Pardons

[Hailey]

I don't think this would work. I think it should be based on what you scammed like I had said before. Someone scams 1000, so they have to pay 200? That seems a little extravagant if you ask me. That's just my opinion on the matter though.

So if you scammed within certain margins you should have to do a certain percent? It could be a sticky.

 

[Superfluous]

$5 + 5% to just post the report/have it considered? - we don't really want to encourage people to determine optimally sized scams

 

[Fr4nchise]

So if you scammed within certain margins you should have to do a certain percent? It could be a sticky.

yeah that's what I'm getting at. it could be something like

0-99 = 10%

100-199 = 9%

200-399 = 8%

400-599 = 7%

600-799 = 6%

800+ = 5%

plus the $5 base fee of course

 

[Hailey]

Should we move it over to suggestions? Would someone like to type up a rough draft?

 

[Superfluous]

With those categories, you're equally well off scamming $800 as you are $667. That's bad. Keep it simple.

 

I really love the idea of a percentage based having to be paid to have the privellage to pardon, but my question is, in JohnG's case he didn't scam (well he did.. but to that later) he was working with Ooga (a very known hacker/scammer who is constantly harassing Sythe.org) no one knows the amount he's scammed or the amount John has taken for Ooga, how would you work that out? Or how would you work a percentage base out for those who are caught doing black hat and not actually scamming?

 

[Tyler]

This is a conditional pardon, which has already been stated that sythe.org no longer does.

If there has been substantial proof that the user has in fact, themselves scammed somebody. Then it is up for moderators to decide whether or not the person is trusted enough to come back on sythe after the scammed users have been paid back.

All this is under the impression that the user has FOR SURE THEMSELVES SCAMMED. I'd like a link where it has been proven that a user has scammed and easily gotten through the pardon process.

 

[Hailey]

I guess what they're wondering is how many people who have been pardoned have scammed again also if it was done this way maybe would give everyone a fair chance is what I'm gathering from the thread.

 

[Aesiir]

SVU means jack shit, no one's gonna donate $25 after scamming like 10m. $5 is more reasonable imo.

We're supposed to be reasonable with someone who scammed? No matter if it's 5 dollar scam or 100 dollar scam, money is money. People work to get their money, it has value in terms of their time. If some1 doesn't want to donate $25 after scamming like 10m then good riddance to them. We shouldn't be bargaining with scammers over pardons. The pardon system is a PRIVILEGE for those who have learned from their mistakes and would not attempt another scam. It's not a freakin' buy in to get back in the forums so you can be a gamble on if you're gonna scam someone or not. What the hell is this "reasonable" sh*t. That's ludicrous. At the end of the day, making a SCAMMER pay $5 means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the grand scheme considering that a lot of trades end up being a lot more than that.

The main reason I feel that 2FA authentication would be a necessary step is so that, at least, they can't blame it on being hacked. That already crosses out one overused excuse.

 

[S]

This isn't going to happen. Similar ideas have been suggested in the past. We aren't in the business of profiting from unbanning people.

 

[Fr4nchise]

This isn't going to happen. Similar ideas have been suggested in the past. We aren't in the business of profiting from unbanning people.

That's the thing. It wouldn't be "profit" it would just be going towards keeping Sythe running, such as a donation would.

 

[S]

That's the thing. It wouldn't be "profit" it would just be going towards keeping Sythe running, such as a donation would.

Whichever way you word it, it's still essentially profiting from unbanning folk. The pardon system is fine how it is at current, to me personally at least. We can't anticipate and predict how people are going to act all he time, some-times we just have to take it as it comes.

 

The percentage should go to the person scammed. Fuck the unconditional crap, that's how the pardon system becomes a 0% interest loan shop.

"Hi, I'm going to scam your money because I need/want it for now, but I will pay you back when I feel like it."

Eventually they will come back.

 

[Tyler]

The percentage should go to the person scammed. Fuck the unconditional crap, that's how the pardon system becomes a 0% interest loan shop.

"Hi, I'm going to scam your money because I need/want it for now, but I will pay you back when I feel like it."

Eventually they will come back.

You must think they give out pardons willy nilly.

link me to a pardon where it was clear that the person pardoning was actually the one who scammed, and their pardon process was easy.

 

You must think they give out pardons willy nilly.

link me to a pardon where it was clear that the person pardoning was actually the one who scammed, and their pardon process was easy.

Did I say it was easy? They will "eventually" come back if all they did was scam someone, and they paid the user back. You're unable to tell if anyone is truly sorry, the best way to go about this is by adding a % to the amount scammed (given back to the victim) so they don't break even.

This would also decrease the amount of people scamming. It's really common sense.

 

[BrianTirae]

This isn't going to happen. Similar ideas have been suggested in the past. We aren't in the business of profiting from unbanning people.

Exactly if the administration starts profiting from something like this well... That's just low and in my opinion will open the flood gates to even worse crap like allowing people to change there username for $$.

 

[Laptop65]

What about give the money to charity or something instead? Be a better place to go if people don't like the site getting the money.

 

[funbox]

Whichever way you word it, it's still essentially profiting from unbanning folk. The pardon system is fine how it is at current, to me personally at least. We can't anticipate and predict how people are going to act all he time, some-times we just have to take it as it comes.

Ofcourse you see it fine.
You're too blind to see past the bullshit BBB had posted in his pardons let alone to see flaws in the system.

I really love the idea of a percentage based having to be paid to have the privellage to pardon, but my question is, in JohnG's case he didn't scam (well he did.. but to that later) he was working with Ooga (a very known hacker/scammer who is constantly harassing Sythe.org) no one knows the amount he's scammed or the amount John has taken for Ooga, how would you work that out? Or how would you work a percentage base out for those who are caught doing black hat and not actually scamming?

Simple way to go through this.
Make scamming fee a % of the amount scammed.
For hackers, make it a base fee of 25-50$ (since usually hackers make alot of more money {obviously hacking})

What about give the money to charity or something instead? Be a better place to go if people don't like the site getting the money.

I wouldn't mind seeing it go to charity.

 

[S]

Ofcourse you see it fine.
You're too blind to see past the bullshit BBB had posted in his pardons let alone to see flaws in the system.

I can see the flaws, and as I said, we can't predict everything and anticipate what someone will do all of the time. The pardon system is to right your wrongs, not to be proven a saint, nor to be proven innocent.

It's about giving people a second chance, and that's why I voted yes.

 

[funbox]

I can see the flaws, and as I said, we can't predict everything and anticipate what someone will do all of the time. The pardon system is to right your wrongs, not to be proven a saint, nor to be proven innocent.

It's about giving people a second chance, and that's why I voted yes.

>Uses associated with a Scammer.
>User himself scammed users via cleaning chips.
>User associated himself with DDoSing of multiple sites
>User associated with attempting to shit talk down other sites that people got hacked of (defamation of character)
>User is associated to a blackhatter that tried to social engineer a competitor site's pokel license

Ye, definitely a type of person that should be let back in the community that's only going to spam threads to advertise his shit scam site.