[denied] Bs Rule!

[OsrsSkillz]

Describe the problem: No pk me - Fake Vouching Concerns | Sell & Trade Game Items | OSRS Gold | ELO (sythe.org)
What current rule(s) tackle this problem: Self/Fake Vouching: Faking, stealing, or in any way attempting to pass off illegitimate vouches as legitimate will result in a 2 week ban and a TWC.

Explain the change: Self/Fake Vouching: Faking, stealing, or in any way attempting to pass off illegitimate vouches as legitimate will result in a 2 week ban and a DNT.

Explain why this change will fix the problem: Deter Fake Vouching / Self Interaction

There was 11 Accounts involved in this potential scam ring and there under Sythe rules allowed to trade as a TWC doesn't stop trading, ridiculous.

 

[WFAF]

Seems this was approved almost instantly.

 

[OsrsSkillz]

Seems this was approved almost instantly.

Well where there's that many accounts involved how is it meant to look? I think it should be different branding.

What current rule(s) tackle this problem: Self/Fake Vouching: Faking, stealing, or in any way attempting to pass off illegitimate vouches as legitimate will result in a 2 week ban and a TWC. - In cases of a singular or a double where it's not deemed a major risk? Idk,

Explain the change: Self/Fake Vouching: Faking, stealing, or in any way attempting to pass off illegitimate vouches as legitimate will result in a 2 week ban and a DNT. - In Cases where there's more then double for example , Think that'll be a Benefical Rule Change.

 

I am supporting this.

If someone fakes their vouches it just means that person is most likely up to no good, having a TWC is in my opinion not sufficient enough punishment as they can still trade after their ban has expired.

Edit: I agree with Kanye's reasoning, there should be a case to case review.

 

The DNT was given as it was quite excessive I believe - I think this should be more discretionary depending on the extent. There's been instances of users attempting to do one to two fake vouches in order to obtain legitimate business -- not to scam. Then on the other hand there's instances (like you've linked) that are excessive and appears they are up to no good.

I'm in favor of this more-so discretionary as a user who may be looking to jump start their business with one fake vouch being DNT'd seems a bit of an overkill, while users who have a fake vouch farm being DNT'd seems right.

 

[ShawnIsThaBeast]

I Do agree with this and i also do believe that this should be case to case... I don't think someone looking to jump start a legitimate business should be punished.. However i do believe that there should be something in the vouch thread like a picture of the completed service to authenticate the transaction/service but then again it is hard enough already to get someone to leave a quick vouch for a service

 

The DNT was given as it was quite excessive I believe - I think this should be more discretionary depending on the extent. There's been instances of users attempting to do one to two fake vouches in order to obtain legitimate business -- not to scam. Then on the other hand there's instances (like you've linked) that are excessive and appears they are up to no good.

I'm in favor of this more-so discretionary as a user who may be looking to jump start their business with one fake vouch being DNT'd seems a bit of an overkill, while users who have a fake vouch farm being DNT'd seems right.

I Do agree with this and i also do believe that this should be case to case... I don't think someone looking to jump start a legitimate business should be punished.. However i do believe that there should be something in the vouch thread like a picture of the completed service to authenticate the transaction/service but then again it is hard enough already to get someone to leave a quick vouch for a service

I am supporting this.

If someone fakes their vouches it just means that person is most likely up to no good, having a TWC is in my opinion not sufficient enough punishment as they can still trade after their ban has expired.

Edit: I agree with Kanye's reasoning, there should be a case to case review.

Well where there's that many accounts involved how is it meant to look? I think it should be different branding.

What current rule(s) tackle this problem: Self/Fake Vouching: Faking, stealing, or in any way attempting to pass off illegitimate vouches as legitimate will result in a 2 week ban and a TWC. - In cases of a singular or a double where it's not deemed a major risk? Idk,

Explain the change: Self/Fake Vouching: Faking, stealing, or in any way attempting to pass off illegitimate vouches as legitimate will result in a 2 week ban and a DNT. - In Cases where there's more then double for example , Think that'll be a Benefical Rule Change.

Anybody faking vouches should result in a "DNT" regardless of the amount. Being dishonest to gain business already in itself is inexcusable when gaining legitimate vouches is so easy to do. No need to waste any staff time with a "Case to Case" review or showing leniency for dishonesty, period.

 

Anybody faking vouches should result in a "DNT" regardless of the amount. Being dishonest to gain business already in itself is inexcusable when gaining legitimate vouches is so easy to do. No need to waste any staff time with a "Case to Case" review or showing leniency for dishonesty, period.

Requiring every single fake voucher to pardon is an even larger waste of staff time, especially when the majority of the smaller offenders course-correct with the TWC and temporary ban.

The case that spawned this suggestion was egregious, and is the exception rather than the rule, which is why the punishment was changed to be proportional.

 

I am supporting this punishment i always hate actors = fake vouches

 

[OsrsSkillz]

Requiring every single fake voucher to pardon is an even larger waste of staff time, especially when the majority of the smaller offenders course-correct with the TWC and temporary ban.

The case that spawned this suggestion was egregious, and is the exception rather than the rule, which is why the punishment was changed to be proportional.

• Self/Fake Vouching: Faking, stealing, or in any way attempting to pass off illegitimate vouches as legitimate will result in a 2 week ban and a TWC. Subsequent offenses will result in a permanent DNT.
  • Off-site vouches are not honoured on Sythe, but may be included ONLY in the body of a thread.

Was this changed on the 22/07/2023? Well this Suggestion is All good, I think the Majority of the people agree that singular's or double's don't warrant a Dnt but instead a Twc and anyone who's deemed a major risk gets the Dnt, Think that's a decent rule change.

Was checking if you mods broke any rules bypassing the rules set out but I guess it's covered by:

All rules in order to be enforced must first be interpreted by the staff. Where the application of a rule to the facts of a case is not obvious the staff will make a best effort, by drawing from the common law, to apply the rule in question. In rare cases where there is no fitting rule, a new rule may be established by precedent. If you feel a rule has been applied incorrectly you may request an appeal in the dispute forum, however upper staff do not have to accept your appeal. In particular if you have previously had an appeal fail staff reserve the right to dismiss your appeal summarily.

 

Was this changed on the 22/07/2023?

Major rule changes are generally noted with a post by a staff member on the rules thread. This is the change that took place on that date: https://www.sythe.org/threads/the-official-sythe-org-rules/page-2#post-70843249

Was checking if you mods broke any rules

This passage is also just as relevant as the one you quoted:

If a user commits any unconscionable act not explicitly in the rules, or has repeatedly broken rules, the staff reserves the right to punish the user in any way.

If the user in question disagrees with the harsher punishment they're free to file a dispute as well.

 

[OsrsSkillz]

Major rule changes are generally noted with a post by a staff member on the rules thread. This is the change that took place on that date: https://www.sythe.org/threads/the-official-sythe-org-rules/page-2#post-70843249



This passage is also just as relevant as the one you quoted:


If the user in question disagrees with the harsher punishment they're free to file a dispute as well.

I still don't know how to quote like that,

• Self/Fake Vouching: Faking, stealing, or in any way attempting to pass off illegitimate vouches as legitimate will result in a 2 week ban and a TWC. Subsequent offenses will result in a permanent DNT.
  • Off-site vouches are not honoured on Sythe, but may be included ONLY in the body of a thread.

"Subsequent offenses will result in a permanent DNT" Was this added on or has it always been in the major rules? I think I must of got the punishment's from the report itself and just guessed that the "DNT" wasn't an option, If this has always been in the rules the mods applied the wrong punishment and this suggestion is invalid as there is already something in place for the more major offenders.



Please Close this as there is rules to suit depends on actions of the offender already listed in Major rules, Apologies for taken your time up.

 

I still don't know how to quote like that

If you highlight text in a thread you can quote just that section, it'll prompt you when you finish highlighting.

Please Close this as there is rules to suit depends on actions of the offender already listed in Major rules, Apologies for taken your time up.

No worries, glad I could help clear things up.