A definition for counter-scamming

There's been a lot of discussion about this in N4n0's thread and since it's not relevant and most of those posts will probably be deleted, I thought I'd open up a thread here.

As of now, the rules are worded as such:

Users will be banned permanently for the following:
Scamming: or any suspicious behavior similar to scamming or counter-scamming

If I pay for an item and I don't receive it, I can chargeback on paypal and I can guarantee you I won't get a ban. But if someone charges me back and I take the gp back from them somehow (legally, no hacking) I can guarantee that I will be banned.

Can we have a formal definition for counter-scamming?

Thoughts?

Edit: Made this suggestion less opinionated and personal

 

Shouldn't the guy who scammed you originally have been banned in the first place? Or did he ban-evade?

Anyway, I'm far too new to this community to make any meaningful opinion on this matter, was just curious about the the first thing I asked.

 

I think the essence of the rule should remain. A definition however of it would not hurt.

I'll analyze three examples below:

Account for PayPal - PayPal chargeback.

You enter into a contract to sell your account for a certain amount of money via PayPal. The person reverses the payment and the contract is terminated. As such, you are entitled to recover your account back. I believe everyone thinks this is acceptable.

The reason recovering the account is acceptable is you are not violating any contractual agreement (see below for elucidation). As such, you are free to recover the account.

Goods for PayPal - Undelivered items.

You enter into a contract to purchase a PS3 for a certain amount of money via PayPal. You send the payment, but the PS3 never arrives as promised, and it is evident that you have been scammed. The contract is therefore terminated as the seller failed to uphold his end of the bargain. As such, you are entitled to reverse the payment as the contract has been terminated.

The reason reversing the payment is acceptable is you are not violating any contractual agreement. Therefore, you are free to recover the account.

RSGP for PayPal - PayPal chargeback - Counterscamming.

You enter into a contract to sell a certain amount of RSGP for a certain amount of money via PayPal. The person reverses the payment and the contract is terminated. As such, you are entitled to recover your RSGP back. Herein lies the problem, the methodology you employ to reclaim your RSGP.There isn't a way to reclaim said RSGP without violating any rules yourself, hence, why I believe counter-scamming should remain a punishable offence.

Let's say video did indeed 'counter scam' and reclaim 'his' RSGP. To do so, he would first have to enter into a contract with the person to purchase his RSGP, for payment via PayPal. There's no way around this, if you take the RSGP, you yourself violate the contract in an attempts to see 'justice done'. Essentially it's a 'two wrongs make a right', he violated 'my' contract, therefore I'll violate 'his' contract to reclaim what is 'mine'. This is the reason that makes this unacceptable, you're violating a contract.



In a paragraph, the reason that 'counter-scamming' should be punishable is because you yourself violate a contract. If you can reclaim your items without violating a contract, then 'counter' scamming has not occurred, and no punishment should be rendered.

 

If you're counter-scamming the exact same amount... I don't see your logic. It is still yours, not his. What I disagree with though is being remorseful and counterscamming them several months later. (Unless it's a large value)

 

Scamming to get your money back is still scamming. If I got caught up in a Madoff like scandal where I invested money with him he he steals it, I can't go to his office and steal it back. That is against the law, the authorities will try their best to get back to me what is stolen from me. Vigilante justice is illegal.

 

I support the idea of counter scamming, even though it is still scamming. You would need HARD evidence of every aspect o the matter though if this preposition was passed.

 

This. But who would be dumb enough to sell you your own gp?

 

Ignore that part. Point is, counter-scamming should be better-defined

 

I'd think your allowed to charge back on Paypal because that's what chargebacks are for. But you can't get scammed for an account, and then go scam a different account for revenge. Really its a matter of necessity as we can't really know if the scam was a scam or a counter scam.

 

Reclaiming your gold if you were charged-back would not be counter-scamming. And that's assuming it's possible to reclaim the gold, which isn't.

Scamming back your gold if you were charged-back would be counter-scamming. That is indeed possible. In which case, would be more accepted by other people because you were the one scammed in the first place. However, despite technicalities, it would make you a scammer too nevertheless.

Overall, I think things like this vary from situations and should be enforced under the discreet of staff.

 

I thought it was allowed considering Plznate had done it to somebody who had scammed a cracker, if the money was stolen and returned the original owner I see nothing wrong with it unless an excess amount is being taken. Only hard part is proving the money was rightfully yours from the beginning.

Plznate: http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1109607

 

So the staff agreed to let someone counter-scam? This outside-of-the-rules operation makes me think that the staff don't have to play by their own rules. I think counter-scamming shouldn't be allowed, you are still deceitfully taking things and it sets a precedent.

 

Talk about double standards.

 

FYI: Counter scamming is not allowed at any time for any reason by anyone, including the staff. Richard would not stand for it.

 

The point that's trying to be made quite clearly here is that when you counter-scam, you're still scamming, regardless of how you get your GP back, unless you go up to the arse who scammed you and ask for your GP back, and the cunt gives it. Chances of that happening are equal to you winning the lottery in most cases.

 

This is a touchy subject.

For example, imagine if every single member who got scammed asked a mod friend to scam the person who scammed them to get their money back. what would that considered? (referring back to plznate)

I really think there can not be a concrete definition. It should be a case-by-case basis.

 

I believe that if you were scammed, and you have a chance to take your RSGP/money back, you shouldn't receive a ban for it.

You had no bad intentions, and you didn't steal from anyone (the goods were YOURS in the first place).

 

Theoretically it is stealing still which is why this issue is so ambiguous. Say after you got scammed, you went out of your way to deceit the person who scammed you whether it was by making imposter msns, etc, to get your gold back. If you successfully got your gold back, that is still scamming by deceiving which is what we at sythe completely advocate against.

 

How is it stealing if it was yours to begin with? And by your logic, paypal chargebacks are "stealing" the money back that you paid to the scammer so those should be not permitted either

 

I personally would not oppose being allowed to scam back something that was scammed directly from you. Similar to someone recovering an account (you are scammed) and you chargeback the PP (you retrieve your scammed money).

That is how I saw the cracker incident and morally I believe it was the correct and appropriate decision.