How the Staff handles this is Wrong.

1. James sells Nick an account. Nick sells that same account to Ron. The next day Nick recovers (scam) the account from Ron. Nick becomes a scammer.

2. Ron gained some knowledge in the pass that James owned the account in the pass. Nick and Ron conversation about the issue. Nick convince Ron to report James.

3. Ron reports James with chat logs. *cough* CHAT LOGS. (which is NOT proof outlined by Sythe's Official Rules*)

4. James gets banned.

5. James uses a proxy that 100's of Sythe's members uses. James dispute gets denied and he's been accused by the Staff of....Ban evading while he's using a proxy?

So the Staff biased reasoning to ban James is because he's a dick.

(This story is made up...)

If this happens May I please ask the staff this question. Why don't you ban real scammers that been reported by legit users who use CHAT LoGs when it's outlined by official rules that is isn't allowed. And make an exception on Ron's be-have?

That is all.

(for your info: I do keep up on the news on sythe. I'm the type of person that sits back and listen other than talk much. Reason my post count is low)

 

We're still investigating the case you're obviously referring to.

 

Hi 1227.

 

I am not 1227 trust me. Some of you may know me as Rainbow Bright. I got unbanned yesterday for flaming ^_&

But yeah back on topic. Edit: reported for spamming my thread.

 

No. Your theory would've been correct, however, the person you're talking about claimed that the account was originally his, therefore removing the burden from any previous owners and shifting it all to him.

 

If, hypothetically, the member were accused of ban evading by a non-staff member (or ex-staff member, still hypothetically), it's unlikely that it has anything to do with an IP address.

As has been said countless times, chat logs CAN be taken into consideration as part of the report, though it cannot stand alone. It requires additional investigation/inquiry by the banning staff member.

Also, you're not fooling anyone. Just because you've changed the names doesn't mean you're not still giving feedback about a particular ban.

 

I understand a little bit better now. Thanks Sin666 and Magic Arrow for the clarification. Much appreciated! ^_^

 

I guess my issue with the whole thing is the secrecy behind the ban/evidence. One of the more trusted members gets banned over a possible scam over a $40 account from a banned member, and everything is kept quiet about it? Just seems irrational to me.