[DENIED] If user advertise's a company in a thread and make them take responsibility for it

What i'm saying is if you're making a thread to advertise someone and you advertise your own achievements/trust then you should be held liable for any reports against them.

 

Please provide me any proof you have of anything like this happening in the history of sythe

 

I never said it did happen, I'm saying it's possible. I can put Ex mod, $200 donator etc in a thread title for a guy who pays me and show false trust towards them and take no responsibility? It creates new scams. All i'm saying is if you're going to advertise a thread for someone and use your trust and in your title put omm/mod/donor then you should be prepared to compensate if they scam.

 

Not only am I confident in our moderation teams ability to take action if this kind of thing is abused, It's up to people's own individual perception of what/who they trust.

One of the other things your missing is the fact that having users of a certain stature HELPS businesses keep in line and accountable. I'm sure if you contact Hope he would be able to tell you the amount of things I have been able to bring to his attention, where liability can occur, where the business and person lines end how to interact with workers ect.

 

I agree, getting kind of tired of people being allowed to be showed favour. I have seen the same in multiple discord servers as well, users who don’t even have 100-200 vouches/feedback being given 500-1000+ ranks because of their “friends” who also advertise them, yet you see them in disputes and problems all the time.

 

Im glad you mentioned this but also quite strange how you’re taking offence to it, I understand it cuts into your daily actions but you are essentially a worker not the owner, you have no place to try get things bypassed for him or anyone else at that.

 

Im a massive fan of this first time i was scammed was because a semi trusted member was also advertising for a large site and i got the his discord from the site chat but somehow the site was just using him to advertise so they where not responsible felt scummy.

 

This is a fallacy.

You can't say A) trust is subjective, and then B) if said advert is abused, the staff will take action.

If trust in your example is subjective, then there is no issue of abuse, as it's up to the individual to decide whom to trade with, based on their own perception. How can something be abused if the whole idea behind it is subjective?

Irrespective of whom the user is, there should be transparent rules.

If a user is using their ranks, status, reputability, etc to advertise for a trader/company, then either A) said user should have a disclaimer right at the top of the OP stating that they are in no way affiliated, and will not be held responsible for any scams/malicious activity that takes place, AND that it is purely a paid advertisment; or B) if said user does not have a disclaimer/chooses not to have one (at their discretion - if they trust said trader/company), then they will be held liable, alongside the company/trader if any scams/malicious activity were to take place.

It's disingenuous to advertise for a trader/company with all those status symbols, when in reality, there is no actual tangible connection.

@Sythe

 

I agree fully and what the problem is, he is being paid to both advertise and be a part of the day to day operations, which essentially gives people a false sense of trust. There have already been a few users scammed due to the owners neglected attitude towards it (I mentored him before he went with Tyler and partnershiped with him, helped him grow etc) which now it seems because Tyler is a moderator he is allowed special treatment where he can advertise “omm” and “mod” despite the users service not being either.

 

Advertising a thread implies trust in service and by default needs a fair punishment if something goes wrong. This needs to be outlined in the Sythe Rules or mentioned in the next rule change topic. If the opposite happens and the person advertising gets no punishment, then It'll cause a lot of users to lose interest in Sythe marketplace and is the opposite of what Sythe is here for.

 

To every for this: what’s the difference between renting out a signature, avatar or UI? Should those also be punished should the company that paid for you to advertise them succumb to having debts?

 

There's an apparent difference between signature advertising and having sales threads, might as well call it a cash cow for the most trusted because they can. Staff will jump on board and get free money, and any victims of this would leave Sythe and promote that to others.

You can't be seriously considering it the same.

 

Being an official middleman you should know the fine line between them, shame on you.

 

Ad hominem aside, say I’m a new user and I don’t know anything. I see banners in your signature and assume you run that or those companies. Why else would you have them? I operate under that assumption, because unlike thread advertisements which require you to state that you’re not apart of the company, signature advertisements have no such requirements.

So again, I ask those for this: what is the difference?

 

The main point people are concerned about is the liability. If the person puts up a simple disclaimer that It's a paid advertisement like you suggested. Then I have no problem with that, but If you look at the original post, he links a relevant topic that does nothing to make it visible straight away. The point OP is making is due to the nature of a sales thread, anyone would expect you're directly dealing with them and not another entity altogether.

With a signature It's more obvious that It's not them.

 

When I did this for a company, I asked permission if I was able to and was told that I must have an explicit statement that I’m not apart of said company and am a paid advertiser to be able to do this. To me, that’s just common sense that should be required (and I believe is?)

 

If that can be clarified, a simple ultimatum that If you don't express it clearly, that's its an AD then you're equally responsible for whatever they're advertising and the risks of that.

It reminds me of Acckings, one of their selling points was that they're like a group of traders joining forces. I'm sure many people bought an account based on the mutual trust gained by their statements. The moment it went wrong turns out it didn't mean shit what the advertisements said. Sythe should have made all "partners" responsible for anything that went wrong, and ultimately I think no one except Pain was.

Morally It's bad practice to be advertising for someone and not giving the consumer a clear way of what they're dealing with. I hope the result of this topic is that staff realise the risks associated with this practice.

 

I think a lot more stuff needs to be clear, as it seems even staff are hiding odd comments now.

 

If/How would this apply to advertisement threads in other sections? (i.e. cryptocurrency)
For example, some people advertised coins that turned out to be scams (i.e. Bitconnect, Titanium Bar), not to mention that just about everything that has ever been advertised in that section has crashed.

 

That's not really resulting in scams, if people say "hey let's all invest in blockchain, it's going up" that isn't them really advertising it that's more them saying we should, but with the role of advertising you are being PAID to advertise.