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

Um, actually, I did read the post, all of it, and my opinion still stands..

Supaman was paid by stake.com to post on sythe, he wasn't affiliated. If someone claims stake.com scammed, does Supaman ( or superman forgot his username ), have to pay that person back? No, that's bullshit.

This is honestly a stupid suggestion. Thats a perfect way to kill sythe and a nice chunk of the graphics market. No user is going to hold a signature for someone , knowing that the chances of them scamming aren't worth the 2b scam.

come on guys.

 

you really think someone can actually be held responsible? I mean seriously.

If I make a thread for a business, and I am paid by the business to advertise, and that business goes behind MY BACK and scams, I now have to be help responsible?

Also, I found another loophole here. What if you are offering bumping services? It is basically the same idea.

 

A lot more power?
99% of sythe users don't go to page 2 and signatures are scattered on every users post in all of history, throughout any part of the forums.

Sigantures, avatars, and UI have A LOT more reach depending on who the target audience is, and can be used in the exact same way.

 

this.

 

YES! Because people who buy from them based on your thread ASSUME they’re trustworthy based on your status. If you are some $50 Donator random then it wouldn’t apply because you aren’t trusted enough to sway buyers’ opinions. However, if you have thousands of vouches, are staff, etc. then someone can easily exploit that.

 

Okay so now you are saying that I can do this, as long as I am a $50 Donor, because I am not "trusted enough". So this should only apply to $300+ donors? I also find this highly ironic, especially with the amount of people who complain about scammers buying $100-300+ donor status to gain "trust". I also find it interesting that we want to put more strict rules on users who have proven themselves to be fine members ( Mod, Staff, Etc ). To refer to your points about "trust" again, we have already had a few suggestions here asking for Mods and Admins to not be allowed to put [mod] or [admin] in post because it gives a "false sense of trust" ( which again, is ironic, being that they are mods and admins because they are trusted ).

Again, I think this is an unrealistic request. As @Dunworry stated above...

and ....

Look, if you own part of the business, then yes, obviously we should ban them for scamming, but THAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING. In fact, I am pretty sure that this happened to Talon, who's partner "scammed" ( although I dont think it was an outright scam, and more of a 3rd party issue ), and Talon got a Ban because he owned part of the business. Nevertheless, isnt this this is already happening?

The only thing that this suggestion really wants to do is say that not only does someone who owns part of the business have to be held accountable ( rightfully so ), but anyone who is in anyway affiliated with that business, even if their affiliation is simply "working" and getting paid to post threads ( and according to some, should even be held accountable if they have a banner in their signature ; Which is fucking low IQ ).

Short story: I once paid a user to create a thread for me. I also paid him monthly to bump 2-3 times a day. I did this because I saw other users do this and realized its actually a decent idea, especially because at the time, I was in scholl all day and often forgot to bump, and I also wanted my thread to get the most views it can. One day, the site I owned had an issue with the Hosting provider. The website went down and a scam report was filled in private to a moderator. The person I paid to create the thread did not get banned. I believe a DNT was thrown on for maybe a few hours, until the mod read the thread and realized that the user I paid to bump the thread was not affiliated with me, and simply was just providing one of his services ( creating and then bumping a thread for me ).

To state again, something similar happened with Stake.com.

Here is a post by @Panda ⭐⭐ RSGoldRush.com is looking to rent your AVATAR! ⭐⭐

The original thread title was "Stake.com is looking to buy...". As for as I know, @Panda does not own, nor does he work for stake.com, and even if he did, I wouldn't feel as though @Panda deserves a ban if stake.com decided to run away with the money for renting avatars. Also, lets say @Panda was still; bumping this "stake.com" thread. The thread itself is simply for stake.com signatures, but he is still advertising for stake.com. If stake.com scams offsite, does Panda now need to be held accountable for an off site crypto gambling scam ( which can be literally millions ), because he was paid to bump a thread for buying avatars and sig spaces.

The point I am trying to make is that this is basically already a thing, and if we go with the suggestion, it will just make things more complicated, kill off some business, and would cause a logistical nightmare. If we say yes to this suggestion for threads, there is literally no logical argument we could use to protect against the same thing happening to our signature spaces or UI.

PS: I actually made a similar suggestion a while back, in regards to Bitconnect. I said users shouldn't be allowed to created threads or advertise BCC in their signatures, because it was a scam, an obvious one ( 1.5% returns compounded daily HAHAH ). I was shot down and told that if BCC does scam, its not the fault of the users ( some of whom were sythe moderators ). The only difference here is that the users didnt "own" part of Bitconnect... but this issue is in the fact that Bitconnect users make profit by "referral links" in the form of a pyramid scheme, so despite them not "owning" part of BCC, I would say it is just as bad because they are advertising and linking referral links.

 

When did I say it should only apply to $300+ donators? I said that, generally speaking, someone with thousands of vouches, etc. subconsciously invokes a level of trust while a random $50 Donator or non-trusted wouldn’t. Again, I never mentioned “strict rules” for any specific group. Rules should apply to everyone. It’s a 50/50 suggestion, so I don’t think it’ll be approved. However, I see both sides of the argument, really. Anyways, I’ve spoken my .02 on the subject.

 

I agree with whatever you are willing to advertise for under your name , you should take responsibility for. I mean it's common sense . If I see a reputable member making a thread specifically for a gold selling website, I'd assume they are vouching for it.

They are paying you to share their website so you increase their reputation and people buy from them. Hopefully you wouldn't just advertise anyone so why is it a problem? If there's a chance the person's site your sharing is going to scam members, don't advertise it using your reputation

IMO it should be a rule and enforced.

The problem is it will cut into profits.

 

Bump.

This also needs to apply to autobumpers, paid bumpers, and any non OP bump.

 

I can see where the problems arise, this is Affiliated Marketing at it's finest. Panda is advertising a product or service and probably gaining commission for each sale he drives.

There are grey area's because he isn't directly working for said company but is still technically a part of said company. However, since there are zero disclaimers on Panda's end, he is technically liable for anything that happens.

All in all, none of us can make him add a disclaimer but I personally think he should include one, even if it's as simple as "RsGoldRush affiliate".

After reading through this thread, the consensus seems to be the same. Also just my 2 cents on the matter.

Not to provide real world examples here, but this site explains the risks that come with affiliate marketing if you don't have the correct disclaimers: How to Avoid Liability in Affiliate Marketing

 

Echoing what @Sythe said:

We will not hold users liable provided they're simply advertising for a company(this needs to be clearly declared that they are in no way affiliated). The advertiser is only liable to the extent they know or could possibly know that the company they're advertising/promoting are involved with a scam. In the rare instance a situation like this comes forward, we would deal with this on a case by case basis.

You may not use your personal indicators of trust to advertise on behalf of another business.