Either corrupt staff or regression in quality of staff

completely false. actually went up staking on the day that you're referring to on stream. as per all of the other conspiracy theories on this thread, I was more than willing to refund & I worked tirelessly with Sythe staff to give them all of the information they asked for over the course of 6 days. can't go too much more into detail.

 

I was recently contacted by @Ethereumtrader (the guy that was banned after alleging to be scammed by QBD) and he wanted to share some more information regarding what happened after seeing this thread. His statement regarding his dispute below, which should shed some light on case #2 since staff was not very transparent.

My TLDR of the above (please note, this does not represent my views, just my attempt at a summary.)

• He does not understand how his report resulted in him being the one getting banned and believes he was treated horribly.
• He denies allegations of the trade being faked and does not believe the staff had any evidence it was faked.
  
• He is a new user and didn't know a lot about the rules, but recently learned more. He also noticed things such as Gladiator being the one handling all of QBD's reports and finds this strange. As well as QBD losing money the previous day.
• He is okay with losing the money as he is well off due to crypto, but feels worse for the other person reported. He is unsure about what happened with the other person and wonders if it was a report to make him look less genuine.
• He believes staff are corrupt and perhaps if they think 7K is a lot of money they should not handle the case. He's still confused there's no police report, and believes Sythe would have cost him more in the long run if this is how it works.

My comments:

It would certainly help give this case closure in the eyes of the community if the staff came forward with some evidence refuting these claims made by the reporter, but so far based on what I've seen it definitely looks like this is not the type of person that would try to frame a gold seller. Unless there really was evidence of him faking this, it doesn't seem insane that a new user to this community would sell 7K worth of gold to one of the most trusted people on Sythe in terms of gold sales. Gold sellers push extremely high volumes and it seems like QBD would have a good chunk of this volume.

Then, there needs to be a formal report against this guy with evidence against him as there always is -- even Video did this in his report. Someone is accused of faking a trade should be reported in a separate thread, not behind closed doors.

The most interesting thing for me is the part regarding Gladiator being the one to handle QBD's reports. I checked this for myself, it seems to not be true going back any further than these recent reports, but I understand why the person felt this way. This is something I discussed above, notice how on older reports staff actually discussed this openly but now it's just one moderator handling all of it and then saying he consulted with some anonymous staff. It paints this really bad picture. Same with a police report, to an outsider, someone claiming to be hacked and thousands of dollars being involved, this is a pretty routine thing to do with the biggest websites such as eBay and Amazon (when package is stolen.)

Not at all. May I remind you, we have rules such as this one, allowing DNT users to work for others, circumventing their DNT status:

• Note that a DNT'd user may work for a business as an employee, provided that they have no outstanding debt on Sythe.

At that point, if a DNT user works for someone and that someone tells the customer, hey, you can trust my employee, trade with him, would it be okay if the employer was banned an given a DNT for encouraging someone to trade with the DNT user? Would staff come in and say wow, who knows what could have happened! Before it even happens? Yes, if the DNT user scams then the employer is responsible, but Prizford wasn't even given a chance to be responsible. And again, Prizford didn't even really (unless staff have more info they're withholding) do this, all he said was that he didn't think he'd do anything since it was a player moderator account. When he found out the person is DNT, he disclosed it, and he also said they should talk amongst themselves.

I want to speak about this more, given Gen's reply here:
https://www.sythe.org/threads/4044736/video/

Remember, at this point, unless I'm just missing this hidden somewhere, there's nothing in the rules regarding someone encouraging/endorsing a user to trade with someone "without accepting liability for said trade" as said by Andy. Now, though, there's a precedent since that ruling was made because that's how the rules work (and staff seem to struggle with the concept of precedent.)

So Gen replies, and now modifies the previous statement. Andy said that staff agreed that Prizford was encouraging someone to trade with another person. If it went through, he'd be liable. Okay, so that's still insane to me but let's pretend this is all good until now. This is assuming it went through. It didn't. So even if something doesn't go through, now we're looking at thought crime. Andy says that you cannot endorse/encourage a user as in any user, to trade with someone as in any other sure, without accepting liability. At this point, literally every vouch means that the user is then endorsing someone and therefore they're accepting liability for the trade. There are an insanely large amount of vouches that go along the lines of "I highly encourage anyone to trade with Andy if they need a firecape" and so on. That is literally doing what Andy stated you cannot do without accepting liability for the trade. So this already creates a huge problem.

Gen modifies this statement by stating there's a significant difference between recommending someone in good standing, a moderator, and OMM, versus a DNT user. Gen, I suppose, is forgetting that there is a very long list of Sythe staff who have scammed and they actually usually get away with the highest value scams. Outside of this being debatable, Gen is going against the precedent set by Andy, who seemed to have create a new rule out of thin air.

Now, it's not a user, it's basically a non-staff user because let's face it that's the only reason a report such as this one would get shut down so quickly. And it's not trading with someone, it is trading with someone below the arbitrarily set level of trust. So now, any non-staff user, or fine let's pretend staff aren't above the rules: anyone can be banned for recommending, encouraging, or endorsing a user to trade with another user who staff deems to be not trustworthy enough, if it's within an arbitrary time period within a year but not more than almost a year.

See how quickly that can literally end up being whatever the staff's mood is that day and who is involved?

An exemplary showcase of staff intelligence.

Huh, gee, do you think it might be because one staff member is making all the replies? And then ends the report with "staff have concluded" or "unanimously agreed" and so on without actually listing the staff members involved? Maybe it'd help if staff members actually used a message board to post their messages themselves.

It's better that the users know about it so it can be avoided in the future, and so they actually trust your decision. When there's a security flaw with your processor or a software, generally if it could have widespread immediate impact it is first discussed to see if it can someway be patched and then it's publicly disclosed.

This also makes sure you guys aren't wrong. Even if you're the most brilliant minds on the planet, when you post it publicly hundreds of other people can look at it and notice when you've made a mistake. The person can also defend themselves and maybe there was a misunderstanding.

Just more staff arrogance.

It would definitely have to have been executed perfectly because they left no trace that the feeble minds of the non-staff users could comprehend.

Can you start out here by letting everyone know how you even interpreted what Prizford stated as in any way encouraging or vouching for the user as hardly as you thought he did? There has got to be some logs that are missing from public view because no matter how I look at it, I cannot see anything besides Prizford being a middleman, believing the trade would be fine, finding out the user is DNT, still thinking it might be okay but then saying they should discuss it with each other instead when he notices that to be the best option. I don't see him trying to convince this guy any other way, and they're all adults and can make their own decisions based on the information. He doesn't say he trusts the DNT seller, he doesn't say he vouches for him, doesn't even say he knows him or anything.

I'm sure sinkovsky has some evidence of this, he just can't share it publicly or go into too much detail. If you're more than willing to refund, then donate it to a charity and show proof or make any gesture of you being willing to do so because it looks really bad on you. I mean do literally anything to show it other than "I offered" because even your offer was more like "if staff come to the conclusion that this is legit" so you were already trying to weasel out of it.

And then actually file a police report if you were hacked. You are running a business here, it's extremely unprofessional of you not to report a breach to the authorities to at least have it documented.

 

One prevalent issue that has plagued this website since inception is the lack of transparency, whether that be with updates, reports, or final rulings. I don't necessarily think this is the fault of any particular staff member, or cohort, but largely due to how this website has always operated - it takes quite a tacit approach. Changing it now, whether it would result in a positive of negative change, seems to be quite difficult, as it's been how ongoing for over a decade - it is an inherent flaw in the system. We could argue that it's not a flaw, and simply a conscious decision by the leadership team stemming back years, of how the website should be run. I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of every decision made, so I can't say with certainty if one way is better than the other, but I will say, the lack of transparency is baffling at times.

I understand certain rulings and decisions, inclusive of the rigour around how and why they came to be can't be fully disclosed, due to the sensitive nature of information involved, alongside the methods likely used to catch said scammers relative to these final rulings and decisions (disclosing the aforementioned may provide scammers with the necessary information to avoid getting caught in the future) - but perhaps, give the public as much information as possible, without hindering methods used.

Lastly, I find it quite strange that non-staff can't make deleted posts/private reports, yet staff can resolve cases/ban users based on their own deleted posts/information on scam reports/pardons/disputes/etc. I understand the difference between the two (it's not lost on me), and appreciate that they are quite different; however, the underlying notion is the same - sensitive/private information being posted to likely result in a users ban, dispute or pardon being denied, etc. What I would like to see here is - if a user is banned, dispute or pardon denied, etc, based on a deleted post (hidden information to the public), then there is some sort of TLDR given by the involved staff members as to their final ruling (with as much transparency as possible), without giving away key methods/revealing sensitive information. This likely reduces future claims of bias, and gives the general non-staff userbase confidence in decisions being made, as they can somewhat see how and why decisions are being made and passed.

 

This has always been like that and sadly we all just accepted it. When I first got into this website and lurked before registering this was happening, and now - 9years later still is. I found it weird how someone that represented berts selling site was allowed to literally do the report ticket. That is just a logical conclusion to NOT do that. I think others said enough.

I remember getting scammed by someone that had lost his skype, and that guy ended up having to repay me. I'm not sure why QBD was given special treatment...

 

I concur with everything mentioned. There are many unorthodox things about this situation that requires to be looked into more exhaustively. I authentically hope equity is brought upon this. with that verbalized, I do hope everyone gets treated fairly and have the report dealt with in a congruous manner. There should be a better investigation done on this and have it relooked.

 

This is highly concerning and shocking it's being skipped over in the thread.

 

The suggestion is Ludicrous; "Start over" -
Who would you suggest be replaced and by who?
Who decides who the new team will be
Who decides who will be "removed"?

Also the fact that this will never happen...


EDIT* - I'm sure there is more to his situation as to why he was being ignored - however i admit having to DOX someone to prove your not a scammer is not an ideal position to be in.

 

We made a special thread in the Staff forums to discuss the QBD situation, and we all had a vote on it. It took us 6 days to make a final decision, every day we were gathering and receiving information. Every single Staff member voted on it. All 13 votes on the thread agreed that QBD should not be held responsible; all admins, all globals, all sectionals. I even took the time to reach out to each Staff member in DMs who hadn't gone through the report to collect their vote. So yes it was unanimously agreed upon, and every Staff member had a say in it.

I personally think it's quite redundant to list all the staff members who agreed with the decision, when it can be summed up by one word; "unanimous".

 

I think this is a good suggestion and would be easy to do in most cases. The majority of reports saying "staff see hidden post" are really unremarkable. They're basically staff explaining to other staff reading threads in the future how we caught a user breaking rules. Usually these are small slip-ups that users don't realize will get them caught again and again for ban evading (hence why they're not made public).

For example, a user might be registering as [email protected] and [email protected] on different accounts, and we'd say "user1: email1 / user2: email2" in the hidden post. Really nothing squishy going on.

 

Generally, yes, I would definitely agree with you, as the word 'unanimous' in and of itself is self explanatory. However, due to the overall lack of transparency on this website, which has resulted in the larger user-base questioning whether other staff members were even involved in the decision making process, it would be beneficial to start listing names. Slowly but surely build that public belief back up.

 

Why comment on a thread with very little information or understanding.
All of those questions are extremely self explanatory to address/answer.
Richard would obviously be involved in this decision as well as the few useful staff left..

In a perfect world someone would get voted in to represent the community similar to how a union rep would be introduced. This is a common way to deal with corruption. (obviously I understand how unlikely this is)


Also the reason why they never reply to this post is because they are embarrassed. There is nothing more to this story lol the sooner you understand that some staff only have their best interests at heart the better..


Being almost trolled and told its not a mistake:

Screenshot - 3a912054196cd83bd761f131b537728a - Gyazo (at the time I genuinely knew nothing about league, funny how a few months later I started a small league business with some friends who taught me the game) I was literally just being told to make a pardon and I am not singling out black blasses as I had very similar conversations with other staff who replied in similar fashion or not at all.

Dispute - The thread where I had to dox the guy. Unfortunately redacted but nonetheless you get the idea/context



Edit: I want to say I am completely over this and I don't really give a shit since I was able to sort it for myself I just want to shed light that if this has happened to me in the recent past I can't imagine it is the first time. I also remember how fucking frustrated it made me when I was being told I was someone I was not.

 

The 50% refund ruling is total bullshit, I would rather get a ban than refund it, your ruling is biased and you don't even know how to judge on the work, and just threw a number to satisfy @Bert
Being in a community full of corrupt staff is like joining a cabaret full of apes, take a look at the ruling, or just ban me, why the whole hassle?

 

uh. you're forgetting my multiple bans + current DNT. Perm banned from Disc + Spam forum and also banned for months for another user not listening to staff and being told to block me for USING AN EMOTE... and I'm currently DNT'd with 2 pardon denies for... 2 people saying I hacked them... with zero proof.. Site staff pick & choose when rules apply and they bend the rules like fucking Beckham

Spoiler: oversized pic

 

Ah, a rude and disrespectful staff member calling you rude and disrespectful when it comes to a report that should have nothing to do with being rude and disrespectful.

 

The Lebghost ruling is big bullshit. Dude, completed a website a couple of times over and just because they didn't have a fully enforceable contract in written terms then he has to refund 50% after taking all of the time invested into the work that was completed. In a real court or in real arbitration they'd say, well there was no contract so there were no terms. No ascension of the minds means that what happens happens and you get what you get, no dumb ass refund 50% because you're both at fault. That isn't how contractual obligation works. I know Sythe isn't really the head-honcho so much anymore, but he would tell you this too. People don't get a refund because they aren't happy. You don't go to a steakhouse, eat 1 steak and complain, get another steak and complain, and then ask for a third one for free because you weren't happy with your initial two and then decide you want a refund.