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

Obviously someone shouldn't be responsible for advertising someones site in your sig and that site scams. If someone makes their own thread advertising a website, whether they are a worker or the owner I guess is a different discussion. But for the sake of @ABM's suggestion, if someone creates their own thread advertising a website and that website scams I think they should be held responsible but I think a lot more can go into responsibility.

Is the person that created the thread responsible for all the debt (amount scammed.) I support this, I would just like to see other peoples opinions as I'm on the fence since this is a broad subject.

Thanks.

 

I think the difference with signatures is that you see banner ads all over the place, in a signature is not much different. However, a thread has a lot more power and obvious/strong claims.

 

Bump.

 

Please add this for more reference @John Devola

 

The sarcasm of "likes" when you are called out lol.

 

Why is this issue being avoided? It's been plenty of time to discuss and determine appropriate actions.

 

Tbh we should make people responsible for signatures too, as average user associates them with an user whom profile it was posted on, which may lead to scam. If this continues to be allowed a very dangerous precedent might be set where scammers will get a green flag to start buying well known people signature spots

 

I concur.

 

This was how i very first got scammed on this forum was i did not understand that a user whos avatar and sig where for a certain provider where not considered associated with that provider if they scam.

 

I thought that if you make a post claiming a reputation, you (and whatever you advertise) are working under your reputation and thus you are liable. See Invas Vouches for a fairly similar case - They claimed a number of vouches, Panda is claiming his donor rank/mod status.

When did this ever change? The dispute was with the site, but Panda should also be liable under that ruling?

 

wonder why everyone against it has a signature of someones website ^ ^

 

Personally the sig space issue I think could simply be resolved as stating
"The following are paid advertisements and I'm not personally involved"
I agree a fair bit wth veng.
Honestly I'm a little torn on this. Using panda as an example and rsgoldrush.
I have done a fair amount of bussiness with rsgolsrush. Admitly I first saw the appeal to them because a mod was essentially vouching for them. I have had plenty of great experiences with rsgoldrush and this isn't targeted at them!
I do not expect persay a worker should be held liable for the actions of owners. However honestly I'm not sure if this should be a thing to be carried by the accomplishments of others to promote your own bussiness.
To some degree Panda gets compensation for posting RsGoldrush's page instead of having to spend money on donor status and such himself and posting it himself. It garners him a certain amount of bussiness just because of their threads tags.
Personally as a general policy I think the website/or owner only should be allowed to make the initial post. (Since that is the person you will hold liable for issues. A worker is never liable)

All this said I don't see an issue with panda/rsgoldrush!

Alternatively something along the lines of

This is a paid advertisement by "Panda" on behalf of "Rsgoldrush" would also suffice as a disclaimer

 

I think we should still have people taking responsibility for threads they make.

There have been people lying/manipulating this, and that's a problem.

 

I agree with this 100%. Anyone posting threads on behalf of a website / person should be held liable for that website's actions. Whether intentional or not, potential customers inevitaly assume a level of confidence based on the thread poster's trust.

One caveat: I don't believe this should apply towards signature ads, but I do think a signature should have a disclaimer for the Sythe member to be held harmless.

 

I agree with this 100%. But IMO you shouldn't be able to add the (mod) or (staff) title in a thread. I feel like if someone was to get scammed or hurt from site it makes this site look bad cause a staff member endorses and/or owns it. But that is totally my IMO. I'm just biased against staff using their titles for personal gains.

 

No support

Someone shouldn't be held liable for someone else scamming

Signatures, UI, Avatars, etc are all used as advertisements, and often get more clicks than actual threads.

Also, are we really gonna make someone who can barley afford to make deposits to a RS Services boss pay for his boss scamming?


If that is the case, I can simply hire @Wortel to sell gold or services for me, then scam, go afk, and let Wortel responsible for the $10k I Just scammed.

 

Did you even read @ABM's topic?
He's posting about threads, not signatures/UI's/avatars. A distinction between the two is clearly made in the OP & throughout the thread.

He isn't talking about non-trusted scrub workers for hired by a main service provider either. He's talking about trusted users creating threads that invoke a feeling of trust even though they aren't involved w/ the website & its security, etc.
Go back and read the OP & other pages, because you clearly haven't.

I think this is long overdue.