A Complaint and Suggestion

[Pain]

Note: This is not something against dunworry, I don't blame him at all, I blame the system he has to follow.


http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer-archive/1962518-user-rspspk-staff.html


The bar sythe.org requires for suspected RSPS staff to be banned is far far far to high to be able to be met.


I'd like to point out, I took the time out of my day to hand this high staff to you guys on a silver platter and the report got shot down.


Now, I submitted this evidence via skype to dunworry, he asked me where the picture was and I quote:

going to need proof that the user on your livechat is the user that jailed you


(I submitted a hidden gyazo u guys cant see, it contains the mules name but shows the mule jailed 1 minute after the purchase).


Now, thanks to a few 3rd parties, I was able to trace this staff to a skype.

This skype I reported but this is what dunworry told me:

Dunworry:
the screenie of the convo you showed me seems fair enough, i'd consider that enough for a ban on the grounds of being sketchy. but without any proof that the skype belongs to him, nothing I can do


So What did I do you ask? I provided that proof shown here:

http://prnt.sc/ay3di1


Perfect IP matches to the ip from zopim, what does dunworry say?

zopim proves a trade happened. the skype shows the guy is sketchy. but I'm unable to tie them together, as I cant reproduce the ip from the resolver



He cant "tie this all together" because HE CANT SEEM TO GET THE SAME RESULT, WHEN I PROVIDED A BLOODY PICTURE OF IT!


Now this rsps staff cant be banned, because STAFF cant get a result when I did?

This was his argument:

in this instance, there is an ip with the same picture. considering I cannot re-produce it, and I have no idea where the screenie came from, there isn't enough


Staff shouldn't need to "reproduce" a result if the image is coming from a "semi" valid source, I mean really?

NOW you think that'd be the worst of it right? NOPE.

THE GUY ADMITS TO BEING RELATED TO THE FREAKING RSPS OWNER AND I STILL CANT GET SOMEONE TO ISSUE A BAN!

http://prntscr.com/ayff9j



So after all that, HE'S STILL NOT BANNED.


Here's the suggestion part: Make it so if a result is produced once by a semi valid(a user of sythe for example) source, staff DO NOT have to be able to reproduce the same result if legitimate proof comes forward from that user(like a picture of a skype resolver tying them together), and allow staff to issue bans on that evidence, users can always dispute.


The bar for having RSPS staff banned is absolutely ridiculous, the fact the guy even told me he's related to the owners and remains unbanned because staff cant reproduce the same skype resolve is ridiculous.

THE BAR FOR RSPS STAFF REPORTS MUST BE LOWERED @ STAFF, PUT IT IN SL, IDC, THE BAR OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE REPORTS IS UNREALISTIC AND IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET, EVEN FOR MYSELF.

Rsps are a unique market, and the rules need to be adjusted to reflect that.



Now this is not bragging or anything else, but IF I cant get a RSPS staff banned, what chance does anyone else have, I mean seriously, do you know how many people I had to go to, to get that much information together, no average RSPS user on earth is able to gather that much information, and it STILL WASENT ENOUGH.

this was my parting comment:


[4/28/2016 6:50:19 PM] Gold-King/ Bus369- New Skype: don't blame me when this kid just keeps victimizing the rsps market, u saw he said he's an rspspk owner.
[4/28/2016 6:50:23 PM] Gold-King/ Bus369- New Skype: last thing I'm saying.
[4/28/2016 6:50:33 PM] Gold-King/ Bus369- New Skype: I gave u the best chance anybody in the entire industry had at stopping at owner.

 

This is more inclined towards feedback than a suggestion.

 

[Pain]

This is more inclined towards feedback than a suggestion.

It's a suggestion to prevent future instances like this from occurring, hence why it was posted here.


If I thought Dunworry deserved feedback, I would of posted it.


The fault is on the system, not the person who is following the system.

 

It's a suggestion to prevent future instances like this from occurring, hence why it was posted here.


If I thought Dunworry deserved feedback, I would of posted it.


The fault is on the system, not the person who is following the system.

Given the complicated nature of handling reports and how things are handled on a case by case basis, suggesting things be done in a specific way for particular reports is not really ideal.

 

[Pain]

Given the complicated nature of handling reports and how things are handled on a case by case basis, suggesting things be done in a specific way for particular reports is not really ideal.

Neither is the current situation in the rsps market.

Eventually staff have to make it easier or start accepting below the normal bar when it comes to RSPS staff, or their just going to keep running rampant.

The current breakdown I can guarantee is 1/4 people are RSPS staff.


That is insane.

For Gods sake RSPS rwters now have BOUNTYS on us put there by high RSPS staff, people are being PAID to ban us and track us, the situation is getting worse, staff need to lower the bar when it comes to reporting these people, its IMPOSSIBLE to gather enough evidence to meet the current requirements.

 

Neither is the current situation in the rsps market.

Eventually staff have to make it easier or start accepting below the normal bar when it comes to RSPS staff, or their just going to keep running rampant.

The current breakdown I can guarantee is 1/4 people are RSPS staff.


That is insane.

Your best bet is to resolve the current situation in regards to the report which is better suited in feedback rather than suggestions. This is all I'm saying.

To add on to your post, staff being able to produce the same result as the person who is making the report is a staple when confirming/handling reports.

 

Let me explain my reasoning, and I'm by no means implying anything by saying this.

Lessening our standards for bans for either higher reputation users or more well known people is not something that I would ever support. This would allow people to essentially fudge evidence to keep certain users off the forums, for whatever reasoning they have to do that. I'm by no means accusing you of anything of the sort, but the reason that innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is in place is to protect instances like that. To me, there is a reasonable doubt. You're free to take that up with another staff member and have them review the case. As for the overall suggestion, this would show preferential treatment, and it would allow too much room for abuse. No support

 

[S]

Requested lock.