A Major issue with the Sythe Rules

Hello,

Whilst I was away visiting the university in which I was supposed to be joining this year, I was patrolling in my favourite place. Thats right, the Report a Scammer section. In this, I realised that the user @Teeto got scammed by a reputable user known as Volta (a $300 donator).

Upon this I realised he was unbanned by Video. He was unbanned because Video stated some rules (from 2016) in order to protect users from being held responsible in case of an account hijacking.

I completely respect Video's opinion on the matter however this does not come without any flaws whatsoever. Video has been an admin for a long time and for the most part he is in fact experienced at what he does.

In this circumstance however I would like to list a flaw with the rules in which he stated:

However, the reason I feel this statement is flawed is because there is in fact no proof that the user in question has been hacked. The main problem with this is that a user can choose not to have their Skype on their profile and signature, stop bumping their threads and not PM users/post their Skype on threads the day they commit the scam. This allows people to 'fake a hack' by asking a victim (most probably a user who trusts them based on previous trades) to sell them gold. They then steal the gold off the user and then not send the gold and just pretend like they got hacked a few hours ago and it wasn't them who stole the gold.

I did not want to argue this point directly because I wanted to hear other staff opinions. I showed video this report which was posted on June 9th whilst the hack was performed on May 23rd. Due to the Skype being used even after the hack occurred would surely deem him responsible for the scam but according to video that is not the case:
langod1

I want to see if there could be something that could prevent users from staging hacks in situations like these. If nothing can be done then there is going to be more scam quitting happening from fake hackings.

Thank you.

 

I'm confused about this as well. So if someone who I have regularly traded in the past trades a hacker of my Skype account and they scam it wouldn't be a valid report?

Teeto mentions the fact that him and Volta have traded in the past in the thread Volta Hacker scammed me so he still had the Skype added and he wouldn't have thought about taking the steps to verify it was the same person

Volt has had his Skype listed in the OP of threads before and is still there but these are threads almost a year old, so is there a time limit where it doesn't count anymore?

 

I completely agree I mean check this shit out:
welikepeanuts125 - 1 report in which Volta had his Skype listed
[$300 Donator] Selling Level 67 Pure! 40 Attack, 90 Strength! - Another report in which his Skype was listed
Looking for Halo Services! - Another report in which his Skype was listed.

Bear in mind these were "dismissed" due to the fact that they were not "active" market threads. This is a major issue and can actually lead to people being scammed.

Video has effectively said that if you put your Skype into one of your threads and don't bump it for a while i.e. a few months and your Skype was to get hacked and the hacker was to scam then you'd not be held responsible as long as you didn't send PM's, didn't display it in your signature or on your profile OR have it listed in an active market thread.

This could be seen as a huge issue as it could seem to do more harm than good. There needs to definitely be more clarification with the rules to stop loopholes from being abused. I understand it sucks for your Skype to be hacked but in this scenario there is no proof.

Edit: Not to mention, his other account "Atlov" has received a DNT. The account has not logged in for a year and the last Skype of the account was infinigod. I told video this and he said it didn't matter because the report was "filed against Volta and not Atlov".

 

I'd just like to clarify video did not make up any rules. That specific rule was voted in the SL in 2016 and implemented when; videos phrasing makes it seem like its new but it isn't.

 

I have edited the thread to reflect exactly what you said because it was mentioned here:
PMs are no longer required for Skype proofs!
Appreciate your contribution @Dunworry but I continue to stand by my statement in which there is a flaw which must be considered and reworked.

 

I just wanted to clarify it, that's all. As for the topic at hand, it's tricky. On one hand, a skype can still be hacked even when 2FA is active. Additionally, should a user move on from Skype and no longer want to trade via it, but happens to have their skype posted on a MM form from a couple years ago, it's a shame. So I see the point of the rule, but I agree it does need some clear cut standards for when it applies and when it does not. As for the specific Volta case I haven't looked into it and tbh I don't care to.

Support for revisiting the rule and standardizing it

 

The majority of Skype's get hacked due to the old Microsoft system. The majority of people use Live: Skype's purely because (depending on the email provider that is used), it is incredibly difficult to tell the email on the account and thus you don't login with your username, rather your email.

I understand you can have a Skype hacked with 2FA however it is rarer than getting hacked by using a live Skype. This is because typically when using a live Skype, due to the fact its linked to your email whenever you move country it typically recognises it as a "foreign IP address" and thus asks you to confirm a code to ensure it is you logging in so the majority of people who get hacked through 2FA typically a) located in the same area as the person they are hacking, b) have access to the victims phone or c) are able to gain access to the victims phone. I understand cases like this happen however I rarely do see live: accounts being hacked for this main reason.

With regular Skype accounts (and this is the main reason I ditched mine), you can easily login through a username. Either way it has been discussed multiple times that the user is and should be held responsible for their own security. He could have made a new Skype years ago back when you made your live:dunworry2 one. He just chose to risk his security and thus he should be held accountable for it. In the report he clearly stated that he tried to do everything in his power to protect himself AFTER he was hacked. You shouldn't have to perform "damage control" once you are hacked. You should ensure that damage control doesn't even have to occur and the thing that annoys me is the fact that he could have easily avoided this situation but he chose not to.

I'm only defending the user cause I know if I was in his shoes and I got scammed to shit like this (which I have on multiple occasions by both untrusted and trusted users) and the hacker/scammer walked away Scott-free I would want justice.

 

I have to say I agree with @Seraphic in this instance.

Within the report, you can see from the skype logs that Volta was not a new contact of Teeto's. I would presume (and a mod could verify), that teeto had obviously added this skype before.

1. If Teeto had traded with this skype before as the real Volta, then Volta WOULD be responsible for the trade.
2. If Teeto had added Volta from some previous post in which Volta specified his skype, Volta WOULD be responsible for the trade.
3. If a random skype called "Volta" adds Teeto (regardless if it is the real hacked one or not, and is not mentioned in any of the places that @video specified), then Volta WOULD NOT be responsible for the trade.

This is my opinion. But if I add someone on a new skype thats not listed on my profile, and then I trade with someone under that skype. That does not mean i am not responsible for that skype if it gets hacked and re-trades the same person who I traded with on that skype in the past.

 

No however if you did PM them and say look this is my Skype and it gets hacked then YOU should be responsible for any damages because you did post it.

This is because obviously if you don't PM or list that Skype anyway and you trade people using it, they cannot be sure whether it is an impostor or not. Obviously if you were responsible for any impostors in which you had pretty much the whole of Sythe would be fucked, @Searchy being the most.

 

Seems doing what is always recommended and asking for PMs before trading, no matter who it is, would make this whole topic pointless.

 

If you put your Skype name in a thread you should have to own up to it no matter what. Seems to me like someone is planning to scamquit soon :hmm:

 

Or, just do what I said obvious and confirm through sythe PMs to avoid this kind of situation. If you decide to go first to someone solely through Skype without any confirmation through sythe then you are partially to blame for poor trading and not taking recommended precautions.

 

It's not "poor trading", if you have listed your Skype on your GFX thread and stop bumping it and I trade you, you take my $40 worth of BTC and say sorry I got hacked and continue using that Skype the next day you shouldn't have the comfort of taking my BTC.

Also not to mention if you had done legitimate transactions with me before, and I thought you were trusted and gave you the BTC you should automatically be held accountable. The reason for this is that say for example I needed something urgently and the Sythe PM system was to go down (I know this would be a rare occurrence) then obviously businesses can be affected. There has been times when the Searching function has gone down so this is a very real scenario. Some things cannot wait as people need money NOW and then. It's not a matter of waiting.

 

Since Sythe is the site people use to maintain certain rules when trading, and Sythe is where all of the 'trust' comes from, I don't see why you wouldn't always use Sythe PMs to verify a trade with someone. Also making the person who got hacked responsible for repaying any scams through his Skype could be used in simple scams where the only person who loses out is the person who got hacked.

If you don't want to use Sythe PMs when trading then you can't demand to be protected by the system set in place by Sythe when dealing with scammers.

 

Actually you are very wrong there. The original statement was clearly here but due to the fact you are unable to read I will refer it again...

As you can see here, Sythe PM's are just one part of it. I'm not "requesting" any changes to the Sythe PM system. What I'm requesting here is an update to this rule in general. To hold users responsible regardless of whether a PM is sent or not. The reason I'm requesting this is because he got supposedly hacked on "May 23rd". He was using the Skype account on June 9th which was roughly 15 days later after he got "hacked" as he claims.

The point I'm making here is people can easily fake hacks and not only that but the Sythe PM system that you claim to make trades safer actually doesn't. The majority of the people just right a quick "talking on Skype now" cause they don't give a shit about the circumstances. Plus the worse thing they get is a TWC. Hardly anyone fills out a proper PM these days. It is only enforced when a report is put out against them.

Anyway if he got hacked and shows his Skype in a public report roughly 2 weeks after he gets hacked, that has to raise some questions. Why would he use a hacked Skype account? Surely thats insecure not to mention your logic is flawed. It clearly says "SAME DAY POSTS/PM's". This means if you didn't send a PM, claim your Skype got hacked and then started PMing people with your Skype the next day you wouldn't be held responsible. Absolute flawed logic and I don't know why you're supporting a scammer on this occasion.

 

Using the Sythe PM system would prevent any possible false claim of being hacked, really no need to over complicate such a simple system. Your suggestion just makes it worse for people who are genuinely hacked and have people trading them who don't take proper precautions such as PM'ing. At the end of this it is your responsibility when trading, if you don't want to take very simple steps to prevent being scammed so be it.

 

You talk about the people who are genuinely hacked but you missed the point of the people who fake hackings. You're only proper precaution is PMing and you never mentioned how people would trade if the PM system was down. If say for example, the PM system was down and I needed money to pay a bill and I sold someone 100M 07 and they 5 hours later "Sorry it wasn't me who did the trade" and "I was hacked" then thats no excuse. What you're basically saying here is wait for the bill to pass a late payment and wait for the PM system to go back up. Some of us actually want to maintain a good credit history. I understand you are a child and don't have any responsibilities however as me being part of the older generation I can safely say we have to partake in much more crucial responsibilities compared to yourself.

 

The PM system is rarely down and if it is down you will just have to wait or risk being scammed. You can stop quoting me now since this thread is going nowhere.

 

Like I said some of us actually have bills and responsibilities that need to be done quickly. Some things cannot be waited for. In extenuating circumstances something has to be done. You're thinking of best scenarios, not worst case.

 

About this. I spoke to them about it through reports. They said that the most recent posting of the Skype was 6-7 months ago before he stated anywhere that he was hacked and his Skype was changed, but they considered it invalid. Although I don't think that's how it's supposed to work I don't think it's worth the time fighting with them over it for 100m. Thanks for bringing this to light, it shouldn't be overlooked