[Denied] Create more clarity about the hierarchy of creditors on Sythe

1. Scammed by StockAllDay
   In the report above, multiple concurrent creditors all wanted the same usage right. In short, Zora eventually ruled “first come, first served.” Some users found this to be unfair and argued that all creditors should share the right proportionally (and therefore have a claim against the party granting the usage right), while others defended the ruling and said the oldest claim should prevail. Regardless of which position is “correct,” the community doesn’t know what the underlying basis is of such a ruling.
   
   (p.s. Zora's approach makes sense and aligns with the way many other systems handle these disputes.)
   
   
2. (This entire proposal was actually put together just so I’d have an excuse to post the Neres report again hehe)
   Neres not paying for lewd camshow
   At the very bottom of the edits, it says the camgirl was paid back by a third party to whom Neres owed money. My question is: why does the camgirl have a stronger claim than the community repayment system? And does it matter that the camgirl is banned?

President said:

Zora eventually ruled “first come, first served.”

Click to expand...

President said:

1. At the very bottom of the edits, it says the camgirl was paid back by a third party to whom Neres owed money. My question is: why does the camgirl have a stronger claim than the community repayment system? And does it matter that the camgirl is banned?

Click to expand...

Zulu said:

This was not the case. StockallDay uploaded the Kluch's banner himself, making the trade he conducted with Kluch legitimate as he followed through with the trade. The other users were scammed due to the fact that their banners were not uploaded by StockallDay, despite them having paid for the spot.

Click to expand...

Zulu said:

Vul (Camgirl in the report) was not banned until after this report so the debt from this report was owed to Vul, and not the community repayment fund. The refund was also "anti-scammed" from Neres when he won a giveaway in another user's discord server. Instead of paying Neres the giveaway money, they anti-scammed it and refunded Vul.


I'm not entirely sure how you linked these reports together for this suggestion other than possibly a misunderstanding of the rulings, but I do not see a need for a prioritized list for repayments. If a user is scammed, they are either repaid by the user that scammed them, or they can apply for a CRF roll if they meet the requirements.

Feel free to correct me as well if I am misunderstanding your suggestion.

Click to expand...

• Yes, the camgirl wasn’t banned until after the report and debt, and the funds were recovered via an anti-scam giveaway reversal. Those two facts determined why her claim outranked the community fund.

• Exactly those kinds of details—“date of ban relative to report” and “was the money reclaimed by an anti-scam measure?”—could be codified in a simple priority list. Right now, staff weigh them ad hoc; a written rulebook would make the process transparent and consistent.

Yoshiki said:

The two provided examples were pretty straightforward and don't bring a valid enough of a reason to make the market more complex. I will need to see some better reasoning and better examples of this being a problem before I can support.

Click to expand...