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

 

Precisely because the true deciding factor was “has the asset actually been transferred?” rather than order of requests, it shows how easy it is to misread a ruling when you don’t know the underlying criteria. If we had a guideline that listed “valid upload trumps unfulfilled promise,” it'd create a lot more clarity.

• Yes, the camgirl wasn’t banned until after the report and debt, and the funds were recovered via an anti-scam giveaway reversal. Those two facts determined why her claim outranked the community fund.

• Exactly those kinds of details—“date of ban relative to report” and “was the money reclaimed by an anti-scam measure?”—could be codified in a simple priority list. Right now, staff weigh them ad hoc; a written rulebook would make the process transparent and consistent.