[Denied]Give Sythe mods the discretion to rule on punitive damages

This suggestion related to this suggestion but broader and not really the same. Right now damages in disputes are established by looking at what the culprit did, how much damages were caused to the victim, and whether or not the victim had any degree of own fault or negligence in the situation. The lump sum that's established never really succeeds the total damages of the victim.

IMO staff should have the discretion to supersede that. There are situations where punitive damages are in place. Doxxing has been mentioned, but think also of other situations: positive damages (missed income caused by some sort of action - this would need to be proven of course), when a lot of time is wasted, when a (professional) party behaves extremely unprofessionally in resolving a situation, when items on an account are lost and this is likely the case - but cannot be proven, abuse of 'business' 2 consumer situations, etc.

In situations like these, the discretion of having punitive damages as a mechanism will further de-incentivize users to engage in sus behavior and/or limit the damages that they are causing. It also has a fairness function to it.

 

Problem you're facing is this is just the thread you mentioned throwing shade because in that example he doesn't like me, which is fine I don't wish to interact with people like that

At the same time, it does of course go base by base as far as I am aware (could be wrong, feel free to quote) so throwing shade on things that have had their dues paid on because you're worried about competition and are too childish to accept things is just silly

Again though this does of course vary on the case, however I know where the other thread is going so if there are better examples I'd be more than willing to have a discussion to see how we could change

 

Suggestion isn't about making punitive damages mandatory but put it on the discretion of staff. So they could decide not to do it! The idea is to give them the option.

 

They choose themselves already how it rolls out so that makes no sense, hence why people such as myself and @Beast both got hit for the stupidity we showed towards the forums and it's users

It has been mentioned in stickies if not mistaken, along side the actual rules that it's done via case by case and is more or less up to the staff member in play to decide the punishment (although in some cases with many reports, not just related to this it is also a group decision)

 

Especially for treating you guys fairly, I believe that there should be policy (can be internal or external) for these things. Ruling on them case by case without any policy structure is a basis for arbitrariness. This suggestion would be the first step in the right direction - after which we could build a proper framework that is fair and knowable

 

Do you mind explaining what you mean by "fair", elaborate as much as you can if possible, preferably with examples

 

Right now when a report pops up, staff generally looks at the damages by the victim and most other context is not taken into account when calculating the debt. I believe that relevant context like 'is there a business to consumer relation?' (with more power comes more responsibility) 'How severe is the breach?' that can be a basis for an additional punitive damage lump.

As for doxxing (again, this thread is supposed to be much broader), right now policy is just 6 months ban - whereas, some forms of doxxing are probably much worse than others. It's all context-related. Those factors should be taken into considerations

 

While I cant say I have seen all reports I did make it a sort of ritual if you will, to look over threads that I feel of value. So scam reports, appeals, even the market threads that don't actually follow rules and whilst I am not stepping in with that stuff myself I have seen that although I may disagree with the outcome on some of it the staff have for the most part if not all of it done the right thing in terms of looking into stuff such things like the one that @video recently handled ( [Pending paypal fund release] ) this thread was a mess but I do feel that he did the right thing as we all know @One isn't doing anything malicious, it was just a shitty situation and I don't think the back and forth made it any better

Now when it comes to this, it's a bit of a different scenario as I do believe it's done via case by case on the severity of the actual "crime" if you will

I am using my own report as an example, you can see my ban was reduced from 6 to 3, when really I shouldn't have received a ban for it as at the time admins said that the information cannot be used as it's no longer valid, yet it was used again despite being several years prior (seems in some cases, as said above it depends who you're dealing with)

so in such cases, we was told the information cannot be used, and then I was given a 6 month ban, 3 month ban, 2 month ban, and a permanent ban partly due to that report, and on the other side with the other report I was given a verbal warning in discord, a 1-2 week ban on the thread originally and then a permanent ban

as i say it does depend on the case by case, as people including myself have messed up in the past and some of us more times than others but it doesn't mean the rules are any less in effect

I remember when "permanent" bans actually were exactly that, and that included for scammers not just one specific and the same with ban evaders and such too now which all of them receive what a 3 month ban and DNT (which can also be appealed, every 3 months instead of 6 like a banned user)

I do get why this was changed, and while I do disagree with it to an extent even now, it does have it's benefits for the forums and it's activity

And then since we're on the ruling of doxes, Beast was only banned for a month from the original 6, for trying to claim back his money (which I have said before may be the wrong way of doing it, but at the time seemed the right)

He did however get his bondholder removed, which was damaging for him and I can imagine he wont ever get it back in this lifetime but who knows, but the same applies there as a reference, I did not agree with what he did to get his money back but I do understand why he did it as well. Which is why things are done via a case by case basis, and I do feel @Gladiator has made some good calls, even against myself at the time even if I don't per say have an over friendly relationship with him

 

Now if we go to this thread you also made - Centralise all rules surely this is roughly the same thing?

The extra abilities/capacity you're asking for the moderators to be given is exactly that in my eyes, they do a lot behind the scenes as much as they do in plain sight as well I can imagine, and with that comes more time effort and investment

I do feel if the rules got stripped down to the core, and then re-wrote all completely with the input from the community let's say on maybe a voting system or something, non-troll related then it could maybe have a different way of looking at it moving forward but with that being said, how would we go about the old rules/input? Do we just disregard it until the next case pops up, or do we re-visit everything each time for each case that could be reinvestigated

 

sorry brother lmao

And yeah this is why I touched base in my post myself, again apologies for the pure dick ache amount of reading lmao, i'd rather give constructive feedback and actual references unlike another thread we seemingly have for just trolling

 

I'm sensitive to your point on misinterpretation/misuse. That's a risk yeah

Centralisation suggestion is different in the sense that it's aimed to change something in the formal sense and not the material sense

 

No support, as I don't really see it going well where staff has to determine value of said losses and all. Sure I understand where you're coming from, but I'd much rather rely on facts and evidence provided. I don't want no situations where the ruling on situations is different just because another staff member is looking at it, we don't have rules and punishments provided for no reason.

 

The idea is that facts and evidence are used in extraordinary situations to substantiate a punitive damage claim.
So staff can in certain situations substantiate that a big provider should have been aware of a breach based on X, Y, and therefore...

 

This is too complicated of a system to be implemented