Ability to Anti-Scam any scammer

I am suggesting that we should be able to anti-scam anyone for the amount that has been scammed.
Example: User's A, B, C D and E.

User A scams user B for 50m 07. He is banned, report is valid.
User C is another scammer who has scammed a lot of money in the past and is a serial ban evader.
User E has been scammed for $50 by User A.
What I am suggesting: User E has been scammed $50, User A has scammed 50m. User E should be able to anti-scam User A for 50m and keep it, even though he was not the original victim. The money can count as repaid, and User A would not be able to be anti-scammed again, but I believe that if User A were to pardon for their scam of 50m, he would still have to repay User B.

 

Denied, give this man a twc @FireZ

 

Denied, attempt suicide again in the next 6 hours

 

The logic in this thinking suggests you've been on Sythe for way too long.

 

So in other words you think anyone who has been scammed should be able to scam anyone with outstanding debt to account for their own losses

Absolutely no support

 

Read too many scam reports, I have been scammed, and I have seen other innocent people scammed. Sick of it

 

Our counter-scams are doing fine, this suggestion is a bit out of line. No support from me.

 

I appreciate your input but obviously not as there is a thread in Sythe support which shows how flawed the system can be at times. If you have friends that are big shots, you have a much better chance to anti-scam somebody for their money.

 

The only reason that thread exists is because Invoker didn't make the scam report before the counter-scam went down. Freely scamming people with outstanding debts is utterly ludicrous, do you not see that?

 

I still think that you would have to contact staff beforehand and get their input, not just straight up scam.

 

The correct way to do it is to repay the person who the scammer originally scammed. If that person himself is a scammer, then the funds would go to a random scam victim. If the person who counter-scams has his own scam report, he would take the funds to cover his loss. Is that not how it currently works?

 

I'm not 100% sure, would have to ask a mod about that.
What I am suggesting is that if I have been scammed by somebody, and someone else has too, we both have been scammed. Isn't the point of repaying to repay people who have been scammed? So why should I, the one who has been scammed, and alsot he one who has taken the time of day to counterscam, have to repay someone else when I have been scammed aswell?

 

Well the point is to counter-scam and give the funds to the person the scammer scammed. This suggestion won't pass, but you can keep debating your point if you wish.

 

Thanks for your input, I appreciate it

 

Encourage rule breaking to counter rule breaking.

Sythe2k16

 

How is anti-scamming someone, with mod permission, allowed?

 

What?

 

Not a chance in hell.

There's a difference between a set up anti-scam to return goods to the individual that was scammed and just being like "hey, well you scammed so now i am going to scam you!" All you're suggesting is purporting the scamming of individuals who have scammed in the past. Where is a line drawn?

So yeah. No.

 

no no no that is not what I mean. You'd still need to get mod permission, etc.

To the point that says return goods to the individual that was scammed, you'd still be returning goods that were scammed to an individual that had been scammed, which is you (the person anti-scamming).

 

Sorry for my mis-interpretation

Anyway, still no. I do not support incentivized scamming. There is a difference between a directly coordinated anti scam in which all of this is clear and an individual who is just scamming another individual (who happened to scam in the past) to off-set their own misfortunes (aka for personal gain).

Even ignoring that, this is a logistical nightmare. Mods have other things to do then "verify scams" and how would such a system be incorporated? A voting system? An individual mod approval? Outside of my outright opposition to the suggestion, I also don't think it is logistically feasible.