Please explain

[Shall Skill]

Your correct in saying that you aren't Brandon, your Drewskyd.

See you later. Go stir up trouble somewhere else.

Does it matter who it is? He's right. We still haven't seen any updates regardless of the staff saying that they want to "open" up to the community.

 

[Styles]

Why would you ask a PM from someone you've traded 10 times? Asking them for a PM would just be extremely annoying on each trade, it's only really neccessairy on the first trade you make with them to confirm their msn is legit

I would require and have required it every single time.

 

[FireZ]

Does it matter who it is? He's right. We still haven't seen any updates regardless of the staff saying that they want to "open" up to the community.

Tyro will pay Matt the $5 back as that scam was legit by the "hacker"

The staff might open up more to us but its not going to happen overnight.

 

[Matt Hasty]

2 things Tyro...Why wasn't there a shitload of investigation of Matt Hasty's report? Also...Why weren't you banned during the discussion of your case?

1 its none of your business, 2 its none of your business. The case has already been resolved, so I see no point in carrying on with this topic.

 

May I see an "update" of this "case" that apparently is still going on.

You and your friends are epic cunts. If you don't like the site and the way it is run then leave.

In fact, here's one better: You are no longer welcome on sythe.org. This server is private property and any further access by yourself or this brandon person will be treated as trespass.

 

I'm sorry, but I disagree with this no pm = half refund. Any man and his dog can go around claiming his msn is hacked and go on a scamming spree. Most people would think "Ah he's on Sythe now and I'm talking to his msn, must mean nothing is wrong." He scams the person. Then 10-15minutes later a report a scammer comes out. He is found guilty and only needs to pay back 50%, he pays back half of what he scammed and gets away with it.

Not the best idea.

So PM them before trading? What is hard about that?

Even that still doesn't work 100%. Anybody can claim that they were told to send a pm by a random, so he/she sends the message "You wanted me to pm you". The buyer thinks oh I asked him to send a pm so he sent me one. The seller scams him, a report a scammer comes in and the response by the scammer was "Somebody on msn asked me to pm him to confirm that he has the real (insert name here) added) and ends up getting away.

I didn't explain it the best, but hopefully you understand.

Look the principle at play here is this:
If you don't bother to verify the identity of the person with whom you are trading, then if it turns out that you were trading with a hacked account you are not entitled to full compensation from the person whose identity was stolen. It's partially your fault for being careless, and it's partially their fault for being careless (usually), thus both of you are culpable.

Consider if you are hacked and someone goes scamming with your MSN account. Would you then advocate the 100% payback rule even in transactions where the counter-party made no effort to verify your identity?

 

So PM them before trading? What is hard about that?

Is very simple.
Make sure that the pm includes both msn's and the type of trade, and there's your solution.
Also, HAI SYTHE @#$!#$T@$^@

 

[Magic Arrow]

I infracted.

I don't see how I deliberately wasted staff time. I posted a question, with some humor at the end of it. I did not realise that if half the post was considered wasting time, then the whole post was considered wasting time. Must've come in with the "No PM = Half refund" policy.

 

[wombakage]

So I hear this. "If you are too stupid to not pm someone, than you deserve to lose at least half of your money"

Why not just don't refund them at all? Its the same principle


I think the new rule is very fucked up and will have loadsss of leechers get scammed for no reason

 

So I hear this. "If you are too stupid to not pm someone, than you deserve to lose at least half of your money"

Why not just don't refund them at all? Its the same principle


I think the new rule is very fucked up and will have loadsss of leechers get scammed for no reason

No one cares what you think. Despite what you may believe your opinions do not constitute reasoned argument, and you are not entitled to any explanation we do not wish to give. If you think the staff are corrupt then by all means leave.

Further, the effects of a policy do not determine its moral validity. So even if more leechers are scammed as a result of a "no-pm, half refund" policy (which I doubt will be the case), it doesn't make the policy any less correct. People are not on the line for their the theft of their identity when the counterparty has not even bothered to verify said identity. And if a dispute arises where PMs are denied, we have the master copy of all PMs, so we will know who sent what.

Could've sworn I closed this thread.