Blackmailing, Threatening and Extortion shouldnt be allowed

I believe this should be added to the rules.

After taking a look at the report between Dave and Moes, I'm wondering how Moes isn't banned or at least confronted about it by staff. How is blackmailing/threatening especially for, what we can only presume, personal gain allowed? From what I've gathered moes is banned on Ikov for blackmailing and threatening the server staff. I hope you guys realize that blackmailing is a serious issue and normally leads to extortion.

The report
http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer...porting-moes6223-refusing-pay-me-my-work.html

Obviously no proof was shown, but how did that just go ignored?

 

It falls under social engineering which is legal if not done here or by malicious tools.

"Social Engineering is the act of manipulating a person into gaining access or sensitive data by ... or a virus, the former uses social techniques such as coercing and sometimes even blackmailing"

In moes case, it's not a big deal since it was done on a private server, and wasn't related to the leaking of personal/confidential information of significant importance (Address/Phone Number/Pictures etc) afaik.

As long as you can lure off site, you should be able to extort off site amiright (this doesn't include for sensitive real life/business information)?

Labeling all acts of extortion as against the rules is a no no for me.

 

I'm inclined to agree with you Ghast; I support this especially as in this case, Dave wasn't in the wrong in the first place and was thrown under the bus by Moes's recklessness and carelessness.

 

Things like this are already bannable on a case by case basis as far as I'm aware.

 

Yes, its not allowed. Its just not written in the rules. Ive seen people banned for blackmailing.

 

I also had this thought. While I see Ghast's point of view, I have no clue why they would allow someone who already lost one entire business by attempting to extort people to remain on sythe. He's a donation bond holder, how they can trust someone like him with money or a position of trust is beyond me when he's shown he can't be trusted to be an ethical member of the market. As well as this being considered "offsite" extortion, members are commonly banned for offsite blackhat or offsite scamming so I don't see why the same wouldn't apply for extortion here. Moes should be banned IMO.

 

You don't even know why he was blackmailing the guy and you assume it isn't a big deal. The staff ignored it and didn't seem to question him about it. Just because it was done on a private server? Really Ghast? If Moes told him ban my competitor and give me $1000 or I'll release proof of your wrongdoings, that would be fine because it's on a private server and personal information wasn't leaked? What if moes' blackmail was to release personal information, the guy gave in and met his demands. That would still be fine because personal information wasn't leaked and it's on a private server?

 

Since Dave corrected the issue, this means he would have knowledge of the whole incident. Since he didn't take action against Moes, it's safe to assume the blackmailing wasn't done on a significant scale, and was kept within the confinement of the server.

 

This should already be subsumed under the: "Malicious Off-site Activities: If you are found to have committed offences elsewhere (as in, on other sites) which would constitute a ban here on Sythe.org had they been committed here, we may use these offences as an indicator of your character and choose to ban you from Sythe.org. Offences committed prior to your Sythe.org membership may also be considered depending on the nature of the offence."

It's a case-by-case thing, and there's no need to expand the rules list unnecessarily. Furthermore, it's pointless to speculate on whether moes ought to be punished for his actions, since we would require specifics as to what happened. We don't have such specifics.

 

The thing is, and correct me if I'm wrong here staff, the staff who handled the report did not even ask about it. A global accuses someone of blackmailing and threatening which are pretty serious, yet that somehow slips through.

From what I've heard it's most likely over exaggerated. That doesn't mean staff should go through it and go "blackmail and threatening? Let's talk about Dave going back on his word instead.". I'm also pretty sure the staff does not have the specifics as to what happened because apparently moes' hands are tied.

 

I loved the read, by the sounds of it both members are pissed for whatever reason they want to call it, however I would state personally in my eyes Dave never signed a contract, there meaning Dave should be refunded the $25 or whatever, Dave did nothing but put his time in if you think about it and stuff like this does happen.



~ I don't know how to receive notifications btw so nobody quote me xD

 

To be clear, you do accept that it is already subsumed in the rule I cited above, and so specifically adding it would be unnecessary?

The rule states that Sythe may use malicious off-site activities as evidence of poor character, and thus issue a ban. The first requirement would be to determine whether moes off-site activities were indeed malicious, and bannable if they were committed on Sythe (this would be in reference to the specifics we do not have). The second, is whether this event is evidence of poor character (a poor judgement may not necessarily be evidence of poor character). The third is whether the staff would use this event to ban moes at their discretion.

To deal with your point, with reference to the specifics case, staff may not ask questions on the thread, however they may have asked questions in private. I am 100% sure that someone asked Dave/moes what the blackmail was; imagine if all the blackmail was is that moes would delete him off skype! Clearly someone outside of Dave/moes knew.

It may be the case that whoever inquired into the blackmail situation did not inquire far enough because they were not preoccupied with the malicious-offsite activities rule. Even if this the was case, this does not detract from the point that blackmail does not need to be specified as a separate offence, instead it would be feedback as to how the investigation could have been improved.

 

Fair enough. Going on both their words though, it's very likely Dave over exaggerated with the word black mail.

Alright, I'll have a little faith in staff.

Good point. From what we see is a Global accusing someone of blackmail, moes and the staff ignoring it as if it somehow slipped. I hope this isn't the case.

Close please.

 

People say dumb things under anger, we're willing to let it slide im certain cases where we don't think the user is a genuine risk

 

Dave's actions in my opinion are very shadey for a staff member... I'm gonna side with Moe on this one... But I obviously don't know every detail to both sides.

 

Oh, req close