Create more clarity about the hierarchy of creditors on Sythe

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by President, May 18, 2025 at 3:09 PM.

Create more clarity about the hierarchy of creditors on Sythe
  1. Unread #1 - May 18, 2025 at 3:09 PM
  2. President
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Posts:
    7,362
    Referrals:
    22
    Sythe Gold:
    8,764
    Vouch Thread:
    Click Here
    Discord Unique ID:
    721431035023458465
    Discord Username:
    president0001
    Gohan has AIDS

    President Hero
    $200 USD Donor New Retired Sectional Moderator

    Create more clarity about the hierarchy of creditors on Sythe

    Describe the problem: There is uncertainty about the underlying rules for resolving disputes when multiple parties (including the community as a whole through the community repayment system) have a claim

    Two examples:

    1. Scammed by StockAllDay
      In the report above, multiple concurrent creditors all wanted the same usage right. In short, Zora eventually ruled “first come, first served.” Some users found this to be unfair and argued that all creditors should share the right proportionally (and therefore have a claim against the party granting the usage right), while others defended the ruling and said the oldest claim should prevail. Regardless of which position is “correct,” the community doesn’t know what the underlying basis is of such a ruling.

      (p.s. Zora's approach makes sense and aligns with the way many other systems handle these disputes.)

    2. (This entire proposal was actually put together just so I’d have an excuse to post the Neres report again hehe)
      Neres not paying for lewd camshow
      At the very bottom of the edits, it says the camgirl was paid back by a third party to whom Neres owed money. My question is: why does the camgirl have a stronger claim than the community repayment system? And does it matter that the camgirl is banned?
    Explain the change:
    Create a simple guideline that outlines the order of priority for concurrent claims. It doesn’t need to cover every detail; just a clear ranked list so decisions aren’t seen as random.

    Things like “In situation X, the older claim takes precedence, unless the creditor in question is banned.”

    We can start by going over a few example cases

    Explain why this change will fix the problem:
    I think that if the basic principles behind these situations/decisions are documented somewhere, rulings will feel less arbitrary and be more readily accepted by the community.

    It will also make it easier for staff to reach decisions, since they’ll have clear rules to apply in these (often complex) situations.

    Thank you for reading and enjoy re-reading the Neres thread :D
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2025 at 3:10 PM
  3. Unread #2 - May 18, 2025 at 6:29 PM
  4. Zulu
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Posts:
    5,466
    Referrals:
    2
    Sythe Gold:
    17,351
    Vouch Thread:
    Click Here
    Discord Unique ID:
    432730441435447309
    Discord Username:
    its_zulu
    Cubone Marowak Kangaskhan Charmander Charmeleon Charizard Bulbasaur Ivysaur Venusaur Pikachu
    Pokémon Trainer (2) Poké Prizebox Pokémon Master Community Development Team Member Tier 1 Prizebox Tier 2 Prizebox Tier 3 Prizebox Tier 4 Prizebox Tier 5 Prizebox Tier 6 Prizebox
    Staff of the Quarter Winner Member of the Quarter Winner Member of the Month Winner The Glizz Green eggs and spam Pizza Muncher Village Drunk Oktoberfest 2013

    Zulu Runestake.com - Social Casino
    Our Community Moderators Market Moderators Zulu Donor CDT Member

    Create more clarity about the hierarchy of creditors on Sythe

    There's a few incorrect statements in this suggestion.


    This was not the case. StockallDay uploaded the Kluch's banner himself, making the trade he conducted with Kluch legitimate as he followed through with the trade. The other users were scammed due to the fact that their banners were not uploaded by StockallDay, despite them having paid for the spot.


    Vul (Camgirl in the report) was not banned until after this report so the debt from this report was owed to Vul, and not the community repayment fund. The refund was also "anti-scammed" from Neres when he won a giveaway in another user's discord server. Instead of paying Neres the giveaway money, they anti-scammed it and refunded Vul.


    I'm not entirely sure how you linked these reports together for this suggestion other than possibly a misunderstanding of the rulings, but I do not see a need for a prioritized list for repayments. If a user is scammed, they are either repaid by the user that scammed them, or they can apply for a CRF roll if they meet the requirements.

    Feel free to correct me as well if I am misunderstanding your suggestion.
     
< | New section in Security Program Center >

Users viewing this thread
1 guest


 
 
Adblock breaks this site