[RESOLVED] Keep Treatment Equal For All Users

Restitution, Deterrence, Protection. Simple Law Class basics.

Love it.

 

However, if we were to deal with a new goldseller in this market, he’d instantly be TWC’ed for poor trading practice.

I don’t know what else to contribute to this thread, it screams that people have been around for longer get treated far better than those who haven’t.

 

I don't know why this thread hasn't been closed yet, The owner of the site has already stated that people will never be treated the same.

 

If someone presents evidence that they were already unable to collect an overdue payment from a user, that user should receive a DNT until the debt is repaid. Depending on the situation, the scammer may owe additional damages (e.g. the price of gold/btc/usd changes in between the trade and payment).

A TWC doesn't help the guy who got scammed get repaid, and it's not going to do anything to stop a highly trusted user in the process of scamquitting.

 

I completly agree with you, The safety for users should be the prioty. A payment late should = A dnt until that is re-paid, R2 should of had atleast a twc for the shit business he did.

Saying that, The mods clearly know R2 more than myself and the actual owner, There feelings is strongly against R2 being a threat or anything, Argueing this is pointless as nothing will happen. Let's just hope if there is a next time they will consider this post, But you talk sense!

 

s/o to @video "handling" @Astro

 

We are beating a dead horse but why not?

This is not a scammer protection policy. R2 is not a scammer, this was not a scam, and he is not being protected/favored. The mistake here was an employee guaranteed a time he could not uphold and R2 is the one who justified the mistake later on. Being late on a payment is not always scamming.

If you are waiting on rs gold to eat then you should probably be doing something else with your time but I digress. This is not the point and your example is poor.

R2 is trusted because of who he is and how how he has conducted business for over a decade, not because he has been around for over a decade. Don't confuse the two. I wouldn't trust a 2007 member just because they are a 2007 member, and neither would you, nor should we.

A DNT is given whether there is a threat present. There was not one in R2's case. If a valid argument had been made that the buyer had lost money in this process, R2 would have been responsible for compensating due to the mistake on his behalf. This didn't happen though.

 

I'm not confusing the two. I'm trying to justify that the entire staff takes a subjective stance on an objective problem.

 

That's the thing though: no justification is needed because I was entirely objective. Just because not everyone is DNT'd in the same one relative scenario does not mean otherwise.

 

It's not a "mistake" at all. R2P is a very wealthy man. He has the means to acquire $400 in bitcoin, and I would even wager he probably transacted at least that amount in bitcoin sometime during the 30+ hours his payment was overdue before the report was made. Maintaining a guarantee sometimes means you have to pay more than you otherwise want to in order to meet your timeframes.

Tautology.

The threat that was exposed is R2P using his customers funds as credit. Staff did nothing to hasten this when a victim provided credible evidence, and R2P was able to pay at his leisure just like he was going to anyway. I'm curious, what did the title of the report say before it was whitewashed?

 

@Charlotte Made the correct decision in this report.

I understand some of the public eye may consider this to be unfair "treatment" but it was not. @R2Pleasent was in full cooperation with @Charlotte and the staff team as this report was being worked out.

If anyone has experience and should know this is not true, it should be you. I understand your point of view, but DNT's are given on users who A) We think are a scam threat to the community, B) Given to a user for debts unpaid by the deadline. If however, a second, or third report would have came out on @R2Pleasent he would have been DNT'd until the issue was resolved (Given the reports were legit).

@Charlotte Summed this up well in her posts:

If anyone has any questions, feel free to message me on Discord. This thread is being closed, because all reports are handled fairly and by our staff team in team based discussions on larger reports.