Sillymokey banned but R2P not...?

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?p=9832252#post9832252

Wasn't this the same situation with R2Pleasant? His partner scammed but he avoided the ban hammer and didn't pay any one back (To my knowledge.) I'm just confused how Sillymonkey gets banned but R2P doesn't.

Also, I'm not trying to get R2P banned, I'm actually in the process of doing a $1k trade with him so I want him to stay, I just don't get how this works.

 

Dalpra didn't pay back what was scammed by his partner either, did he?

 

Regardless of past offenses, I believe that this is how situations like these will be handled in the future. Applying changes retroactively is hard and many times not fair.

 

I was going to create a thread about this actually, I have to agree with Bubba Fuzz. You can't change the rules half way through the game, because if you aren't going to punish one person for this just because it happened in the past then you shouldn't punish anyone.

 

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of R2p or Dalpra being confronted about their respective situations, but I'm not familiar with the specifics of either, so I can't really judge whether it would be appropriate.

However, as Suf said, this is how all partner scams will be dealt with in the future.

 

I agree rules like this should be changed, but personally there's so many of these unlisted rules half the members don't realize until they're banned the rule that they unintentionally broke. This is not the case in this situation, but I'm sure silly monkey had no idea that if his partner scammed he would be banned too. Why should we be held responsible for others actions?

I think a major overhaul of ALL the rules needs to be done, considering there is so many that keep popping up out of nowhere.

 

I must agree with this, I think all the rules need a re-evaluation by the entire Sythe staff and need to be changed around. Like the Ninjamember name sniping, some say it is scamming, some say it isn't (Yeah I watch pardons, don't front - you do too.) there needs to be a definite answer handed down so that we know our boundaries. I don't want one mod to say I can do this or post something then get infracted by another mod then have to dispute it.

 

Name sniping is already being discussed in the SL; a sticky will probably be added to the section once the staff have reached a consensus. If we decide to allow it, those who were banned for the offense will obviously have their bans lifted; if we decide not to allow it, then we will consider the fact that it's a blurry issue and that the rules were ill-defined should they dispute, as long as they agree not to continue it.

 

http://screensnapr.com/v/YUfvCE.png

http://screensnapr.com/v/m5AnkS.png

http://screensnapr.com/v/MGMPyR.png

 

Going to have to agree with Punker/OP on this one.

If nothing was publicly announced regarding partnerships it is a bit unfair to punish him for it.

 

I thought about this the moment sillymonkey was banned, also if its a new rule he should be allowed back. Its not written anywhere on sythe so no one knows its against the rules. I understand that it is now officially a rule but if this happened before, and to others before then there is no reason why only one should be banned. Sillymonkey was an active member here and banning him only hurts the community.

 

The way i see it is, if it's not in the rules, why the hell is someone being punished it?

 

Completely agree with this, I feel this should also be applied to the name sniping situation. Unless they add these to the rules officially, people banned should be unbanned.

 

I agree staff negligence to post rules isn't right. I believe if it's not posted then how can a person know that particular rule? I don't think that's fair at all. How can someone be expected to do something or act a particular way when they don't receive the proper instruction to do so? Obviously these hidden rules are going to be broken because nobody know what the hell they are.

This is exactly what happened with Lym and Myself we read the rules and seen nothing about account sharing. So we went on for about 8 months sharing our Sythe account because of our relationship we just seen no need to have separate accounts. Then we get banned for it one day out of the blue yet there was no rule written anywhere. Obviously it was overturned under conditions. But I believe this negligence is to our demise and completely unfair.

 

You're really incorrect about this having anything to do with the fact that Alt is staff.

Note the post date. It was agreed upon that this was the best way to deal with partnership issues way before this happened. I agree that the rules should clearly state how situations will be handled and improvement is needed, but your claims about corruption are just false. This would have been dealt with the same way regardless of the user scammed.

 

Regardless that you claim it's got nothing to do with Alt being staff, why is it being treated differently than any other situation? There is no public reasoning as to why this is like this. Only thing that I can infer is that this is happening because At is staff and is being treated differently because of relationships among the other staff members.

 

My question is why was this neglected to be clearly stated by the staff then in the official rules.

 

Tbh - If you want something to apply, say so before it happens, and do it publicly...

 

How the fuck is he even banned anyways? http://screensnapr.com/v/B1MMXl.png look at his terms of service..

 

I didn't even catch that, but it is true. Wow, nice catch. I believe just having that, if alts account didn't follow the ToS, then it is infact his fault and the ban should be repealed.