Allow staff to ban evaders when caught

[S]

It seems to me people are not critically thinking about this issue. You're seeing blaring words like "scammer" and "evader" and not looking at the true depth and intricacies of the issue.

If someone ban evades and is banned that same week and then just ban evades again the next day, what is the purpose of wasting staff time banning them when they could spend their time on something that yields actual results and helps the community?

This isn't a complicated issue. Staff can spend THEIR OWN free time banning vaders if they want. I don't even know why that's randomly become a point of contention.

Yes, I agree, all staff should be community orientated, and should make an active effort to participate, and encourage growth. That's a stance I've always maintained, well before I was staff, while I was on staff, and even so now. I've always been an advocate of simply doing more than the 'modscore-esque' activities.

However, this isn't a debate about staff being community involved or not...it's literally just about them having to publicly post proof when banning users, due to seemingly lack of trust from upper staff.

Also, if there are staff members who are only involved in modscore-esque activities, and are community dis-involved, by making them publicly post reports doesn't result in an increase in community participation. There's no correlation, nor causation there. That warrants a different conversation entirely. I.e, pick up the slack and get involved, or resign.

 

[Program]

This isn't a complicated issue. Staff can spend THEIR OWN free time banning vaders if they want. I don't even know why that's randomly become a point of contention.

Yes, I agree, all staff should be community orientated, and should make an active effort to participate, and encourage growth. That's a stance I've always maintained, well before I was staff, while I was on staff, and even so now. I've always been an advocate of simply doing more than the 'modscore-esque' activities.

However, this isn't a debate about staff being community involved or not...it's literally just about them having to publicly post proof when banning users, due to seemingly lack of trust from upper staff.

Also, if there are staff members who are only involved in modscore-esque activities, and are community dis-involved, by making them publicly post reports doesn't result in an increase in community participation. There's no correlation, nor causation there. That warrants a different conversation entirely. I.e, pick up the slack and get involved, or resign.

I don't see anywhere in Wortel's suggestion him asking for what you're talking about. He wants to be allowed to ban evaders "on sight" which also opens the door to being allowed to headhunt. So yes, I see this as a more complicated issue than people are making it out to be with "they are banned so they should be re-banned, duh."

 

[S]

I don't see anywhere in Wortel's suggestion him asking for what you're talking about. He wants to be allowed to ban evaders "on sight" which also opens the door to being allowed to headhunt. So yes, I see this as a more complicated issue then people are making it out to be with "they are banned so they should be re-banned, duh."

I think this thread has resulted in like 50 different tangents then...which has brought up the same 2-3 issues.

Re headhunt banning, if you have the proof, and post it within the SL, makes no difference. It's still a warranted ban, and it has proof to back it up. So long as there's concrete proof to everything being done, it's nothing outside the norm.

 

[Program]

I think this thread has resulted in like 50 different tangents then...which has brought up the same 2-3 issues.

Re headhunt banning, if you have the proof, and post it within the SL, makes no difference. It's still a warranted ban, and it has proof to back it up. So long as there's concrete proof to everything being done, it's nothing outside the norm.

Yeah and my rebuttals to that line of thinking have been posted throughout. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[S]

Yeah and my rebuttals to that line of thinking have been posted throughout. Doesn't make sense to me.

You realise this has always been done right? It's nothing new.

Well before I was staff, probably since the inception of this site, staff members have always often in their down-time banned users they think/thought are scammers/vaders whatnot, after investigating and finding proof.

 

[Program]

You realise this has always been done right? It's nothing new.

Well before I was staff, probably since the inception of this site, staff members have always often in their down-time banned users they think/thought are scammers/vaders whatnot, after investigating and finding proof.

I'm not sure why "always been done" is relevant since it's no longer done for good reason.

 

[Buyacc]

Just looked at the IP audit of Braps, the guy who scammed 1.4B of our dear forum member @Excelont (may he find peace in these hard times). It is pretty clear that the guy is using a VPN and not his home IP. If @Wortel was allowed to 'headhunt' Excelont could have been saved.

 

[Heads447]

Just looked at the IP audit of Braps, the guy who scammed 1.4B of our dear forum member @Excelont (may he find peace in these hard times). It is pretty clear that the guy is using a VPN and not his home IP. If @Wortel was allowed to 'headhunt' Excelont could have been saved.

And he’s probably back already on a vader account lol.

 

[S]

I'm not sure why "always been done" is relevant since it's no longer done for good reason.

What's that reason?

How is banning scammers/vaders even a point of contention? What is the difference whether another users finds the evidence and post a report? Or if staff find the evidence? The end result is literally the exact same - scammer/vader/whatever being banned. As long as THERE IS PROOF, it's literally the norm.

 

[Final Day]

I personally don't see why it isn't allowed, allowing ban evaders to run free until caught by a regular user who has very little to no power of gathering evidence is causing a lot of damage. It is very hard for a regular user to catch them unless they use the same skype/discord account.

Now I do understand that moderators are that, there to moderate and not police; But surely if a moderator cares so much for the community that they are willing to put in the effort to do this with no personal benefit to them other than knowing they are keeping users safe, why not let them?

 

Just looked at the IP audit of Braps, the guy who scammed 1.4B of our dear forum member @Excelont (may he find peace in these hard times). It is pretty clear that the guy is using a VPN and not his home IP. If @Wortel was allowed to 'headhunt' Excelont could have been saved.

I don't have anything to add to this thread, however Braps did post from his home IP, otherwise he would of had a TWC.

 

[PureCaper]

Honestly seems like the people disagreeing with this are liberal retards and probably cry about shit being pc irl. Sythe is fucking easy to scam on because the leaders of sythe allow it to be. This is a no brainer

 

I mean if the Staff know they're ban evaders then they should be instantly banned IMO

 

Just looked at the IP audit of Braps, the guy who scammed 1.4B of our dear forum member @Excelont (may he find peace in these hard times). It is pretty clear that the guy is using a VPN and not his home IP. If @Wortel was allowed to 'headhunt' Excelont could have been saved.

why did exelont, an ex staff member, trust a random with 1.4b+? what am i missing here, is he that naive?

 

[JSand]

There has to be a happy medium between banning evaders and educating members.

Saying a staff member shouldn't be able to ban an evader on sight because it's a waste of time and there time would be better served educating members instead is non sensical. They should be able to do both.

Yes the evaders will continue to evade and scam, so what? Let them continue to waste there time creating new emails, creating new Sythe accounts and attempt scam again. It will continue to be a never ending cycle but that doesn't mean a mod should have been stripped of the ability to ban them on sight.

Preventing even 1 scam from taking place because they banned someone is worth it, isn't it?

-ignore typos this was written on my phone.

 

I don't see anywhere in Wortel's suggestion him asking for what you're talking about. He wants to be allowed to ban evaders "on sight" which also opens the door to being allowed to headhunt. So yes, I see this as a more complicated issue than people are making it out to be with "they are banned so they should be re-banned, duh."

What’s wrong with a moderator searching through posts for ban evaders? Non-staff like yousuck and seraphic would do it, so why is it an issue if staff do it?

 

Lets be honest if they're evading they're more than likely planning on scamming again... so just get rid of the scum

 

[Program]

What's that reason?

How is banning scammers/vaders even a point of contention? What is the difference whether another users finds the evidence and post a report? Or if staff find the evidence? The end result is literally the exact same - scammer/vader/whatever being banned. As long as THERE IS PROOF, it's literally the norm.

What’s wrong with a moderator searching through posts for ban evaders? Non-staff like yousuck and seraphic would do it, so why is it an issue if staff do it?

I've said pretty much everything I have to say regarding my opinion on the subject including answers to these. Just flick back through the posts.

 

[Panda]

This is turning to an endless cycle of pro and counter arguments, I think it's fair to say that the majority of sythe members currently support wortel's thread.
I'll create a topic in sl and we'll see what happens from there

 

[Panda]

Hi re-opening this for mister wortel who would like to see more reactions, regardless of what i stated above