[denied] Allow Reporting Inactive Accounts

[xKylee]

I'm sure we can all agree, reporting a scammer (on site or off site) is a good thing for the community.

with that said, its disheartening to see that reporting a sythe user who is "inactive" will result in an infraction (as recently happened here: viliuzx123458 (off-site scam) and again, here: SyncSenpai (off-site scam v2)).

Whilst said user may be "inactive" now (hence no action has been taken against his account), what is stopping the user from seeing the report, seeing the report was not actioned and then logging in and scamming a sythe member?

The report itself was valid, yet dismissed for "wasting staff's time" - surely keeping Sythe members safe is a high priority?

when voicing my opinion on the matter, the response was "You are free to make a suggestion but the rules are the rules".

I am going to assume this is an unwritten rule, as I cannot find clarification on this in any of these threads:

READ THIS FIRST! How to Report a Scammer - Report Templates
Do NOT post unless you are directly involved in report [YOU WILL BE INFRACTED OR TEMPORARILY BANNED]
The Official Sythe.org Rules

I therefore, suggest that this "rule" is removed. it doesn't serve the community in any way, and it does discourage the reported user from returning to sythe to scam here.

The only thing this benefits, is the mod who picks up the report, as they can dismiss it instead of banning said user.

 

[President]

If this suggestion prevents users who've scammed off-site to come back after a resting period and scam again, then support.

 

[Pikachu]

I'm sure we can all agree, reporting a scammer (on site or off site) is a good thing for the community.

with that said, its disheartening to see that reporting a sythe user who is "inactive" will result in an infraction (as recently happened here: viliuzx123458 (off-site scam) and again, here: SyncSenpai (off-site scam v2)).

Whilst said user may be "inactive" now (hence no action has been taken against his account), what is stopping the user from seeing the report, seeing the report was not actioned and then logging in and scamming a sythe member?

The report itself was valid, yet dismissed for "wasting staff's time" - surely keeping Sythe members safe is a high priority?

when voicing my opinion on the matter, the response was "You are free to make a suggestion but the rules are the rules".

I am going to assume this is an unwritten rule, as I cannot find clarification on this in any of these threads:

READ THIS FIRST! How to Report a Scammer - Report Templates
Do NOT post unless you are directly involved in report [YOU WILL BE INFRACTED OR TEMPORARILY BANNED]
The Official Sythe.org Rules

I therefore, suggest that this "rule" is removed. it doesn't serve the community in any way, and it does discourage the reported user from returning to sythe to scam here.

The only thing this benefits, is the mod who picks up the report, as they can dismiss it instead of banning said user.

This rule was brought in because @Dev Zach made a bot for reporting inactive scam accounts off-site on sites wish I was joking, basically staff is lazy

God bless @Wortel

 

[xKylee]

This rule was brought in because @Dev Zach made a bot for reporting inactive scam accounts off-site on sites wish I was joking, basically staff is lazy

God bless @Wortel

Happen to know where this rule is documented? I couldn't find it

Also, im not sure on your claim, @Dev Zach doesn't make working bots, only broken ones

 

[Wortel]

This rule was brought in because @Dev Zach made a bot for reporting inactive scam accounts off-site on sites wish I was joking, basically staff is lazy

God bless @Wortel

The bot was made on my request. Doubt it was made because of that but staff surely didn't like me reporting so many scammers, if any at all.

surely keeping Sythe members safe is a high priority?

Doubt it holds any priority. Main priority for staff is probably maintaining unwritten rules and possibly making my good intentions for this site turn into bad intentions therefore making it a miserable hell being here, hence why I've become less active because it's finally became certain to me being around here wasn't appreciated. It's not gone unnoticed to me that I'm basically the only ex staff member still showing my face around here. Highly doubt none of them stopped showing up here just because of all those misperceptions.

The infraction was also unwarranted considering it's impossible getting a hold of upper staff regarding such stuff, and disputing such things will only resolve into us pointing fingers to each fingers with which I basically can't be arsed with anymore.

Another "unwritten rule" is that they don't want you to report ban evaders anymore who haven't been online for over 2+ years. If I were to report those they'd probably go even that far into redacting the title to 'Resolved' and slapping me with another infraction because that's what gets them hard on, while in fact they are wasting my time here.

Spoiler

Apologies for my blattering here, it's clear they hit a nerve with infracting me for such a stupid thing. What I'm saying here surely isn't about all of the staff team. I still have a long road to go to reach @Pain 's amount of infractions and he's still saying stuff like he made Sythe, so I'm staying strong and aim for higher limits so that the staff team can keep on reaching their modscores.

 

[Dbuffed]

I can understand where they are coming from as they are "essentially inactive users", but at the same time I do understand that they could also become active and no one would know who they are without researching properly

What I would maybe suggest - DNT them at the minimal, as we have said in the past we don't want to ban every Tom Dick and Harry for everything, as we do want a community and active users of sort and encourage them to maybe fix their issues

I do not feel an infraction for bringing it to light should be handled, that's the wrong way about it. But I do understand them having to look into/deal with things as well, i'm a bit on the bench with it but I do feel something more could come of it

 

[xKylee]

I can understand where they are coming from as they are "essentially inactive users", but at the same time I do understand that they could also become active and no one would know who they are without researching properly

What I would maybe suggest - DNT them at the minimal, as we have said in the past we don't want to ban every Tom Dick and Harry for everything, as we do want a community and active users of sort and encourage them to maybe fix their issues

I do not feel an infraction for bringing it to light should be handled, that's the wrong way about it. But I do understand them having to look into/deal with things as well, i'm a bit on the bench with it but I do feel something more could come of it

ok so, Scenario 1:

1. user x has been inactive for 5 years.
2. user x scams on an alt site for 200$
3. user y reports user x for an off-site scam
4. Mods yeet the post and Infraction user y
5. user z joins the forum and is a little clueless
6. user x logs into his account after seeing he isn't banned, messages user z and scams user z because he wasn’t dnt’d or banned.

user z is then scammed and user x just gets banned anyway with a scam report.

scenario 2:

1. user x has been inactive for 5 years.
2. user x scams on an alt site for 200$
3. user y reports user x for an off-site scam
4. Mods yeet the post and Infraction user y
5. user z scams 500$ on an alt site
6 User y doesn’t want another infraction so doesn’t report, user A saw what happened to user y and doesn’t report user x either, nor does user B, C, D or E
7. user z then proceeds to scam users on sythe, until he is banned anyway for scamming.

all of which, could have been prevented if they had just banned user x's account.

there is no logical reason, why they shouldn’t be banned other than the simple reason that mods cannot be fucked to go through the hassle of banning them and the other actions associated.

 

[Dbuffed]

ok so, Scenario 1:

1. user x has been inactive for 5 years.
2. user x scams on an alt site for 200$
3. user y reports user x for an off-site scam
4. Mods yeet the post and Infraction user y
5. user z joins the forum and is a little clueless
6. user x logs into his account after seeing he isn't banned, messages user z and scams user z because he wasn’t dnt’d or banned.

user z is then scammed and user x just gets banned anyway with a scam report.

scenario 2:

1. user x has been inactive for 5 years.
2. user x scams on an alt site for 200$
3. user y reports user x for an off-site scam
4. Mods yeet the post and Infraction user y
5. user z scams 500$ on an alt site
6 User y doesn’t want another infraction so doesn’t report, user A saw what happened to user y and doesn’t report user x either, nor does user B, C, D or E
7. user z then proceeds to scam users on sythe, until he is banned anyway for scamming.

all of which, could have been prevented if they had just banned user x's account.

there is no logical reason, why they shouldn’t be banned other than the simple reason that mods cannot be fucked to go through the hassle of banning them and the other actions associated.

I agree scammers should be banned, issue you're facing is the whole "3 month ban and a dnt rank" isn't banning as such

 

[xKylee]

I agree scammers should be banned, issue you're facing is the whole "3 month ban and a dnt rank" isn't banning as such

but it may be enough to deter them, and at the very least log their IP ready for IP auditing should they try to scam by logging into their inactive account.

 

[Dbuffed]

but it may be enough to deter them, and at the very least log their IP ready for IP auditing should they try to scam by logging into their inactive account.

I covered that in my response bro I would still assume some form of infraction/punishment, hopefully to at the last encourage them to refund

 

[xKylee]

I covered that in my response bro I would still assume some form of infraction/punishment, hopefully to at the last encourage them to refund

agreed, although the point of this suggestion was to more take aim at the fact @Wortel was infracted for trying to better the community.

"user has been inactive for 2 years, 1 day so infracted for reporting"
"user has been inactive for 2 years, user has been banned"

it should be either:

1. all offsite scams are valid, providing the user in question has a sythe profile (regardless of if he was active 5 minutes ago, or 10 years ago)
2. all offsite scams are not valid, because the user wasn't scammed via sythe.

 

[Dbuffed]

agreed, although the point of this suggestion was to more take aim at the fact @Wortel was infracted for trying to better the community.

"user has been inactive for 2 years, 1 day so infracted for reporting"
"user has been inactive for 2 years, user has been banned"

it should be either:

1. all offsite scams are valid, providing the user in question has a sythe profile (regardless of if he was active 5 minutes ago, or 10 years ago)
2. all offsite scams are not valid, because the user wasn't scammed via sythe.

I'm not gonna argue what they should or shouldn't be, just my two cents and I do not feel that we should be infracted for reporting these people either after all it's to protect our community

 

[Wortel]

ok so, Scenario 1:

1. user x has been inactive for 5 years.
2. user x scams on an alt site for 200$
3. user y reports user x for an off-site scam
4. Mods yeet the post and Infraction user y
5. user z joins the forum and is a little clueless
6. user x logs into his account after seeing he isn't banned, messages user z and scams user z because he wasn’t dnt’d or banned.

user z is then scammed and user x just gets banned anyway with a scam report.

scenario 2:

1. user x has been inactive for 5 years.
2. user x scams on an alt site for 200$
3. user y reports user x for an off-site scam
4. Mods yeet the post and Infraction user y
5. user z scams 500$ on an alt site
6 User y doesn’t want another infraction so doesn’t report, user A saw what happened to user y and doesn’t report user x either, nor does user B, C, D or E
7. user z then proceeds to scam users on sythe, until he is banned anyway for scamming.

all of which, could have been prevented if they had just banned user x's account.

there is no logical reason, why they shouldn’t be banned other than the simple reason that mods cannot be fucked to go through the hassle of banning them and the other actions associated.

Keep in mind that if said user eventually scams again and gets banned for that, they will only have to pardon for the second instance as nobody was allowed to report him for the first instance and staff usually don’t dig that deep to find out there ever was a first instance considering it wasn’t allowed to be reported.

 

[Kanye]

Scamming = scamming, whether it's 3 years ago, 10 years ago, 1 month ago. I support.

Now there could be a scenario of staff taking weeks to get to it and not have to bother looking at it right away which is fine as the user is inactive for months/years/etc anyways.

 

[Sh33dy]

ok so, Scenario 1:

1. user x has been inactive for 5 years.
2. user x scams on an alt site for 200$
3. user y reports user x for an off-site scam
4. Mods yeet the post and Infraction user y
5. user z joins the forum and is a little clueless
6. user x logs into his account after seeing he isn't banned, messages user z and scams user z because he wasn’t dnt’d or banned.

user z is then scammed and user x just gets banned anyway with a scam report.

scenario 2:

1. user x has been inactive for 5 years.
2. user x scams on an alt site for 200$
3. user y reports user x for an off-site scam
4. Mods yeet the post and Infraction user y
5. user z scams 500$ on an alt site
6 User y doesn’t want another infraction so doesn’t report, user A saw what happened to user y and doesn’t report user x either, nor does user B, C, D or E
7. user z then proceeds to scam users on sythe, until he is banned anyway for scamming.

all of which, could have been prevented if they had just banned user x's account.

there is no logical reason, why they shouldn’t be banned other than the simple reason that mods cannot be fucked to go through the hassle of banning them and the other actions associated.

arent like 99% of accs wortel reports like 5+ years inactive accounts with next to 0 posts and vouches i mean to get to that scenario you posted and for that guy to actualy become active and scam there would be long road and im pre sure they would be cought before somthing like that would of happend or so ?

You can call mods lazy but just because you nolifing on sythe and looking for some inactive accounts to boost your ego(wortel) doesnt mean everyone else should do that.

 

[Wortel]

I was wondering why I was having such a big ego (not) but then I realised, it surely must've been from reporting so many scammers!

arent like 99% of accs wortel reports like 5+ years inactive accounts

They've been inactive here, but they were recently active on another blackmarket. I've seen cases where people would start trying their luck on Sythe afterwards. I see no reason not to ban/DNT them, especially considering Sythe has already done so for like 15 years now.

with next to 0 posts and vouches

I wasn't aware high profilers aren't allowed to scam, yet low profilers are. My bad.

im pre sure they would be cought before somthing like that would of happend or so ?

just because you nolifing on sythe and looking for some inactive accounts

Caught doing what? If you don't want me or anyone else to report them, how do you expect someone to be caught? Sure they'll get caught, eventually, once they've already scammed someone.

Feel free to call me out for all you want but just because you don't like me doesn't mean you have to disagree with me, mr Disband CDT. Now that's wasting staff time.

 

[Sh33dy]

I was wondering why I was having such a big ego (not) but then I realised, it surely must've been from reporting so many scammers!

yeah you got demoded cus you were reporting so many scammers lmao...(SCARCASM had to write it out cus you wouldnt understand otherwise)

They've been inactive here, but they were recently active on another blackmarket. I've seen cases where people would start trying their luck on Sythe afterwards. I see no reason not to ban/DNT them, especially considering Sythe has already done so for like 15 years now.

I also seen ppls collecting welfare checks and reporting inactive accounts instead of getting actual job but then again when did i ask.

I wasn't aware high profilers aren't allowed to scam, yet low profilers are. My bad.

Yeah cus someone who wasnt online for 5+ years who have 0 vouches 0 donated 0 posts will scam quadrillions. (never said anyone is allowed to scam so not really sure how your twisted mind came up with that one)

Caught doing what? If you don't want me or anyone else to report them, how do you expect someone to be caught? Sure they'll get caught, eventually, once they've already scammed someone.

If they will ever become active they will most likely use that same mail to recover sythe account,make donations,buy account,buy gold and so on and on.

Feel free to call me out for all you want but just because you don't like me doesn't mean you have to disagree with me, mr Disband CDT.

I actualy said many times i`d rather see you as mod again so you would have access to IPs mails or w/e you get with that rank so you would actualy spend your time chasing active scammers and not inactive ones.

Now that's wasting staff time.

I never said it was not so im not really sure what are you trying to prove with this line lmao ?

 

[j2s]

Few things

- Should off-site scammers be allowed to be reported under any circumstance in your opinion, or only if the person who was off-site scammed is an active Sythe user?

- If someone wanted to try to be malicious and tried to "impersonate/lie about having affiliation to a particular user/group from Sythe", what do you imagine the process would entail attempting to disprove or invalidate that?
Note: If this question seems unclear, the intent of the malicious actor would be to try to get someone wrongly banned

- To the previous point, how do you intend to verify authenticity of off site reports in all circumstances when Sythe mods may not necessarily have jurisdiction or methods of verifying accuracy of said scam reports on a particular off-site

 

[Zora]

how do you intend to verify authenticity of off site reports in all circumstances when Sythe mods may not necessarily have jurisdiction or methods of verifying accuracy of said scam reports on a particular off-site

This is a good question. It's not as simple as just adding a DNT to these users, as that would indeed take little time. The off-site reports have to be looked at to assure these reports are valid and if the actions would be punished on our site as well.

Is it a waste of staff time? That of course is subjective. I do think we should draw the line somewhere.

 

[Amei]

Whats the harm in having the reports sit around for a while before being actioned on if they are deemed low priority? If its a PR issue then hide them after X days.

Has the team considered bringing on new staff with the sole intent of processing these low priority reports that the rest of you don't want to deal with? That seems like a fairly simple solution to the problem staff are having right now.

@xKylee This is unrelated but nice work with the plugins. I was surprised to see your name around Sythe.