Be courteous to the victims

http://www.sythe.org/report-spammer-archive/1802090-reported-post-xier0.html

Already been addressed, not just once, not just twice, but many times. This decision does not absolve Bigboibets of his debts - it confirms it just like the 'Final' decisions made by FireZ before him, Entrr before him, and Dave before him. No 'Final' decision was made for the offender to be allowed to maliciously attack all of his competitors, fraud his partner, then attack his partner when he successfully sets up a competing business, just as he attacked the other competitors before him with no consequences.

You quote an administrator decision saying that the user is responsible for contacting victims, he has not, so, why the vote? The staff team, as a whole, and as individuals, all are in agreement that he cannot pardon without righting his wrongs, but then go on to allow him to pardon without righting said wrongs. This is a contradiction.

It is not in dispute whatsoever that the user is responsible. The offender claims himself responsible. The victim claims the offender responsible. The staff claims the offender responsible. But, the offender continues not to uphold his responsibility, and staff grants him the ability to pardon REGARDLESS.

 

The issue is that there were multiple decisions and not one final decision as like half the staff stepped in on the case. I had been following this issue for months well before joining Sythe through a moderator on BBB's site. I've been told some of the darkest secrets that are being kept hidden about BBB. The story goes further than Sythe and what's been announced so far. my point is however, that it seems Sythe staff have decided to stop wasting their time on the issue and instead would rather let the OP work issues out in order to return.

Seeing as how everyone voted no on the pardon, I have reason to believe based off the actions and voices of the staff that they no longer want BBB on the site at this time. I believe the only way for BBB to return is to pay at least several people back the money that is owed regardless of there just being blackhat activity.

@Xiero, the issue is not that they will allow him to return without paying anyone back. The issue is that they no longer want to address the financial ties and instead only allow the OP to return if they make progress on the financial situation themselves without being told to do so. Until OP shows some sign of payment I'm 75% sure they won't let OP back even pending a pardon for Blackhat. The majority of the staff would still see the OP has shown no character change if they don't pay anything back and that's the only reason to let the OP return is to show character change.

Basically now it's up to the OP to decide whether they want to return or not. The actions of the OP will only increase/decrease the chance of returning in 6 months or longer. IMO I doubt BBB will pay debts, Zinc hates spending huge money to lose profits as if he has any investors for example it then looks bad. I can't/won't speak for Zinc though because I'm not him and I don't know 100% how he thinks even though I have a very good understanding of him. I'm only speaking hypothetically and from my own analysis based off the facts and information I've witnessed and been given.

I did read every report and pardon against BBB on and off site, so I do have great knowledge on the subject.
This includes the monetary losses and gain from BBB and DDyce as well as other sites he targeted that had barely any business.

 

Unfortunately, this is the issue. Bigboibets was unbanned without paying anyone back on 7/24/14 as seen here.

http://www.sythe.org/dispute-forum-archive/1735801-follow-up-appeal-bigboybets.html

See above, the feared 25% chance of him being unbanned without repaying victims is a reality, because he was unbanned without repaying victims. If the offender posts a pardon/dispute every few months, which he does, and staff continue to vote on it without him repaying victims, which they do, why risk your 25% chance of uncertainty that he will be unbanned without repaying victims in the first place? You make it 100% certain that the victims will be repaid (or the user won't be unbanned) by making it 100% impossible to become unbanned without paying them back. This time he didn't get supports on his pardon, last time he got 3+. It is required that the offender repay victims before gaining supports or no supports so that there is no chance of the user being unbanned without repaying victims, or, at the very least, victims are repaid even if the user is not allowed to return anyway.

 

A thread was posted here: http://www.sythe.org/dispute-forum-archive/1782318-requesting-unban-2-a.html

After nearly 2 months of waiting, a thread was made in the Staff Lounge to make a final decision.

The final decision can be seen here.

From your personal interpretation, it seems you're upset that BBB has made no effort to contact you. This is not what the post above requires.

If you believe there is something you need to be compensated for regarding BBB, it is your responsibility to either contact him or get a lawyer involved. If you don't think that's fair or you don't want to put forth the effort in order to receive compensation, it's not our problem.

"End of story."

 

It is not my burden to extract compensation from someone who offends me, it is the burden of the offender to compensate the victim. The "Final Decision" was already made here:

The final decision was then upheld here:

And upheld again here:

And confirmed again here:

http://www.sythe.org/report-spammer-archive/1802090-reported-post-xier0.html

Simply ignoring your responsibility to repay victims does not absolve you of the responsibility.

How ridiculous of you. You even said yourself that the reason you accepted restitution less than that amount that Killian had scammed from you is because you knew this outcome would arrive:

Do you mean to sit there and tell me that you would have this user not required to pay anyone he owes to be unbanned? Clearly not, since you required payment of him. Your recount of the situation only goes to show that the user will only repay victims if he is required to repay victims. If you "walk away" as you said, leaving him no chance to be unbanned, suddenly he becomes more amicable to repaying his victims, even when you buckle and accept less than the amount he owes you.

 

@Xiero, My point is not that he was unbanned previously, it's that he is currently banned and most likely won't get unbanned from here on out. I wasn't arguing the past unbans but the current and future.

 

Yes, if they are classified as an offender.

Take it to court.

 

I have presented my case and won already. What is your point? Did you not also present a case against the offender, and receive repayment?

Understood. Here is the key term in your statement:

Eliminate "most likely". Make that term "won't" and the following qualifier "without paying his victims". Not a difficult issue to resolve that uncertainty.

 

Then provide the legal documentation regarding the case and official ruling for what is owed to you.

As always, this can be handled via PM's instead of a public rant.

Yes, I once presented a case with evidence and actionable figures. However, this has nothing to do with you, so please leave me out of your squabbles.

 

The user is banned for deliberate malicious actions committed against me, my business, and other businesses, which cost some their earnings, and others their businesses entirely. The ruling is that I am owed compensation, and the other businesses are owed compensation. Read the OP, and quit wasting my time. This isn't even an argument. When an individual steals from someone, it does not have to be proven that the victim is owed by the offender, it must only be proven that the offender stole from the victim. The victim being owed by the offender is a result of the act of stealing.

Do I actually have to waste my time explaining that to you?

 

Only going to post once on this thread so everyone is clear with the situation instead of making these assumptions left and right.

The staff had a major discussion on this, and as a team we decided that because both sides of this argument were acting like children and throwing insane claims and numbers out, the ban is currently for what is factually proven as an offence - this being DDoSing and other blackhat crap.

That being said - like any other blackhat pardon - the user has no repayments, but has to admin to their blackhat activities and tthat they will refrain from doing so and if staff believe them, then the pardon might pass.

Staff acted as babysitters for months trying to help both sides come to some type of rational decision, obviously that wasn't possible. At the end of the day, the only proven thing is the DDoSing, there is no proof that user X lost $10000 in a potential future business, or that user Y lost $500 worth of bets in the 30 minute span they were DDoSed.

The ban is for blackhat activities in the form of DDoSing, thus the user will pardon for such. If the guy owes you money, you should talk to him and get that straightened out because Sythe.org staff won't sit here and hold both sides hands through this stupid debate.

Again, quote this post with as much flame and arguing as anyone would like, this is my only post on this thread and it's merely for clarity so no one makes assumptions about why staff are acting the way they are. All the posts that are being referenced (the one's by myself, FireZ, Entrr, etc.) are posts made before this staff decision and posting them as a basis for why the voting shouldn't continue is incorrect.

This post sums it up perfectly and is the outcome of the staff discussion, no other posts made before this are the current ruling - http://www.sythe.org/14351400-post11.html

The pardon WILL be voted on as any other blackhat pardon, 7 days for 5 supports, and it moves from there if gets those supports.

 

I reject this claim. I did not interfere with Killian's business. He interfered with mine (and many others). Both sides were not involved in aggression, only one. As you said, this is factually proven.

I reject this claim. If a user was DDoSed while staking, the DDoSer is liable for the losses he caused to the staker. If the DDoSer does not want to be held liable for the losses, he should simply not DDoS. If someone uses blackhat means to hack another user, they are responsible for repayments caused by damages from stolen hacked material. If the hacker does not want to be held liable for hacked material, he should simply not hack.

I reject this claim. If an individual makes it so that another cannot compete through arbitrary force, he is stealing the wealth that the individual could have created.

I did give the terms of restitution to Killian. He did not comply, and did not provide any reasoning as to why he feels that he should not comply.

The posts being referenced are staff decision. They are a basis for why the voting cannot continue. If staff are to reverse their decision, they must have reason to do so. There is no reason posted, other than that the staff does not want to require that aggressors pay victims.

I have asked Richard to make a decision on whether or not individuals who use arbitrary force against others' businesses are liable for the damages of using arbitrary force, since no one can provide a coherent answer as to why this case is different than any other.

 

How about you shouldn't participate in any black hat activities such as Ddosing or Hacking?

Stuff like that can ruin the community for alot of people. Many people are quitting due to being hacked every day.

 

Bump.

 

I think something of this magnitude deserves a lifetime ban even if they become sponsored by the peace corps. Not even sure why he is allowed to even seek forgiveness. I will never,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever feel remorse for somebody involved with dicing on RS, ESPECIALLY if they are known as shady.