Counter Scamming

With R2P's recent report, it's made me think.

Lets say person A gets scammed by person B. Chargeback of $100.
Person B contacts person C months later trying to buy gold, and the details match.
Person C takes payment and refuses to give person B goods.
Person C gives cash to person A as a reimbursement.

Is person C in the clear even though he scammed person B?

 

I believe so yes, as long as he refunds person A, you can class it as counter scamming IMO.

 

I think he is, because technically, After A gets scammed by person B, B has stolen A's money, since they did a trade it is now A's money, so that was never B's money to actually spend, so it's kind of like returning stolen goods. (I think)

 

In a way i would class person C as a scammer.., he had no involvement in the actions of person B and A,
I would class Person C as a scammer.

 

As long as there is proof for both B scamming and C giving the money to A, I don't care.

 

It's doing a nice favor which could end unhappily for the person who wasn't even involved.

 

Counter-scamming is when you are trading someone who is a scammer, and you steal something from them on that basis. For example, I know Sigex is a scammer, I steal 500M from him. I tell him too bad, he's a scammer, that's what happens to scammers. This is an example of counter-scamming. It's against the rules.

What is happening in this situation, is Buyer *B* owes Seller *A* money ($100). This debt is documented with evidence and the evidence must be sufficient. Buyer *B* goes to Seller *C* and orders something for $120. Before delivery, Seller *A* contacts Seller *C* and shows proof of the scam. Seller *C* should now freeze the transaction and ask Seller *A* to post proof on Sythe, or if they are satisfied with it, can go ahead and forward $100 to Seller *A*. Not the full $120, since the debt is for $100.

Now, this situation should be rare. Considering that Seller *A* must know that Buyer *B* is buying from Seller *C*, and must contact Seller *C* before this delivery, it should not be something which impacts Sythe users regularly. The situation I had with Kevin happens maybe once every 2-3 months for me, and I trade literally 1,000's of times each month. Sythe rules do not need to be modified, it actually states that recovering your own property is fully within the rules, as it should be.

 

Could of been stated any better.

 

no. scamming is scamming regaurdless

 

R2P sums it up perfectly.

 

Then what happends to the extra 20$, from what inderstood is that someone was scammed for 100$ and the scammer buys something off you for 120$, you send 100$ to the person who got scammed of the 120$ but then there's the 20$ extra still, what happends to that, assuming that you give them goods/services equall to the 20$ value or the 120$ they were going to pay or just send 20$ back?

 

Considering the scammer has now paid his debt back fully, this $20 is now legitimate money. If the scammer is buying gold, you can give them $20 worth of gold. If they are buying something which cannot be divided into smaller amounts, then the money should be refunded with all fees at the scammer's expense (since it's his fault this situation happened - he scammed).

 

Ever heard of the expression that two wrongs don't make it right?

Person C promised to offer x amount of GP for x dollars but did not provide it = scamming. You can try to justify it all you want but in that transaction, Person C scammed the buyer.

 

read above posts before increasing your post count. Regardless*

However Person B is in debt and that debt should be settled before he continues.

 

This is a very clear and solid explanation of it.

 

What I don't understand is that wont person B be banned for scamming person A? Assuming there was proper evidence and person B was reported. Now when and where does person B trade with person C?

 

100% agree with this man. It is returning stolen goods because it wasn't person B's money to begin with. So Person C is returning person A's money which person B never really had to begin with.

 

But if there is 100% proof that B scammed A and the amount that B is offering C is the same amount he scammed and C 100% gave A back their amount of cash, why does that make it scamming? C is returning stolen goods and doing something good.