COLTS7841 - A technical Core - PROLIFIC SCAMMER - BAN IMMEDIATELY

@Sythe im not a mod and my input probably doesn't matter worth a shit but you are the sythe owner and the evidence you presented makes sure of a hell of sense in my head im a pretty smart guy, in the military, knows logic and common sense you already made a decision it looks like.

 

@-Ryan @Astro @Chloe @Dave @FireZ @Matthew @n4n0 @Shin @Superfluous @Sythe @video @Excelont @malakadang @Moes @Tmoe @Superman

Hi all those tagged
Please could you take your time to read the whole of this report. Sythe has decided in favour of Colts and I thought to myself it'd only be fair to have an all out vote.

Please just post who gets the account, what happens to the GP he scammed of me, the 80M he has

16 of you have been tagged, a majority vote wins I guess

Thanks for you time and hope this can be solved as a matter of urgency

 

lol I didn't make rules
I've lost 500M I'm not going to walk away without a fair decision
Clearly sythe is the owner but it shouldn't mean he has veto power of the other mods/admins

 

Just been informed only 5 tags work so sorry for double posting

@-Ryan @Astro @Chloe @Dave @FireZ

 

@Matthew @n4n0 @Shin @Superfluous @Sythe

 

@video @Excelont @malakadang @Moes @Tmoe

 

@Superman

 

I'm going to agree with Sythe here, the account should go back to Colts.

 

Because of this..

This...



And this...
[$300 Donor] - Selling LEGENDARY main - 7 X 99's - Quest cape - TRUSTED - Instalments accepted

I am of the opinion Colts should be responsible and caused this situation to occur. No matter how much people want to say Racks scammed Esky, Colts loaded the gun by using various unsafe methods / trading practices so Racks could pull the trigger. Trying to place blame on Esky for a "blank IOU" between Colts and Racks is wrong. He did everything he was supposed to as far as "background" is concerned, but everything Colts did (or didn't do) set the perfect stage for this all to happen.

Colts trying to claim "not to have seen it" - the resell thread - for an entire week after giving him approval (extremely misleading) while having an outstanding IOU / prearranged payment plan. I find that very hard to believe.

I'm not really tuned into "law" used around the world, but I do know the Sythe rules. As such, I will continue using my interpretation of said rules in order to resolve disputes to the best of my ability.

tl;dr From a community perspective, all information available would suggest the account has been bought/sold. With the vouches, Colts' approval to resell the account (extremely misleading), and Racks' selling thread being up for almost a week, Colts unintentionally assisted in scamming himself (and Esky now if Sythe's decision is to hold).

 

@Shin To tune it into the law, the argument your making is an estoppel based one. Effectively, you're saying Colts acted in a way where he induced in Esky's mind that Esky was able to purchase good title, and subsequently, he is 'estopped' from saying otherwise.

From memory and my interpretation of the chat log, there did seem to be implied you can resell only after the payment plan has ended, so I think that part is fine. I also believe that Colts probably didn't see the resale thread. Certainly if he saw it and did nothing I think he should be denied from saying it was his originally. That's my interpretation of those other 2 facts.

 

Yes. As stated, he "unintentionally" allowed it to occur due to a severe lack of communication and trading procedures.

The whole basis of the counterargument is Racks didn't have the rights to resell the account, so Colts is protected.
When reviewing all facts and evidence available, anyone who wanted to buy the account would think Racks absolutely had the right to resell the account.

Implied between Colts and Racks, yes, but to anyone else Racks shows that screenshot to? Nowhere are they going to see, think, or know about the arrangement between Colts and Racks.

It's possible, but I wouldn't expect anyone to admit to it either. Regardless, it's not usable evidence.

 

Yea, that's why possession is regarded so highly in property law, because anyone in possession of an item, is presumed by ordinary people to own it. However merely because he has possession, without more, isn't enough, and I don't think he did 'more' in this case.

I think viewing a circumstance from an objective stand point is usable evidence to find out what probably occurred. It's fine to disregard Colts' subjective testimony, but viewing it from Colts' position, I think he probably didn't know. If we argue that he is careless in not watching the accounts section, I would say that mere carelessness is not enough.

 

I'd want to see the full conversation between Racks and Esky to see the manner in which the account was sold.

Trying to say he didn't do "more" in this case is purely subjective, as there's no set procedure for investigating an RS account. If nothing was done whatsoever (or offered by Racks), then I might begin leaning towards Colts not being responsible (since that's the argument).

It's not worth making an argument for, essentially.

 

1. Information? Rack on Racks AGREED to pay me weekly. If he doesn't pay I take MY account back in no way is that unsafe for me to do.

2. It's not my job to babysit racks on racks and his sales. I made an agreement with him as he did with esky. At no point did I ever tell racks on racks he could sell the account before he made all payments that's what installments are and I cannot believe I have to talk about this more. Instead the person who did not PAY in full before selling the owners stuff would be in PRISON/DEBT (BANNED) and the items would obviously go back to the ORGINAL owner. What is there not to get? Someone always gets screwed in any report and sadly for the people who believe it should be me, that's just not the case. This is common sense. Furthermore, it was RACKS ON RACKS intention to scam yes "lack of communication" are you serious? Do you think someone looking to scam is going to say they're on a payment plan for an account lmao? It was HIS intention to scam no shit nothing would be said Racks on racks scammed him. Again, with the examples if the person who bought the account has bad intentions how am I supposed to assume that? Even so, again with the example since it's not apparent to everyone at this point. If you lease/have an installment plan on a COUCH/TV/Blender/ doesnt matter what it is! If the person who is making payments doesn't disclose that they're selling an item that isn't fully paid for and has no intention of completing the payment required to the original owner they are the ones that would be in prison and whoever bought it from the person on the installment plan would be out of luck While the owner gets back their item.


3. My account was stolen from ME, I have every right to take back what is mine if it's not paid, in full, by the person who bought it from ME. That account WAS/IS mine. If it was paid in full to me there would be no issue.

4. Esky is irrelevant to me, he was scammed by racks on racks I didn't scam anyone. On top of this, it may not be required, but when purchasing something with all of your money without even contacting the original owner is just not the brightest idea.

5. Just because racks on racks is banned doesn't mean the blame can be put on me, it's his scam not mine

6. If racks on racks decides to come back HE can pay esky. Just because you think he won't doesn't mean I should be to blame. If racks on racks doesn't come back esky can be put on the list of people paying back other victims it's that simple.

7. I'm not sure if anyone is buying that he has 200m on the account, but it doesn't matter he has no proof because there were no items on the account and if there WAS (which there wasnt) he would need screenshots. Anything he says about 200m is irrelevant letting that play into a decision just because you have sympathy for this story he conjured out of thin air after telling racks on racks in a skype message "525m is all I have" and then goes and puts 200m on my account is just funny to me. (point 7 doesn't really matter, it's just funny to me anything about this 200m should be irrelevant is all im saying and letting that play into a decision while not explicitly saying it is and assuming he had a bank pin pending when he had no proof of that either is just nonsense)


tl;dr racks on racks scammed not me I have the right to recover my account if it was not paid for in full by racks on racks to ME. Racks on racks scammed esky that is between racks on racks and esky not me and to have this forced upon me because someone else scammed esky is completely idiotic.


now im going to eat be back in a bit.

 

This will be my final response as I've had it. My head hurts with all the bollocks everyone seems to be coming out with.

I can only ask mods/admins to judge this situation with the facts provided. To use their heads and hearts instead of the fucked up real world technicalities. This is gaming forum with a set of market rules. This is not real world assests but instead is virtual goods so your 'laws'; which are being BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION should be dusted away.

1) I purchased the account, of Racks on Racks, fullwell knowing that Colts was the original owner. The vouch left on his thread, the vouch on the original selling page of Colts was more than enough confirmation for me. I had NO reason to contact colts. Why should I?
Colts should NOT be vouching for a transaction that is not completed. That is very misleading. This also should warrant a ban under fake vouching.

2) After purchase I have contacted Colts. Colts has opened a scam report on Racks. By doing this he has acknowledged he has been scammed.
How on earth do I become the victim here? He was the one scammed and that burden should not be placed on me in any way shape or form.

3) I have contacted colts after his report asking him what to do, he told me nothing as it was him who was scammed. Why say that and then recover the account the next day?
How can you steal my account back without telling me or making a report on what to do. This warrants a ban as it is straight out scamming.
I had GP on my account. Don't you even dare ask me why I said to Racks I had 525M only. You must be stupid to not know that is a form of negotiation.

4) You saying he was not allowed to resell the account is pure bollocks, your unawareness of this is bollocks too. His account selling thread was active for a prolonged week. His signature space had a link to the account thread. His Skype status says 'selling a Main'.

5) I honestly don't know what to say anymore. This facts are simple. Colts was scammed. I wasn't. But now I have that burden. You have an 80M payment which you are keeping which I find upmost ridiculous in this scenario. That 80M should go to me depending on the verdict, if not to one of his scam victims.

6) I have done absolutely nothing wrong. Racks was not banned at the time of transaction, he did not scam me. I followed all the right procedures by confirming you were indeed the OO.

Please please please for the love of god see the light on what I am saying. I am innocent in all of this. I have done NOTHING wrong but yet, on my shoulders, lays the weight of all this mishap.

 

I still think this stands as Colts being the one who was scammed, not OP. Thus the account should be returned to the OP.

However, if it is decided that Colts doesn't have to give the account to OP - then he will be forced to pay the amount that he was paid for the "account rental" or whatever you lawyers are calling it to the OP.

 

Sythe why do you keep saying it my fault for not contacting him?
I had no reason to contact him. The sale itself was rushed (look at the screenshots I provided)
The only thing I had to look out for were if the sale was secure and if Colts was the OO
To both the answers were strong yes's

Please can all other staff and admins give clear inputs/make decisions on this as the voting is currently 2-2

@malakadang im not sure what your decision was