jump through hoops for this information. Which people have proven time after time that they won't jump through those hoops.

If you're worried about people coming back and ban evading. You should take it upon yourself to catch these people @President. I'm confident, as an ex staff member, you would understand the avenues required to assist with this.

You give off the impression you care about the well being of Sythe.

It’s not hoops. If you’re about to do a transaction with someone, you can find out if they’ve had shade on them within a minute using the search button. That level of due diligence rightfully falls under a customer’s responsibility.

 

There have been many suggestions over the years that had altruistic intentions. This is one of those. I respect and appreciate the idea, but don't support it. There's just no world where it would ever make sense to implement, for a dozen reasons.

I am a good personal example of why this suggestion would be unfair and in my opinion, a bad idea.

I've been on Sythe for over 18 years - more than half of my lifetime. I've spent a significant amount of time on the CDT team, and was leader for more than two years. I’ve invested heavily into the community and feel like I have contributed greatly. Despite never running a video game related business, I have 200+ quality vouches and have been an active community member for almost two decades. I've sold dozens of accounts and have traded tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods and services without any issue.

Five or six years ago, I received a DNT and ban for offsite blackhat activity. I made a mistake, but it was largely a misunderstanding. I resolved the issue and after a few months I appealed and was pardoned.

Respectfully, I feel it's a fair point to make that I’ve proven my trustworthiness in many ways, and that I’m far more trustworthy than most, including you (2015 join date, 43 posts, zero vouches). However, your suggestion would likely cause me to have a "permanent TWC styled blackmark" on my profile. This could easily create an artificial sense of distrust towards me and other users who have spent tremendous time building their reputation, or an artificially inflated sense of trust towards newer members who don't have "the mark" but have ill intentions.

There are even current and/or ex-staff members that would receive that "TWC styled blackmark."

The staff team does not take DNT appeals lightly. Each case is reviewed with serious contemplation of the consequences and outcomes that could arise by pardoning a user. Many users take 5-10+ appeals over the course of years to receive a pardon. Others never get their pardon.

I do not believe your suggestion would do any good in prevent scams, rather, it would hurt those who want to do the right thing.