[DENIED] An Actual realistic solution to tweeting.

I mean tweeting is essentially doxxing, or giving out someones information, and i assume the issue is that it is without the owners consent. I support the idea of non-pardonable ban. You definitely didn't have to do it, and it shouldn't be excusable

 

Added the rule/punishment for leaking and tweeting RSNs. A first offense will result in 1-month ban + TWC and second offense will result in 3-month ban + TWC.

Staff brought this in,
this isn't even a real punishment at all, this is a slap on the wrist.

 

b

 

[Panda]

Staff brought this in,
this isn't even a real punishment at all, this is a slap on the wrist.

Care to elaborate?

 

[gambling_babz]

Care to elaborate?

I mean, I'm not @abrokenman so I can't speak for him; I personally think that he's saying that because the risk/reward of tweeting RSN's leans towards the risk is worth it with a low chance of being caught. If people are willing to take the risk to ban many other RWT'ers with their worst punishment (first-offence -- should be non-tolerable, in my opinion) being a 1-month ban, they may continue to do it.

 

I mean, I'm not @abrokenman so I can't speak for him; I personally think that he's saying that because the risk/reward of tweeting RSN's leans towards the risk is worth it with a low chance of being caught. If people are willing to take the risk to ban many other RWT'ers with their worst punishment (first-offence -- should be non-tolerable, in my opinion) being a 1-month ban, they may continue to do it.

Sums it up @Panda

 

[Panda]

I mean, I'm not @abrokenman so I can't speak for him; I personally think that he's saying that because the risk/reward of tweeting RSN's leans towards the risk is worth it with a low chance of being caught. If people are willing to take the risk to ban many other RWT'ers with their worst punishment (first-offence -- should be non-tolerable, in my opinion) being a 1-month ban, they may continue to do it.

Sums it up @Panda

How do you guys define non-tolerable? Consider that the 1st offense of tweeting currently aligns with leaking personal information (excluding the twc), and the 2nd offense is actually already 'worse' than leaking personal information

 

[Eazy E]

Wait I would like to get something straight

If the information is publically available and was gather legally, why should someone get a sythe.org ban for tweeting personal information.

If I know Panda's RSN, and I report his RSN for RWT, why should I get a ban? Makes no sense to me. RWT are the ones breaking the rules and take the risk. If I wanted to be a ass and "help" the RS community by reporting a known RWT, why should I be punished?

 

[gambling_babz]

Wait I would like to get something straight

If the information is publically available and was gather legally, why should someone get a sythe.org ban for tweeting personal information.

If I know Panda's RSN, and I report his RSN for RWT, why should I get a ban? Makes no sense to me. RWT are the ones breaking the rules and take the risk. If I wanted to be a ass and "help" the RS community by reporting a known RWT, why should I be punished?

Because you would be contradicting yourself by doing so? Which side are you on, the RWT side, or the RS side?

Really . . . ?

By allowing such an offense to to have no punishments is screaming anarchy in this community and would only negatively affect other members

 

How do you guys define non-tolerable? Consider that the 1st offense of tweeting currently aligns with leaking personal information (excluding the twc), and the 2nd offense is actually already 'worse' than leaking personal information

Probably the fact that they're purposely causing the victim monetary loss and the tweeter themselves removing competition to allow for potential monetary gain.

If I know Panda's RSN, and I report his RSN for RWT, why should I get a ban? Makes no sense to me. RWT are the ones breaking the rules and take the risk. If I wanted to be a ass and "help" the RS community by reporting a known RWT, why should I be punished?

Because you are participating in a runescape blackmarket forum that is built upon breaking these rules.

 

[Eazy E]

Probably the fact that they're purposely causing the victim monetary loss and the tweeter themselves removing competition to allow for potential monetary gain.



Because you are participating in a runescape blackmarket forum that is built upon breaking these rules.

I guess you are right I mean, I didn't really think of the fact that users can hurt competitors with a a simple "dox"

I don't take part in the runescape sales (although I have sold accounts which I think should be allowed), so I don't really know much about this RWT issue.

I was more referring to the sythe rules that states its not "doxing" if the information is public.


Now that I understand the issue, If a user is doxing another user on an alternative platform, the rules should be the same as a user scamming on an alternative platform.

 

[Daddy Dropperz]

Full support. Even if it doesn't become an un-pardonable offence, they should at least be required to refund much more than just the account worth + wealth on the value as it can seriously effect some stakers and large resellers from making their living.

 

[Panda]

Full support. Even if it doesn't become an un-pardonable offence, they should at least be required to refund much more than just the account worth + wealth on the value as it can seriously effect some stakers and large resellers from making their living.

Could you define 'much more'? Do you have any suggestions as to verify the value of assets on the account before it got banned? If theres solid solutions im happy to bring it up in sl

 

[Daddy Dropperz]

Could you define 'much more'? Do you have any suggestions as to verify the value of assets on the account before it got banned? If theres solid solutions im happy to bring it up in sl

A lot of times those who are victims of tweeting who get banned are stakers who use these accounts to get odds in order to make money; the largest issue I see is that if your entire army of accounts gets banned and the person only refunds the value of the accounts (lets say $100-$200 each), it still won't make up for the lost potential gains that these people literally depend on as a living wage. If you owned a restaurant and your water heater broke, often times the insurance company will cover the cost of the heater ALONG with lost wages. A similar system should be put in place as 99/100 times those who are victims of tweeting ARE stakers, who are staking for a living and not just for fun. If people can provide ample proof of average time to build an account to those stats, along with providing an average of how much a single account brings in, they should be forced to pay the average amount of income these stakers generate. It may sound ridiculous to some people, but when someone literally tries to ruin your livelihood for the 'memes' or because they're being a butt hurt baby, just paying someone like 2k dollars for an entire army that got banned does not make up for the fact that person probably lost 10k+ in potential profits for the month (yes, that number is accurate; if you don't believe me just ask any odd staker if its believable to make over 10 grand a month doing it correctly).

This obviously doesn't cover all cases of tweeting, as you could potentially tweet anyone who RWTs and get them banned, which is why I think at a bare minimum, have a couple of basic rules such as permanently banned with 12+ months before being able to pardon, and only if the bare minimum of the account value is refunded. Staff should be able to take it as a case-by-case basis as each instance of tweeting can be drastically different from others.

 

[Panda]

...

I'll make sure to post a summary of your post and possible other proper solutions in sl once this thread gets closed, thanks for taking the time to write out a decent response

 

b

 

[Champ]

This suggestion has been denied, it completely takes away from our current pardon system.