Trade With Caution

Maybe something should be done about this?

--------------------------------------------

Using the reverting method, isn't it possible to do the same thing again and again and again?


edit:

Maybe you shouldn't take such a narrow approach to what a TwC should represent. It is very plain, when trading with this user exercise caution because of past events.

 

If they use the same answers again and again then yeah, but if you use something random or complete childish then no although its still possible but like fire or something said below its a lot harder.

 

What happens if I change all my info to fake stuff. I can still be reverted but it is a 100 times harder.

 

If you used entirely fake information, how would one go about reverting your MSN account? That doesn't seem logical.

It is my understanding that this is the process by which someone reverts an MSN. http://universalhax.com/archive/index.php/t-73.html

(If linking to this tutorial is not allowed, please inform/infract me, but the linking is purely for educational reasons and easily accessible via a Google query of "MSN reverting".)

 

So essentially what you're saying is:

- Be smart like v3 and use false information.
- A TwC is warranted to anyone who is a victim of Hotmail's mishap.
- Everyone should be smart like v3 and make new emails if you didn't use fake information.

Tyro - TwC
Finn - TwC
Hahanerd - TwC (For the fourth time?)

Sorry guys, your security isn't up to par. Even though stupidity/gullibility/uncontrollable mistake doesn't reflect on your actual credibility, you're getting a TwC.

Done, thanks.

 

I think for not taking proper precautions on keeping your computer and msn safe you're putting others at risk and for that you should be punished, but like I suggested above it wouldn't be permanent. Why should someone else have to suffer for your own carelessness?

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define:+retroactive

I made a couple revisions to your bullet points and I think that they are sticky worthy, nice work!

 

What you're suggesting is creating a community in which everyone's computers meet up-to-date security features, a community where people aren't easily manipulated and socially engineered.

While your dream site seems quite wonderful, it's completely unreasonable which is why I still believe that carelessness shouldn't warrant a TwC.

 

So he makes an honest response to your thread and you respond by trying to attack his post? Why not just defend your own point instead of deteriorating someone elses?

 

It wasn't an honest post, it was a bullshitted smart-assed post so I addressed it as such. It was so riddled with fallacies that I shouldn't have even responded to it.

To address your second question, I did defend my own point, do some reading on Aristotelean rhetoric.

 

Ok, so hypothetically if Finn is targeted (Corresponding to your well thought out bank scenario) and has his account compromised multiple times (Through whatever means), he should be given a TwC? How well do you think that's going to go?

You have logic, I'll agree to that - But logic and justice don't interlace on this forum if you haven't noticed.

 

You can't compare Finn to a normal user, its like comparing a steak to tofu it just doesn't add up. And as for your response above I don't think making sure your computer and msn are safe is unrealistic if you can't manage that then don't bother trading in the market.

 

I think that if the policy was changed, there would be a lot of people who would do something about it before they became victims themselves, which is my motive exactly.

Maybe that would be better for the community as a whole then marking individuals with a TwC, but you have to do something to make people think it's worth taking the extra precautions. Getting your MSN hacked is not nearly as frowned upon as it should be currently.

This was a solution not created to set more punishments on the community, but a punishment created to spur individuals to do something about solving the problem the community is currently having.

 

You also, know that if these guys actually took the time to spend like what, 10 dollars a month? They could get their own email and would be a lot harder to get it recovered.

 

Who is tell when someones msn/pc is safe or not?

Why not punish the idiots who trade without PM's etc etc

The carelessness here is that of the trader, not he person with the msn problems.

 

Hell no to paying for something that is universally free.

 

It's probably a good idea during the time that the the hacking is unresolved. But a perm TwC because they got hacked is too much.

 

If you've been hacked then you're obviously not safe at the moment and as for "idiots" not asking for a Pm or "etc etc etc" before they trade they get punished already as they only get half of what was scammed.

 

Requested ban > TwC

Much better. No interaction at all.

 

You can compare Finn to a normal user being that minus the rank he's just another person and adheres to the same rules that everyone follows and therefore receives the same punishment as everyone else.

Shredderbeam was banned for affiliating with Sigex, he wasn't given special privileges simply because he was an administrator. He broke the rules by conspiring with a known hacker and is now banned.

If Finn is targeted and compromised on several occasions, he should be given a TwC - It's not really debatable. But wouldn't Finn be a primary target given his state of position? I'd think a hacker would go for him as oppose to "runescapefanboy239042". What you're suggesting is for Finn to become "Un-hackable" which is clearly out of the question.

If someone wants access bad enough, they'll get it. It doesn't matter whether or not they use the revert trick - They will get it.

This is just something that is understood on a site like this. Accounts getting compromised is inevitable for the most part. The best thing they can do is make an announcement about it when it occurs.

I agree that encouraging people to use false information is a good idea, but people will be hacked regardless - if the right person pursues it.