[DENIED] If user advertise's a company in a thread and make them take responsibility for it

It does show that the user displays poor judgment when associating with those individuals. However, the current rule right now is that Owner is held accountable for Worker actions while it is not the other way around. I agree that the workers should be held accountable, in a sense, for the owner's actions. However a pardon or a temporary market ban might be necessary for those users since they displayed wrongful judgment.

 

I wouldn’t call it a loophole, this is well known.


That being said people shouldn’t be allowed to advertise a site to help it gain credibility; without being held responseable if the owner of the company is unwilling to resolve the situation.

I have no doubt if it comes down to it Panda would resolve the situation.

 

You have to put it on the thread somewhere that you are just an advisertiser and not apart of the company and then you’re Gucci

 

If the consumer is intentionally being misled by the creator / advertiser / OP of the thread, I believe they should be liable to an extent

Similar to how real life advertising is now shifting to require sponsored brands by celebrities / influential people to indicate it is an advertisement, I believe that it should be clearly worded // visible that the person advertising the thread (whomever it may be- Mod, OMM, Donor, etc) say that they are advertising / marketing consultant / whatever for X company

But of course, this is a free market so the idea will not hold much weight.

 

I have a biased opinion.


No support unless the user has partial ownership or ownership of the company

 

Support, this should of always been a thing

 

Technically you could call Panda a "worker" for RSGoldRush, but in a different sense to a livechat worker - if what you're suggesting is livechat workers, gold workers should be responsible if their employer scams, I can't see the logic in that.
I have full faith in my bosses at Divicasales however; when it comes to people who create small companies and scam quit the first few thousand they see and leave the 1-2 workers behind that really needed that job, it is completely unfair to ask them to pay out. They aren't the ones who scammed or had intentions to scam, they may of also just had their deposit scammed from them also.

Unless a worker also has evidence against them, then only the owner should be punished when it comes to livechat/gold workers.

When it comes to advertising I think Dunworrys suggestion would fix a lot of things, you need to add on your thread that you are only advertising for them - It is the same as advertising for people in your signature - it may lead some new people to believe you actually own the website you're advertising in your signature.

 

Here's what I think.

I think if the Sythe user is using their trust & profile to help promote a website which isn't extremely trusted & the people running said
website scam, the Sythe user advertising the website should be held accountable, only if the scam which happened came from going
to the website because of said Sythe user.
Example: If my friend opens a brand new website, with no trades done, and I help advertise it having done a few trades, I would be
technically more trusted than the website. If I advertise it, and they scam a person who went there because of me, I should be held
responsible.

Now of course there are problems with the above, like how can you prove that someone went to the website because of the Sythe
user's advertisement?

I also think this:

If the website is already a trusted website such as Bogla or Arcus or R2P, and you're advertising it, and the trusted site scams, then
the Sythe user shouldn't have any responsibility at all.

 

Make a disclosure of whether or not you own the company or part of the company or are simply advertising. No need to make rules complicated.

 

If something has to be implemented then dunworry and bolt are probably on the right track here :thumbsup:

 

It's not against the rules to be sponsored by a gold selling website, then why would the sponsored be held accountable. Makes no sense to me.

 

This could really go either way really tough. I don't think people should be posting threads for companies that they don't own or trust for that matter. If you trust them enough to post for them and bring them income then you trust them enough to go down in flames if they do.

 

No support. Why should signatures be different? Still advertising just in more then 1 spot on your thread. People get paid to advertise and you should look into who's website it is instead of just trusting something based off of a paid advertisement. However I would support that in the thread name and on the thread if you advertise you have to put "PAID ADVERTISEMENT"

 

I'd say this suggestion depends

@OFFICIALRSGOLDRUSH's company is actually a Limited company, it does NOT operate as a sole trader - that means if anything happens to the company, the owners are not held responsible, it is the company that is held responsible (unless of course it's to do with negligence by the owners)

Having someone punished who doesn't actually own the company would be extremely unfair, I'm also confused as to how people would think Panda is the owner of this company, the discord listed is not actually his (that discord belongs to the owner of the company who I've personally dealt with MULTIPLE times) and additionally if you want to have Panda held liable you can always request a confirmation PM, as shown here:



If they're not willing to give you a PM then you have the option not to trade with them, but knowing these guys have been a part of a successful gold shop before moving (which will remain unnamed) I can confirm they are trusted users.

TLDR version; I support if people thought Panda owned the site however it was already clear. If people truly believed Panda wasn't the owner of the company then I don't support as the owners of this site can be publicly found here on Sythe + Panda can still be held responsible for any PM's he sends out.

 

Sure, support, but only under a report-basis. If a website scams and numerous people have that website in their bio, the mods should only really give a fuck about it if somebody takes initiative and reports it.

 

Personally I feel like if you're going to advertise for someone and use stuff like your Donator rank, Mod status, OMM status or anything else that is yours you should take responsibility for anything that happens. You're giving them a false idea of trust. You're the Donator/Mod/OMM not the person you work for/are advertising for.

If you say they won't be held responsible then i or anyone else can offer some new kid $50 to post their threads for them and they can easily scam hundreds more from it and me/the person who posted the threads won't get in trouble?

Just saying I didn't read a lot of this thread so if i misunderstood let me know.

 

It would be outrageous to hold an advertiser accountable for actions of a company. Just like in the real world, advertisers are usually a 3rd party company. They have no say or input into what the company does, they are getting paid for their job which is to advertise & they are getting paid to. It is only at the customers descression to use these companies. Just because a billboard says something doesn’t mean you must do it, and if you do it, it was because you wanted to.

 

Okay but when you're adding in your donator rank, Your mod rank or your OMM rank you're adding in false trust. Like i said i'll sell services to any random new kid for $50 i post their threads, They scam and i get away without any issue. It opens up potential scams.

 

Your ranks are something you earn from being on the site & contributing to xxx, your signature space is something everyone has.

I may be confused, but I am arguing that advertising on my threads / signature spots , that I should not be liable for a corrupt business.