The Problem I ran into with "Infractions"

Before I get started I want to say. I have read the stickies in the dispute forum, and already contacted the moderator who issued the Infraction. I'll explain the whole ordeal and I'd appreciate some community feedback on the subject.

On December 1st, I received an infraction from KeroKeroCola.

​

This infraction was my 5th infraction, resulting in my temporary banishment here from Sythe. The infraction was given in error;here is the post that I was infracted for.

​

I posted on someones gold selling thread, and I saw that "ranked player" was attempting to purchase some gold too. This user has been reported by me, for evading and reported by another Sythe member for scamming.

My report : http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1279081
Other user's : http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1278368

The post that I was infracted for did NOT accuse someone of Scamming (the reason for infraction) Saying someone is a "suspected" scammer is a just statement. He's been reported twice, and should HAVE had a trade with caution at the minimum.
Ranked Player is now banned from Sythe along with his second account "Glover" for SCAMMING.

Link 1 : http://sythe.org/member.php?u=319739
Link 2 : http://www.sythe.org/member.php?u=318489

Before PM'ing KeroKeroCola or posting this, I asked PunkerPunk13 of what I should do, since him and I talk on occasion and he gives me good advice. He's been here awhile and he told me that I should PM kero first. So I took his advice and then PM'd Kero. Punker also explained to me that the only staff member that would probably do anything is Matthew.

​

As you can clearly see in the PM, kero denies removing the Infraction and claims it was deserved. As this post states.. the Infraction was not deserved.

In conclusion, I think the rules on Sythe about infraction removal should be visited. If a moderator is going to instantly infract someone they should have consequences for messing up if they didn't do the leg work to check out previous evidence. I was merely trying to save a guy from losing his hard earned money, and this is what I get? A temporary ban and potential lost revenue? Infraction was not just. It's sad that this whole post was needed to get something removed that could have been prevented by a few simple clicks by KeroKeroCola.

Thank you for your time everyone, hope to get this sorted out ASAP.

 

Saying some is a suspected scammer is just as bad as saying he is a scammer. Also, next time when you post saying he's a "suspected scammed" link the scam report and you won't be infracted as you're not accusing somebody with "no" proof. In any case, I do believe the infraction is warranted.

 

sus·pect
1. To surmise to be true or probable; imagine:
2. To have doubts about; distrust:
3. To think (a person) guilty without proof:

infraction shouldn't have been warranted.

 

3. To think (a person) guilty without proof:

>_>, hence implying he is a scammer but you have no proof, thus accusing of scamming with no proof.

 

This was my only choice to get it removed.

 

I think it is a bad reason for the infraction as well, it is against the rules to say someone is a scammer without proof, but you did have proof, just not in the same topic. The rule doesn't say, if you say someone is a scammer, you must provide proof in the same topic.

I think it was just a mistake, and Idk why Kero wouldn't go back and man up for this.

The scammers have too many rights here.

 

In the future, if you choose to make such related claims (even if simply suspected) please provide proof alongside your statements - otherwise you're simply tarnishing a members reputation, though I'm not defending Ranked Player here.
The infraction was warranted sorry.

 

I disagree, not that my opinion matters, but the rules say,

"Accusing Someone of Scamming: without proof (text logs DO NOT COUNT AS PROOF)"

The rules don't say anything about the proof needing to be in the same topic as the accusation. Think of this situation logically for a second, the guy knew the other was a scammer, he and someone else posted a scam report on him, then he went to warn other members that he was a scammer, and he gets punished?

I can understand the mistake, Kero didn't know that he had posted a scam report and that there was proof, the dude ended up getting banned after all.

Why should a member be punished for trying to help the community whilst being within the rules?

I mean come on, think of it if you were in his shoes, and you were just trying to help out the community and had this happen. This just seems really ridiculous to me, I don't even know the OP.

 

Why is everybody ignoring the fact this guy was trying to high jack the thread? Whether this guy was a scammer or not, last time I checked this was against the rules

 

It isn't what the infraction was for.

Why is everyone ignoring the fact that the dude actually was a scammer, and proof was actually available to support the claim, and the OP was just trying to help out the community, come on now.

 

You're right, it isn't. But either way he should've gotten an infraction, whether it was one or t'other, which makes his whole case null.

 

I agree to this if your going to make a farfetched claim such as this one. ATLEAST have evidence along side it. It's not fair to the seller you criticize either.

 

I guess the moral of this story is don't report scammers nor try to notify members to deal with them accordingly or infractions will ensue.

What positives for you from him getting banned?

Nothing, you wouldn't have traded him again or dealt with him again, you knew he was a scammer. You notified the community to help the community.

What negatives for you from him getting banned?

An infraction. Submitting a successful report is also time consuming, when I submit one I usually spend around an hour on it.


This is the kind of message this is sending the community in my opinion.

---

How would this be farfetched? The guy was banned for it. Evidence was available, just not along side it, and it isn't required to be according to the rules.

 

It is simply common sense? The rule was made for a reason - what if the scam reports were found to be invalid or the member not guilty?

Please place a link to your proof alongside your claim. That's it. Period.

 

Read the last two lines. He was manipulating the fact that there were scam reports against this person to further his own business. If he hadn't written the first few lines Then your argument would be valid. But as he did, your plea for his "attempt at helping the community" is flawed.

 

I believe it was fully deserved.

1) you indeed accused him of scamming without proof.
2) thisone is a bit off topic but I believe you shouldn't post your own msn for a legimate trade on someone elses topic. this is against the rules..

 

I was selling the OP GP.. I posted my msn so he could contact me.. that's not hijacking a thread at all..

 

I apologise and retract my statement. I misunderstood the context of your post.

 

I can't say I wouldn't of done the same thing as the OP. In fact, I probably do the same as the OP 4-5 times a week. Not to say it's in a post, but to simply warn people.

If it's obvious somebody is a scammer, and the OP isn't aware, it's kind of idiotic to not warn him. To infract somebody that's simply trying to keep the OP from being scammed is itself wrong. I've always hated how that system's worked..

 

I must agree with Punker.