[Approved] Expand the scamming rule

This idea is for the sake of everyone involved in disputes. Right now the rule that covers scamming says the following:

"Scamming: Or any suspicious behavior similar to scamming (attempting to scam), this includes RuneScape name Sniping. This also includes:

• Using Sythe as a means to lure other Sythe members will result in a permanent DNT and 3 month ban. However, luring done without the use of Sythe is fine.
• Impersonating other members, and any other similar behavior.
• Impersonating ranks through the use of your signature."

I believe that the wording of this rule is far too limited and should thus be expanded. Especially when taking into consideration that mods have ruled more than once that a number of things which, when looking at their wording, fall outside the scope of this rule are still punishable (for example: encouraging a third-party to trade with a scammer, see: Prizford).

Now you may think: but it's kind of obvious what's right and what's wrong. Why implement that through rules? Five reasons:
1. Scamming is a pretty big deal, specifically on Sythe. Furthermore, there are thousands of disputes handled that deal with all sorts of different situations of different magnitude. There is no way all those situations are covered by these four lines.
2. specifically for the sake of clarity this is important. Although some things may seem intuitively wrong, some other things may be debatable. Expanding the current rule is especially important for situations that fall in the grey area. For example, there is no rule that prohibits lying as a means to finalize a sale. Why is this debatable? Well, some may argue that they are not lying because they still fall under the scope of advertisement.
3. For the sake of the parties in the dispute: right now basically everything falls under the discretion of: "suspicious behavior similar to". It's impossible to look in someone's head and see what they specifically consider as sus behavior. This can be frustrating when you're party to a dispute. There doesn't need to be an exhaustive set of rules, but more clarity is welcome. Furthermore, a lot of time allegations in disputes fly all over the place, and energy by of parties (including mods who have to go through all the text) is wasted.
4. For the sake of mods: First of all, mods will have more tools to hold on to. But secondly, the credibility of dispute-resolvers: see this report again: Prizford
Substantively I may agree (or disagree) with the ruling, but in my opinion, a ruling has much more strength if the resolver can refer to a specific (wording of a) rule that is breached which should lead to a very specific punishment/verdict. Again, no need for an exhaustive set of rules. Discretion is necessary to allow mods to do their work, but more tools equals more better.
5. You may think: this is a black market dealing with videogames, no need to professionalize it. The point is: yes it deals with videogames, but there are thousands of trades going on, sometimes dealing with thousands of dollars. It's important to have very clear-cut rules here. Online dispute resolution is becoming a bigger and bigger thing and parties tend to opt for a resolver that has clear rules.

This thread isn't meant as a concrete proposal. My goal is to start an open discussion with proposals. I will get the ball rolling and start off with some ideas that can be implemented. Perhaps, some of these are already addressed in a section (or not necessary at all). The following should be implemented:
-Knowing of an ongoing scam without intervening
-Knowingly be in possession of stolen goods
-Knowingly assisting a scam in any sort of way
-Anything that (without consent) increases the financial risk of a party: this can range from a service-provider being careless with the login-data of a customer to being responsible for disproportionately late arrival of crypto-payment
-Lying to make a deal happen: would the deal have happened had the untruth not been told?
-Most exotic proposal: add/refer to rules that result from certain rulings

If you're opposed to the idea, I respect that. However, if you think: good idea, please feel free to add some situations that should be implemented in the expansion.

 

As there's no specific suggestion, I can't support/oppose.


I do agree that these four lines don't cover everything.
I also think you can't possibly cover everything.Many cases require individual 'case law'. Of course this isn't perfect, but there's also the dispute section where people can dispute their punishment.


Even when you try to cover everything, you can't. For example, your ideas that should be implemented:

Knowing of an ongoing scam without intervening
To which extend? It will be hard to proof that a user knows of an ongoing scam without intervening. If someone tries to imposter scam me, does that mean I have to report them? Because I know this person is trying to scam, but I have not intervened if I simply block the user.

Knowingly be in possession of stolen goods
So let's say I buy a name of someone. After the purchase, I am contacted by someone claiming the name I just bought was stolen from them. I am now knowingly in pocession of a stolen name. However, I have made a fair purchase. I do not think I should then be punished for this.

Knowingly assisting a scam in any sort of way
Technically luring is a form of scamming too. I think this is allowed as long as it's off-site. I do however believe this should not be allowed regardless.

Anything that (without consent) increases the financial risk of a party: this can range from a service-provider being careless with the login-data of a customer to being responsible for disproportionately late arrival of crypto-payment
Very subjective and broad. There have been many crypto-payment cases lately. You can't know beforehand how long it will take for a payment to confirm. Is 1 sat/b too low? Of course. Should this be punished? Yes. Can we set a minimum sat/b? No.

Lying to make a deal happen: would the deal have happened had the untruth not been told?
So lying about being OO, having done X sales, being a donor etc is already punishable. But it definitely requires individual investigation per case. If someone asks you how many vouches you have and you say 1k+, while in fact you have 500 vouches ( just an example ). Is this considered lying? I think so. However, you claim that the other 500 vouches are off-site. Now I no longer think you were lying.


This is not against these ideas in specific, and I do not think this all should not be punishable, I just believe that it's impossible to cover everything. Law books cover thousands of pages of rules, yet don't cover everything either. I think we all have enough sense to know what is right and what is wrong. If you think you're operating in grey area, you might wanna rethink your operation.

 

Hi @Zora thanks for responding,

Yes. I agree that the rules cannot be exhaustive. Even in legal systems this is mostly impossible. I am not arguing for that. All of your points are therein valid. All I'm saying is that dispute resolution will be better and taken more serious if these four sentences are expanded in something of a framework (I guess that would be the suggestion then). And this framework doesn't need to cover scenario's per se. It can also deal with more general principles like a prohibition of retroactive rulings etc.

 

We re-wrote the rules after this suggestion was posted and it now covers a lot of what was pointed out here, albeit more ambiguously.