[Denied]Require screenshots of blackmarks to toggle "Show expired/Quashed offenses"

Sythe rules already imply that the (lack of) mentioning blackmark-history may affect a dispute. This means that the community emphasizes the importance of transparency regarding ban-history. This thread follows this line of thinking.

I noticed that a lot of sellers include a picture of their blackmark-history that is misleading or imcomplete. These pictures look like the picture underneath, as found in the following thread (click here). My suggestion is as follows: When sellers post pictures of their account history, they disallowed to leave the option "show expired/quashed offences" untoggled. Sellers, especially newer ones, have the right to be informed of their product-specifics and not be misled.

 

No support. Recently the requirement was removed to show the blackmarks, so it's their shows how they show the blackmarks and if they do.

 

I requested this a while ago and it was approved, but with the new section rules its now up to the seller to decide but any dispute involving an account that had undisclosed black marks is an automatic refund/in favor of buyer

 

You're talking about an entirely different request. I'm not suggesting whether or not showing blackmarks is mandatory. I'm requesting that if someone chooses to show a screenshot of blackmarks, then that screenshot may not be misleading.

Concretely; make toggling "show expired /quashed offences" mandatory if a user decides to share the blackmark screenshot. It's not a far stretch

 

Yes I understand, but you're asking that isn't required to be changed in the ruling. It's quite obvious that misleading information is not allowed, so I see no reason to put this rule in place. It's quite obvious that the majority of the people on here aren't the brightest, so why would you put such rule in place, even though it's already obvious?

 

Yeah but this specific suggestion is not a rule. If you think this doesn't happen, please skim through the account selling section and see how many people post these type of screenshots without context.

And I don't see how "rules that are obvious should not be rules" is an argument. One function of rules is to create clarity on what is and what is not allowed. Of course, there is a grey area. But this one is pretty clear. "Click the box if you choose to post the ss" is not a stretch. Ironically, people who are not bright require this clarity the most. In essence, things that are obvious to some (smarter) people, may not be so obvious to them.

In practice, it would be sad to see a situation happen where it'sobvious that one party has been misled and the mod dealing with the dispute has no rule to appeal to. And visa versa, if a dispute would be settled based on "this should be obvious", then I don't see how that does any justice to the party that assumes that it falls under the umbrella called "everything that is not forbidden is allowed".

Please consider that disputes sometimes revolve around thousands of dollars. I think it's in everyone's interest to avoid having disputes be settled on "this is clear lol" (of course this cannot always be avoided, rules cannot cover every scenario; this is why most dispute resolution cannot be done by AI's), and rules should do as much as possible, because what's the point of having rules otherwise?

 

I dont think it should be a thread case i think it should be upon the buyer to request this from the seller upon purchase, if the seller does not want to show or has something to hide its found out within the buying process.

As blackmarks are a live function, many sellers will not even update it when they do get a blackmark and keeping on top of this causes more chaos to mods.

However i think there should be more awareness/ ownership placed on the buyer, they should be asking these kind of questions before having any intentions of purchasing an account - with evidence of conversation logs etc of proving having asked the question.

 

Again, this thread isn't about whether or not blackmark info should or should not be disclosed. Please read the previous posts.

 

yes i read them, its about the check box but that should also be on the buyer to ask the question, maybe placed within a sticky will be more beneficial or a guide even on what to do when buying an account. I don't think this should be placed within the thread itself just because its a live function if you get banned tonight and tomorrow it gets quashed the seller is not going to upload a new image for certain, i understand what you want but i think the buyers need to start taking responsibility and not be spoon fed into every transaction on the market and placing the ownership on every seller.

Too many rules for a forum alone never mind having mods to keep up with it.

A guide would be great, maybe a sticky guide even better i just think it will end up turning into the buyer is always right regardless

 

A lot of buyers are not aware of the display function of the box. This makes that screenshot supermisleading. So doing this isn't about spoonfeeding buyers, it's about avoiding them being misled.

Yeah, it should definetely go to the sticky in the account section. That's what I had in mind.

 

Naw the buyers should educate themselves on how account sales works and ask questions when buying an account

 

Support this is a key feature to knowing whether a account is good or not.

 

Bingo. No Support from me. This isn’t communist Sythe. We don’t need a a rule for every little obscure/arbitrary issue that may arise. Most account sales don’t have relevance to this suggestion. Let it be dealt with on a case by case basis otherwise. Like bipolar mentioned, if it isn’t disclosed at times of sale, full refund is warranted already.

 

I mean, if a user reads ALL the stickies in each section, then they will get decent knowledge on account sales. They would also know what to look for and ask for when buying an account, including ALL blackmarks.

With that said, no support

 

No support from me. I agree with what Juws stated here. People choose not to read the stickies which is what they should really be doing.

 

How is this even an argument when people are getting banned/infracted for false PM's for this exact reason. This practice is purely meant to mislead buyers and is not mentioned anywhere on the website. Should we, by this reasoning, also remove the paypal chargeback stickies, because people should just know this? I don't get it.

To be clear, as of right now, this practice is not explicitly exonerated in the stickies. My suggestion is to mention it in the stickies so that people can actually read about it when entering the account trading forums. Not to add it to the general rules on Sythe.

 

As mentioned earlier and by me, a knowledge buyer should know about this "exploit." If they are weary, they should ask or not buy an account from a stranger.

Plus, the only people who care about blackmarks or past blackmarks are people who are going to bot. If you are a botter, then you should definitely know about account sales.

 

So should we also remove the stickies regarding imposter scams etc. because all buyers should be more knowledgable? If you really want to defend this, you'll be placing the burden on yourself where you have to rebuttal all previous sticky suggestions that are meant to inform buyers of potential malpractices. I think we're repeating ourselves here.

Nope. I've had a lot of buyers who wanted HCIM that explicitly asked me if there is no ban-history on the account, even though they were planning to play on the account through mobile. Some people just feel more at ease that way.
And some people plan to resell the account for example. If the account has a blackmark history, then that automatically impacts its market value.

 

u r d n t