Changes to Pardon System (Repayment)

[Yousuckv2]

Currently as it stands, a user is allowed to pardon provided they have repaid all victims OR attempted to for at least 1 month's time between each 6 month pardon process. Prior to the rule being instated regarding attempted repayment I believe that the policy was simply that the user must be repaid or you are not eligible. Obviously, this was a bit too harsh as some people just cannot be reached. I also feel, however, that the current policy is a bit too lenient. Some users have been banned for years and continue to make valid attempts at paying back who they have scammed but due to how long ago it was, the likelihood of it being successful only decreases over time. They more than likely did not try to repay said users until a fair amount of time after the scam as most of the users pardoning do not immediately seek to make amends. Some scammers however end up scamming and being banned, thinking they will get away with ban evasion only to get caught a short time later, then pay it back (sorry that they were caught, not sorry for what they've done) and they are much more successful with repayment due to the scam not having been too long ago.

My suggestion is to amend the policy so that attempted repayment only applies to users whose offenses were over a specific amount of time ago (3 years min-5 years max.) Simply due to the fact that I do not believe scammers should be rewarded or even necessarily considered for a pardon because they have "attempted" to fix what they have done. Powerbot has a very similar policy in that they do not consider appeals until what has been taken has been repaid, and scammers are generally told that they will not be given any exception. When they complain, they are generally told that they should not have scammed in the first place. I believe this is quite accurate and that people who have scammed more recently should not be granted access to the pardon system for a simple repayment "attempt", but only full repayment.

This would only effect users who are banned for scamming and would not apply to users who;
-Were hacked (with evidence to back it up to the point which staff can prove the hacker was actually doing the scamming)
-Are caught up in circumstances that put them in a bad spot where they may not be able to repay but they are not outrightly scamming with the intention of stealing money (I.e. Buys account, re-sells account, spends money that it was sold for, account is recovered by OO and does not have money to immediately reimburse and is as a result banned)
-Have committed their offense prior to the given timeframe (because as mentioned, after a certain amount of years the likelihood of repayment is very low and this shouldn't necessarily make them ineligible for a pardon forever- they should still obviously be required to repay the victims or make the best attempt, perhaps even show documentation that they've made several attempts in the time they've been banned.)

I also suggest that if a user has scammed over a certain amount and failed to repay their debts, they should not be eligible to be pardoned until it has been repaid completely or at least a large % of it if it is among multiple victims (set figure can be decided upon by staff, not talking like the average scams but if a user scams thousands or perhaps even several hundred dollars (500$?) and hasn't repaid they shouldn't be allowed back with that much debt assuming it is their fault.)

Personally I don't see why scammers should be given a chance to be pardoned unless they've paid their victims back but as mentioned above there should be a bit of leniency to users who it is near impossible for them to pay back their victims, granted that they should not have scammed in the first place, but I feel an amount of 3-5 years could be seen as at least a fair punishment for them having scammed.

If Bobby scams Johnny for 200$ and Johnny decides to disappear from the internet and Bobby wants to be pardoned but is unable to repay Johnny, this does not mean Bobby should automatically qualify for a pardon. Bobby should not have scammed in the first place. This will cut down on the amount of users attempting to come back a short period after their scams without repayment (essentially un-banned and still profiting from their prior scams) and will also limit the amount of pardons that can be voted on so that Staff don't have to bother wasting time on pardons that probably weren't going to pass anyways (9/10 of the time if the user hasn't repaid anyone and it's due to his own scams it's not going to make it through the dispute forum let alone USL, let's be honest.) This will also allow them to focus on pardons for users who actually deserve it. Scammers will not be rewarded with a pardon until a fair amount of time has been served or repayment has been made. Repayment will be on the scammers and they will face the repercussions of their actions.

As one of if not the main goals of the pardon system is repayment, this should not hinder that at all given that it is directed solely at the users who have not repaid their debts, and only at users who have failed to do so and are responsible for their own scams (i.e. not hacked, not extenuating circumstances etc.)

 

Not a fan of this idea. I think it makes the pardon system a bit too complicated, and allows for too many exceptions to be made in unique cases. The best way to run it is to have a standard system that is simple and applies to everyone.

 

[Yousuckv2]

Not a fan of this idea. I think it makes the pardon system a bit too complicated, and allows for too many exceptions to be made in unique cases. The best way to run it is to have a standard system that is simple and applies to everyone.

This idea was originally going to apply to all pardoning users with outstanding debt. However I also recognized that if a user was genuinely hacked or placed in circumstances where he owed money but not entirely due to his own fault, it would not be fair to hold him to the same standards as some scumbag who ran off with someone else's money because he was greedy. I made this suggest because I felt that the system was a bit too lenient on scammers and could result in them being pardoned while not having paid anyone back as long as they've "tried" and felt this was the best way to go about it. If anyone could suggest potential tweaks or a better idea to help combat this then i'd welcome that but i'm not entirely sure what else would work.

 

[Yousuckv2]

bump.

 

[Xier0]

Staff members tend to skate around the pardon requirements in order to facilitate them (such as with the Bigboibets pardon, where he had scammed Unb4nn3d, DDoSed me & Jon's server, , DDoSed Cora, DDoSed Runebet, DDoSed MMOpoker, SE'd our license provider, and scammed the co-founder of his site for his 30% share of the business). The staff ruled that iZinc doesn't have to address all of his victims, and Unb4nn3d was the only one who he paid back (partially, iZinc negotiated with Unb4nn3d to pay him less than the total amount that he scammed). Denying a pardon and putting it off for six months is easier than trying to get people paid back.

From the SL:

There are four principles to the pardon system:
1. A pardon (and having a sythe account) is a privilege, not a right.
2. Where possible we try to be equitable to our users (not holding personal grudges etc.)
3. The party must show legitimate remorse.
4. Restitution (or best effort at restitution if the victim cannot be found.)

This last is the most important factor. If the offending party (banned member) has not made whole [paid back] the injured parties (if they are still around to be made whole) then he/she is not eligible for pardon.

In this particular case:
If you stole pictures of me naked and posted them around the internet I could sue you. The common law recognizes that monetary compensation is a fair remedy for violation of reasonable expectation of privacy, theft of property and defamation of character.

While this view is unpopular I don't see this case as being different. If we are providing dispute resolution to our members and one member has wronged another then we should follow common law principles, the same as any court would. We should not let members back in if they have not made whole the wronged parties.

TL;DR:
The user is ineligible for a pardon until he/she has made right the wrongs committed.

^ These are the standards for a high pardon. It's not that the standards aren't high enough, it's that the staff decides not to use these standards consistently.

 

[John Devola]

Personally I haven't been around long enough to give you a very "valid" opinion on this topic, its almost a moral issue and here is where I stand. I don't care how long its been. If someone scams 200$ and then comes back three years later, it is not the responsibility of the person who got scammed to hang out on sythe or any other botting website for 3 years hoping to be one day paid back. That being said, I realize it may be impossible to contact them, but by no means should the scammers get the money. I would propose that money must be paid back. Either to the person who it was scammed from, to sythe.org, given to a mod and then donated to a charity of choice.

Tl.Dr. I don't have an issue with the repayment system, but I do have an issue with the scammer keeping the money they have attempted to give back to the person they scammed.

No Support, But I do support other changes as mentioned above.

 

[Yousuckv2]

Personally I haven't been around long enough to give you a very "valid" opinion on this topic, its almost a moral issue and here is where I stand. I don't care how long its been. If someone scams 200$ and then comes back three years later, it is not the responsibility of the person who got scammed to hang out on sythe or any other botting website for 3 years hoping to be one day paid back. That being said, I realize it may be impossible to contact them, but by no means should the scammers get the money. I would propose that money must be paid back. Either to the person who it was scammed from, to sythe.org, given to a mod and then donated to a charity of choice.

Tl.Dr. I don't have an issue with the repayment system, but I do have an issue with the scammer keeping the money they have attempted to give back to the person they scammed.

No Support, But I do support other changes as mentioned above.

I would have no issue with repayment being a requirement as it used to be, but there are certain circumstances in which it may not be entirely their fault (as mentioned above.) I believe it also used to be like this and was changed for a reason, making it unlikely that they would completely get rid of the ability to be pardoned with only an attempt at contacting the victim. I believe the main issue with the money going to Sythe.org or a charity is that if the victim does one day return, and the person who scammed them has already donated the money somewhere else, they are now still out x amount of dollars they were scammed by someone who is now not required to pay them back.

 

[John Devola]

Ugh tough. I agree with you the system needs a change, but there is really no perfect solution. I'll keep thinking and I'll try to get back to this thread with another suggestion tomorrow It is so hard to find a plausible solution with everything we want.
1) We want members to change and be able to return to Sythe.
2) We want repayment of those members who were scammed.
3) We dont want the scammers to keep the money no matter what.

How about some sort of collection system? For example the state of California has about 9 billion dollars in lost items / lost money that people have not claimed and are just sitting there waiting to be picked up. If they dont pick them up within 5 years I believe they are turned over and become the states property. Would this work for sythe? For example. Everyone who returns is required to pay back what they have scammed and attempt to contact the users. If they are unable to contact the user, they must put the money into Sythe collections. It will then be posted on a stickied thread in the community/pardon section under the scammed users username. That user has 30-60 days to claim their money. If it is not collected it is donated to Sythe.org under that users name. Meaning that the scammed user (who is unreachable) that the money was put in collections for, has now had a donation to sythe.org in their name. They will not be repaid, sorry thats the way it works (they had 30-60 days to claim their money). But they should be happy that the scammer has not received the money that they scammed and in addition if they chose to come back to sythe.org they will have a donator rank in the amount that they were scammed.

 

[Yousuckv2]

Ugh tough. I agree with you the system needs a change, but there is really no perfect solution. I'll keep thinking and I'll try to get back to this thread with another suggestion tomorrow It is so hard to find a plausible solution with everything we want.
1) We want members to change and be able to return to Sythe.
2) We want repayment of those members who were scammed.
3) We dont want the scammers to keep the money no matter what.

How about some sort of collection system? For example the state of California has about 9 billion dollars in lost items / lost money that people have not claimed and are just sitting there waiting to be picked up. If they dont pick them up within 5 years I believe they are turned over and become the states property. Would this work for sythe? For example. Everyone who returns is required to pay back what they have scammed and attempt to contact the users. If they are unable to contact the user, they must put the money into Sythe collections. It will then be posted on a stickied thread in the community/pardon section under the scammed users username. That user has 30-60 days to claim their money. If it is not collected it is donated to Sythe.org under that users name. Meaning that the scammed user (who is unreachable) that the money was put in collections for, has now had a donation to sythe.org in their name. They will not be repaid, sorry thats the way it works (they had 30-60 days to claim their money). But they should be happy that the scammer has not received the money that they scammed and in addition if they chose to come back to sythe.org they will have a donator rank in the amount that they were scammed.

1. isn't quite relevant in this situation. No form of change to the pardon system can make them a better person or force them to change. Also the collection system type thing I believe has been done before but they've decided to no longer allow it due to the fact that they don't want anyone simply walking off with the money (I think someone mentioned to me over skype that someone holding money actually had scammed it in the past) nor do they want the money just sitting around. There's also the possibility of what is being held decreasing in value before the victim is able to get it back. In most cases they require the offender to refund according to the value of whatever they scammed at the time, not now, but this wouldn't be possible if the money were to be held for a long time. If it were held for a short time and then donated to Sythe in their name, this wouldn't be quite fair either. A lot of people don't check back that often and some return after years of inactivity. Something doesn't sound right about returning after 3 years to find that the person who scammed you has already paid to right the wrong but the money isn't waiting for you because you weren't active on Sythe around the time THEY decided to pardon. There are also cases where the victims aren't even on Sythe.org (offsite scams or cases where the victim ended up scamming someone offsite so their refund would go to refunding their own victim.) at which point this would not be a valid solution either because obviously the money cannot be donated to Sythe in their name and them not being on Sythe limits the possibility of them coming here and seeing that they have money waiting for them. This also takes a large amount of the responsibility in the repayment process off of the scammers' plates which personally I feel should not be done either. They scammed, the least they can do is be held accountable for what they've done and put in their own effort for refunding who they've scammed. The staff (who presumably would be in charge of this) should not have to hold their hands and do it for them.

 

As much as I would want to support this, this interferes with the ability of staff to freely assess the situation based on the context of it for the best outcome. If they relied on a ruling for all pardons, no matter the context, unfavorable circumstances are to be expected. Also, time periods since someone scammed isn't an indication of whether they made the attempts at a date subsequent to their ban.

If Bobby scammed Johnny for $5 and Johnny is unreachable, Bobby shouldn't be condemned from being eligible to pardon. This is why context is everything.

Apologies if I misread anything, just skimmed through the first post.

 

[Superfluous]

will respond to this more fully in the future, but for now, i'll say that i like the idea. i agree that the pardon system is sort of broken in this regard; people who get past the one month hurdle are disproportionately likely to be pardoned. i'll think about this a little more and post a more detailed reply then. thanks for raising the issue, yousuck

on a side note, mostly re: xiero's post, many pardons are extremely complex, and we do overlook people who deserve to be repaid/offenses that transpired. the bbb situation is exceptional, but there are other cases where similar lapses happen. i think it comes with the nature of pardons that we're gathering as much information as we can at the time of the pardon and trying to process it to the best of our ability (akin to what legal systems do irl), and that process is imperfect. i wish we could update the process and change the way voting works and generally make pardons less mysterious, but it's no easy task. ultimately, pardons should boil down to the four points you quoted richard listing above, and i think (and hope) we're trying to achieve them as often as reasonably possible.

 

[Yousuckv2]

As much as I would want to support this, this interferes with the ability of staff to freely assess the situation based on the context of it for the best outcome. If they relied on a ruling for all pardons, no matter the context, unfavorable circumstances are to be expected. Also, time periods since someone scammed isn't an indication of whether they made the attempts at a date subsequent to their ban.

If Bobby scammed Johnny for $5 and Johnny is unreachable, Bobby shouldn't be condemned from being eligible to pardon. This is why context is everything.

Apologies if I misread anything, just skimmed through the first post.

If Bobby scammed Johnny 5$ and Johnny decided to go inactive and get on with his life and therefore it makes Bobby unable to refund him and unable to pardon, it's Bobby's fault for being an idiot and scamming someone in the first place. It's not permanent and after a certain amount of time he would be able to pardon but he would have x amount of time where he wouldn't be able to pardon unless full repayment took place.

 

[Xier0]

on a side note, mostly re: xiero's post, many pardons are extremely complex, and we do overlook people who deserve to be repaid/offenses that transpired. the bbb situation is exceptional, but there are other cases where similar lapses happen. i think it comes with the nature of pardons that we're gathering as much information as we can at the time of the pardon and trying to process it to the best of our ability (akin to what legal systems do irl), and that process is imperfect. i wish we could update the process and change the way voting works and generally make pardons less mysterious, but it's no easy task. ultimately, pardons should boil down to the four points you quoted richard listing above, and i think (and hope) we're trying to achieve them as often as reasonably possible.

Thanks for the honest evaluation.

 

[Yousuckv2]

bump.

 

Can you offer a tl;dr?

 

I support this. I don't think scammers should be able to pardon unless repayment has been made. If Bobby scammed johnny and then waited 6 months+ to repay him, bobby should remain banned. He scammed theres no reason why we should side with the scammer and possibly allow him to scam more in the future and do the same process over again. He waited to long for first contact and its his fault for doing so.

Once repayment has been made the scammer may have the chance to pardon not before then. Some scam victims may be only around for this one trade and they left because they were scammed. I agree there should be a time frame once first contact was initiated with the victim for repayment. You must wait possibly 1 year after first contact, and if no reponse back it should be up to staff to decide on a pardon eligibility.

 

[holy cherrys]

The principle behind this is good imo. I feel that once proven a scammer, there should be no return.

At the end of the day, those with good morals IRL will be the only ones who will never perform a scam.

 

[Yousuckv2]

Can you offer a tl;dr?

A scammer must absolutely repay the victim before being allowed to pardon, or they will not be able to pardon for a designated amount of time such as 3-5 years. This is about as short as I can make it and it doesn't sound great as a tl;dr and most of the reasoning is above so..

I support this. I don't think scammers should be able to pardon unless repayment has been made. If Bobby scammed johnny and then waited 6 months+ to repay him, bobby should remain banned. He scammed theres no reason why we should side with the scammer and possibly allow him to scam more in the future and do the same process over again. He waited to long for first contact and its his fault for doing so.

Once repayment has been made the scammer may have the chance to pardon not before then. Some scam victims may be only around for this one trade and they left because they were scammed. I agree there should be a time frame once first contact was initiated with the victim for repayment. You must wait possibly 1 year after first contact, and if no reponse back it should be up to staff to decide on a pardon eligibility.

Pretty much my thinking on this except I had a longer period of time in mind since I was basing off of the initial scam rather than first contact for repayment. Could end up being the same amount of time given the fact that a lot of users wait to even attempt to repay / think about returning so this could be better, but I feel there should also be a requirement for regularly making repeated attempts through the year, perhaps monthly or something. But yea i'm hoping that this would lower the amount of scammers who haven't even repaid their victims being pardoned or even being considered for a pardon so staff can focus on people who actually deserve it.

The principle behind this is good imo. I feel that once proven a scammer, there should be no return.

At the end of the day, those with good morals IRL will be the only ones who will never perform a scam.

Don't entirely feel this way. Yes a lot of users who scam will not change, but some will and it's a bit unfair to make scamming an unpardonable offense. I simply feel there should be more restrictions put in place to combat scammers' pardon attempts though (especially if they've not even repaid their victims.)

 

[Program]

I like people being able to get refunded and that likely only happens because of the incentive of returning to Sythe.

Maybe allow Mods or highly trusted users to take all scam money that can't be refunded yet + a deposit + a fee for holding the deposit and the scammed money. Then if the victim comes back they can be refunded the money, give or take inflation etc. And then 3-6 months after pardon the guy gets his deposit back.

Idk, spit-balling. If not something like that, just leave them banned or keep the current system.

 

but I feel there should also be a requirement for regularly making repeated attempts through the year, perhaps monthly or something.

I agree with this wholeheartedly one attempt is not enough. And receiving no answer shouldn't allow the person to be able to pardon. The scammer needs to show extensive proof of him trying to contact the victim.