Mishandled Cases in the Names Market

Now despite what people might think about me and how I obtain stock for my names shop, I'm actually a huge advocate against people having their names sniped unethically. By this I mean having someone seeking out to intentionally destroy and interfere with your name sale by them spying on your stock, watching your thread for bids or anticipating when sales will happen. This seems to be happening a great deal on here based on what I've been reading in RAS, and it's extremely unhealthy for the longevity and health of the market.

I wanted to create this thread in hopes to create a productive discussion on how things could be handled better, seeing as the debates turn into banter in the wrong sections and then threads just get closed off. I really wanted to get some insight on what you guys feel constitutes as actual proof that a name has been sniped, because on the most recent report that surfaced tonight, I felt like the proof was sufficient and that the report actually had some direction to it.( this is given the lack of variables that can be drawn in these cases anyways).

I know this can get messy, but I'll start off with a few things that I've noticed based on observation:

1. A lot of the mods don't understand how this market and these transactions actually work
2. Proof is too faint or indirect
2. Mods seem to duck their heads from these cases because of above mentioned reasons

PS. I know that a lot of you may have strong negative personal opinions about me - however If possible I'd like to keep this conversation as productive as possible...

 

These cases aren't being mishandled. The proof given in these reports are just not credible enough to take action. If the standard is dropped for name sales specifically, it would be incredibly easy to frame someone.

 

I'm not particularly well acquainted with that space so perhaps bring me up to speed.

What are we (moderators) doing wrong in assessing the evidence. What should we be doing instead?

 

Care to define in your eyes what constitutes an ethical snipe? (if such a thing exists?)

 

What about forcing name sellers to take responsibility? Although it might suck a bit for name shops, there would be no more name sniping among communities at least. Just my 2 cents.

 

This. The second someone posts a name for sale it is at risk for being sniped. If someone lists the name Donkeyluvr3 for sale and the thread has 50 views, that's 50 potential people who are aware the name is going to move soon and can easily track it by checking the thread for updates on the sale status, etc. People post their names publicly and then some poor bloke goes to purchase it and it is sniped during the transfer by a third-party and both parties think it was the other who did it which causes a mess. No concrete proof is available to support either of their claims either. They think simply that they were selling it to that particular person/buying it from that particular person means it had to be either of them. Now it could certainly be but it just as well could be a third-party. This is why I typically sell my names on fresh accounts for the buyer to transfer at a later time at their own risk and discretion; they and they alone will know when/if the name is moving and cannot blame anyone but themselves if any issues arise.

 

Sniping is sniping, there's nothing ethical about it. If you're taking up a name that is free, ok fine, but clearly there has been doubt in your circumstances. Also DNT coming back and discussing market related topics doesn't do you any favours, imho. I don't see you suggesting anything specific that you think should be happening, or you want them to do to change this, so this is more of a feedback thread for the staff.

What report are you talking about? The name market has too many issues, too many individuals attempting to do or have methods which aren't appropriate and will always end up in a name being sniped. I like Bonesack' method of the fresh account with the name.

 

Staff can't ban without solid proof which could be a problem since it's nearly impossible to prove that someone sniped a name. They could just wait a few months and say they've bought it from someone else and get away with scamming. I'm not that experienced with the name sales market, but from my point of view alot of sellers are affiliated with known/serial scammers and it's very likely that they're sniping names/scamming but again, staff can't ban without solid proof so most of them get away with it.

 

Sniping shouldn't be against the rules in my opinion. There's very few ways to prove who exactly sniped a name.

 

But then you could just sell a name and snipe it right back lol

 

That's not a good argument imo. There's a difference between sniping being offence that is very hard to prove, and sniping not being an offence at all. The fact that it may be very hard to prove does not affect whether it is an offence or not.

I mean, imagine saying rape is ok because it's difficult to prove.

 

Currently following up on a name that my friend had purchased on here, apparently the guy he bought it from (which was then sniped) is reselling it currently (of course in private only), I would like to see that there is a more streamline method of "evidence" because the current rules are full of loopholes and evidence won't hold.

I think there should at least be a punishment for reselling names that were "sniped" after being sold and then resold by the same person (seller).


Reasoning:

It's sketchy enough that a name gets sniped, but even if it is "obtained" after, by the same seller, he should know better then to buy the name again after it was sniped under his sale.

 

You'll never completely abolish sniping. For as long as there are sellers there will be twice as many snipers and then some.

Before name trades occur, the buyer and seller come to an agreement.

Either:
A: The buyer takes responsibility for sniped names
B: The seller takes responsibility for sniped names

There's no two ways about it.

If the buyer buys the account all responsibility is on them if they decide to move it. There's nothing wrong with the name sale rules because the terms of the trade are discussed beforehand. If you don't like the rules then change them.

Simple.

 

Wouldn't you agree sniping the name back by the seller is immoral? (especially as the seller does not offer a transfer service) only to resell the name again a few months later.

Not to mention selling them on fresh level 3's further disconnects from the history of the name and makes recovering the name much easier if the seller just decides to recover it.

Shady market, honestly the name market should only be available to those who offer to transfer it as well (because it is just as easy for the seller to have a script waiting to snipe it right back).

 

Sniping the name back is highly immoral yes, but unless the previous seller is reselling it or another Sythe member has proof that they own it there's not a whole lot that can be done to prove it.

 

I think it's obvious there aren't any solutions in this market because every idea that's been presented always has a flaw(s).

Putting the name on a lvl 3 and selling is probably best but that still doesn't prevent the seller or anyone else that's aware of the name from continuing to watch it/go after it.

Forcing the seller to take responsibility transferring it also leaves open the possibility that the buyer can try to snipe it and deny it if he gets the name, so it's a double-edged sword.

I think people just need to accept they're taking incredibly high risks dealing with this market or this website should just discontinue the names section if people can't deal with it.

 

I agree with you about quality of proof but the problem lies when the entire case/thread get dropped. Once the threads closed, the investigation just stops there. Then these people who were suspected of wrongdoing just turn around and do it again since they know isn't any disciplinary actions to follow and that any RAS threads will just end up getting closed off.

Of course, allow me to explain how I define the difference between the two of these.

Ethical - Some cases of this would include sniping a name from a dormant account that has never been for sale on any market. In my opinion, a transferring name in game holds no value until it's being considered for sale. If "Sally" plays rs and has the name "Cow" and wishes to give it to her friend "Andrew". And Sniper1 was able to suspect this happening based on them taking too long with the transfer procedure and Sniper1 interferes with this nonmarket exchange I don't think that this is unethical. I think this for these main reasons:

1. Sniper had no intention to intervene with another market transaction to steal a name to build personal stock
2. Jagex has made it clear to players that transferring a name comes at your own risk
3. Name holds no value until it's being considered for sale on the market.

This is the type of name sniping that I perform, and I will openly admit to it. I take pride in my ability to build stock without fucking other people on the market over. There is some gray area with doing this where I have unknowingly interfered with a market sale that I had absolutely no idea about but for the most part I believe this constitutes as Ethical Sniping

Unethical - Going around asking other name sellers what they are selling with the intention to steal from other sellers to build up your own stock. It seems like there are ALOT of users right now going around making alternate accounts and fake skype accounts just to try and find out what us name sellers have for sale. The well rounded name sellers who are in the market know who to not interact with and many of the ones who have been around long enough know to mind their own business (You won't EVER catch me asking another name seller for their name list, I never have). The way my personal business goes, I wish for all of my transactions to go over well and this is why I sell the majority of my stock privately. It isn't to hide away any names I've taken from people on the market - It's so that my customers don't have to worry these snakes following my threads waiting for hints from me to remove names from threads and update bids.

 

I don't undestand the relevance of your post because it isn't productive to the topic at all. You're being ignorant to certain circumstances that should be deemed as OK, and you don't fully understand all cases that CAN actually take place.

But yes, let's just ignore the opinion of someone who's been dealing in the market for over a decade who happens to have well over 1k vouches totaling upwards $200kUSD, I obviously can't talk from experience, right?

Report I'm talking about is the one about KLucious. I don't know much about the case or Klucious besides what I've read on that thread but it seemed like that report had direction to it and was closed off before rightful acquisitions could even be made, now that it's closed we probably won't hear/see anything about this until someone else gets fucked over - the cycle continues with more and more people leaving the market.

 

As a DNT member you don't have access to the market yet are too concerned about the market. DNT defines show us you can be apart of the community but you've just fixated your onto the market (same could be said for bus). Your DNT reason explains why your vouches etc is irrelevant and why I feel your opinion on market related is as well. That's just my view on it.

The report regarding KLucious if you're talking about the report that had screenies of the reporter saying "how much for dick" etc and someone asking for "cumpagne" and then claiming that KLucious owned or it was being referred to 'dark' & 'champagne"? If you mean that thread, I haven't seen the result of that report or how it was handled. But from what I saw it was a shabby report, with a mixture of screenies pointing to nothing. Again you haven't stated what you want changed or done as a mitigating factor. I stated I liked the concept of a fresh account with the name, and allowing the risk of name swapping and chance of sniping occuring lay with the buyer, rather then the seller. From what I've read, that way the buyer changes it when they want minimizing the chances of snipes I assume. I don't exactly know how the sniping methods work with that route. Overall the name market is shady and has had too many issues, if people can't seem to not buy sniped names to resell then maybe the issue isn't with the staff but with that market. The way staff handle reports shouldn't be looked at here, but more so the market itself because that is where the issue stems from.

 

Thread was closed, we'll probably never hear about it again until another person is victimized.

EDIT: DNT Users are still allowed to CARE and concern about the market and what goes on with the site. If this isn't true then I missed the memo.