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

It's a complicated mather,
I feel that if you post the thread you should be responsible for what happens to it, because who checks further then the first post?
If I post a thread for a new user, a person who is interested will see me as poster and check my vouches, not the person who owes the service I'm advertising.

This is rather funny, I saw your post on market discussion about your aio service and noticed the owner of the service has a TWC, fair that is has passed and they didn't get rid of it but I never saw you with a TWC during this time period even tho you are the one advertising it everywhere and putting in MOD and OMM in the titles. this is exactly what @veng means (if I understand him correctly).

at the end of this report:
Open dispute with member :bdubsw93
he got the TWC and not you, the person who does every single thing for this service on sythe:
⭐★♕[VOUCHES!][MOD]Hope AIO services PP/LTC/ETH/07GP [OMM][DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE]⭐★
Here it is clear that HOPE got a twc, but because you advertise the service, and you post it nobody really notices it.

This should be more looked into it for sure.

 

The difference between a sales thread and a signature is pretty vast honestly.
A signature is essentially assumed as an advertisement. Scroll to the bottom of sythe, you'll see a few more of them.
A sales thread however provides more in-depth information, and attaches the tags people have mentioned (OMM, Donator status, etc.) to them.
People don't put in their signature "OMM $100000 donator 500000 vouches, visit this website", they simply put the ad. The threads however, have the misleading trust factors in things like donor status or vouches the poster has.

 

So far 9/10 people have said the same as me you and everyone else who comments it. The problem is this is falling on deaf ears, no I don’t think it’s just 1 persons fault but it is shown to be easily manipulated.

If I added my workers feedback scores and collected feedback/vouches for their services I’d be in the 3-5k range, but instead I make sure that it’s me and me only that gets them if I do the work myself as in my eyes otherwise it’s trust that’s being thrown out there without valid evidence or back up to it.

 

I'm a tad late to the show, but being a worker for someone doesn't show their trust or affiliation to a user on Sythe. If a website scams someone that is the users choice to use the website in general, there is always a risk in buying things online, especially currencies in games etc. If you were to hold a worker accountable for an owners problems or mistakes no one in the world would have jobs as the majority of companies are corrupt at the highest level in some way or another. So no support from me. Advertising someone doesn't make you liable for the actions someone else takes.

 

The problem is for example if you made a service thread for me and was controlling the main post for me, should you not be held liable? If you are claiming that the persons service is a official middleman, a moderator or anything else than what he/she is that is misleading people for false sense of trust, the same could be said with the other rank suggestions that are currently going on after the scam quits recently.

 

Ranks are merely ranks though, if you put time into it you could also have them.. just because you took the time to earn something doesn't mean you give trust or affiliation more than anyone else realistically. And as a worker for a gold site or an advertiser you have no possible way of verifying if the site would EVER scam. With that being said, how could you ever use a gold site? You couldn't cause there is always a risk...

 

I’ll ask again as you seem to be skipping the point.

If you make a thread for me, and let’s say you have a specific rank that I do not being the key part, are you to blame if something goes wrong?

 

You appear to be missing the point.
By not having the thread poster being held liable, any scammer could pay @veng and just say "post this thread for me", then people will trust the website because the thread has things like [Ex Mod] in the title.
People EARN trust and reputation around here. You shouldn't be able to use that reputation to make something ELSE seem trustworthy other than a product YOU are selling. Otherwise you're legit just opening floodgates for scammers to make easy money.

 

Seems like this is still being ignored @ABM ....

Shame really, more spam and this is one of the main issues here -



Whilst some is great, the bit that stands out -



user IS NOT a OMM, and IS NOT a staff member so not a "mod" in fact a regular member, titles of such should be edited as very misleading.

 

This is one of the most valid suggestions I've seen honestly.
The fact that @veng could just go advertise a thread for any random person for a few bucks, then that person scams is really ridiculous.
Being a person that has earned trust here comes with responsibility. That responsibility isn't just about not scamming your own clients, it's about trying to keep the entire community safe. There's enough scammers out there without us helping them.


edit: for the record, I only used @veng as an example because he brought this up earlier in the thread, not saying he's ever been involved in anything like this.

 

Exactly and as my example shows above is why we are pensioning it, it's quite crazy when you see the fact people can get away with things just by having a slight bit of power.

 

We need confirmation that staff are even discussing this issue!

 

Tldr users should be held responsible for whatever they advertise on market threads?
That sounds like a great idea to me

 

Ehhh, on the fence about this. Would this same sense of responsibility also apply to signature spaces as its a place advertisement as well?

 

Signature space is something that helps advertise things, not something that mixes in the same.

if you was having someone claim via your thread that you're a mod, a admin, or even the queen of England, then that's false leading information which is what this thread is about.

 

I mean, people acquire signature spaces of trusted users as well in order to use their status in hopes people will click the banner in their signature. Its not like when people advertise the services in a thread, they're claiming to be the owner of the service. If they are, they should be punished then I agree 100%, but in most cases they're just facilitating an advertisement the same way a signature space is.

 

Signatures are completely otherwise to actual advertising - If we made a thread and claimed it was ours or was promoting it that way I would completely understand, but in reality they are no different to banners that are paid for via gold sites, even after the countless gold site problems we see happening each day.

I understand your view though as I say, obviously it's a bit of a sticky situation to be in as it does give people ideas of looking in certain places and such due to signatures if looked at too.

What I am saying though is let's say I made a thread saying I am you, that means I am then promoting you and let's say you scam $1K, should I not be held liable for you scamming that 1K, considering I claimed to be you?


Edit - Kill me now, my English is really off today.

 

@Panda one of the ignored/pushed aside