Sillymokey banned but R2P not...?

As well. I explained this to corey either on MSN or in the PM's, but he completely ignored it.

 

The discussion about partners being liable for each other was pretty much all in favor as Sin said. The only issue I have is that we never did anything with it which means we really can not start applying it to people even though it is kind of obvious.

 

I agree with that. I have no problems with people being held responsible for their partners, as long as it's codified.

 

Right right. This is more of a case of prosecutor error and the defendant getting a mistrial than an innocent man being thrown in jail, if you people understand that. I support the rule he was banned on, but I do not support keeping him banned because of the staff's failure to make it known.

 

What the hell are you guys are complaining about the rule was added because of Alt... I banned somebody when I first became a mod because his partner scammed...

 

I don't recall saying the rule was added because of Alt. Just because you did something back then, doesn't mean it was justified then, nor is it justified now.

 

This right here proves that we are not showing favoritism.

Yes, the R2P case was dealt with wrongly, but it would be highly unfair for us to go back and ban him for something that was already dealt with.

As for Dalpra, I did some research and it turns out that Dalpra's partner was banned for scamming an account, which had nothing to do with their business. From what I know, there were only further claims that Onex (Dalpra's partner) scammed GP/rares. Even if proof is supplied that he scammed under their partnership (gp/rares), the same applies to Dalpra, it would be unfair to ban him for something that was already dealt with.

 

The simple fact of the matter is: partners are liable for what their partners do. Employers are liable for what their employees do. Anytime someone does not control who gets access to their account, more than one person is liable. That is how it is going to work from now on. Regardless of whether or not this was added to the rules, it still falls under the "unconscionable acts" clause so the staff does have right to ban him, regardless.

 

You do know that R2 was told to pay back the user as well, why he didn't? I don't know.

 

Favoritism is irrelevant here, as Suf has already pointed out. Along with numerous others.

If there was no rule established publicly saying that partnership scams were changed, why would sillymonkey take different precautions? Would you really take different precautions? I sure as hell wouldn't.

I know very little about the R2 situation, I just know about dalpra's situation. Yarroow and hookups were also with a scamming partner, same one as dalpra's in fact.

I completely support of further actions to be taken against partnership scams, but in this situation, it's not needed. It's not sillymonkey's fault it wasn't made public, so he can't really be blamed. He was following the rules as they were, not for what they might be in the future.

 

Like I said before

 

The thought behind the rule is to prevent people from forming partnerships with sketchy people. We are protecting Sythe users by making the partnerships more risky to form so that people have to think about the possibility of a scam instead of just pure profit.

 

I would have formed a partnership with Plznate, but look what he did. The fact is that no matter how someone appears there is always a chance of them doing something like this.

This rule really needs to be fleshed out for everyone, not just for mods. Unlesss of course you want to post the thread from the SL out for everyone to see, so we will know what is up.

 

That's exactly my issue with it. The public needs to know about policies such as this. We are working on not letting this sort of thing happen again where the staff discusses something but doesn't tell the community but we have to handle the current situation since it's already messed up.

 

The solution seems to be pretty clear to me. Since it wasn't sillymonkey's fault at all, just let this slide and enforce it twice as hard next time? Isn't that the most logical way to handle it? I of course wish Alt could get reimbursed, but using Sillymonkey in a situation like this clearly isn't the way to get it done.

I mean, is there any reason to handle it differently? Alt did take the risk. Can't expect him to be paid back. Not everybody is, every time.

 

Sillymonkey really should have known that if his partner scams he is responsible. Yes, the staff did mess up in the past but it wasn't the entire staff. It was most likely a single moderator that handled the situation wrong. Had it been brought to the entire staff, it most likely would have been handled in the same way as Silly's situation is. Sythe doesn't have a legal code and the rules are loose for a reason; so that we can do what we feel is right.

 

Out of the majority of the cases, I'm sure it was ruled that people weren't liable. Reason as to why there had to be a rule established, instead of it already known as a rule.

 

I don't really understand what your getting at.

 

My only problem with leaving the law 'loose' means that it can be abused both ways. Mods can abuse a loosely worded rule to their advantage the same way as a member could use it to theirs. Loose laws leads to situations like these.

 

Really, if we didn't have the unconscionable acts clause, the rules list would be about 30 pages long. It's a lot more efficient to tell people to not do things that are obviously wrong and then add things in that are gray or hazy as issues arise. This situation was really caused by a failure of the staff to properly inform the community about what policies they would be following.