[Denied] Increase Punishment for Bad PMs

[c0llin]

Support, the punishment atm is pretty much nothing. Good pms take a bit of extra time to do and can save tons from being scammed.

 

[c0llin]

I’m a big advocate in making sure PMs are correctly sent. I think TWCs are a good punishment but what else would be a fitting punishment? We can’t have them refund but we can’t permanently ban them. Maybe a longer temp ban?

Have a set format every one must follow and enforce it. Take a picture of skype id of person you're talking to and portion of the conversation. The person wanting to do the trade can then see if its an impostor or another profile impostoring them they're talking to. The pms would take a few screen shots and one or two minutes. If proper pms aren't followed they are liable for the scam and people will learn to do it correctly.

Also i get tired of the same bullshit i see all the time where people say it will be to hard for everyone to do or take to much time. A good format should only take one to two minutes and be simple to interpret and save thousands and thousands of dollars from being scammed. If thats not worth it why have any scamming rules at all if simple preventive rules won't be put in place to stop it. If people don't want to do a simple format that takes a bit more work get the fuck off sythe. The big traders can send shit pms and never be the one who gets scammed because they dont have to go first so i don't expect them to support it as well as they send the most conf pm's. But they also benefit the most from trading on sythe and have the impostors who can do the highest $ value scams. A little more work for all of us should be worth ending scamming that doesnt need to be happening and has a simple solution.

 

[c0llin]

I mean the buyer should be more specific I think personally when asking for a pm.

Like a screenshot / who to trade in game etc.

Why not just have a set format where the seller send a pm of their skype convo with the person and the skype id theyre talking to. Its must easier for people to spot impostors of their own skype. Also if the format is identical every time people will be able to learn what to look for specifically as it's always the same. Right now you can do 20 conf pms and they will all be different and 80% will be shit

 

[c0llin]

We cant force people to send certain PM's, It's a free market. If you choose to do business with a jackass that's your own fault. I thought when we moved on from skype this kind of shit would stop. Guess we were all wrong. I just tell people to come to voice and send the info via sythe PM. Btc address's etc. I cant be asked to do all the stupid shit you guys want.

Is it really that hard to sc a convo and skype id it takes 2 mins and can save 100's of people from being scammed but no everyone on sythe wants to be a bitch and say its to hard. get so tired of the ridiculous free market arguments that make no sense. If this was a free market there'd be no rules and no bans for scamming or anything. Your whole free market argument is just wrong and stupid no other way to put it.

 

Is it really that hard to sc a convo and skype id it takes 2 mins and can save 100's of people from being scammed but no everyone on sythe wants to be a bitch and say its to hard. get so tired of the ridiculous free market arguments that make no sense. If this was a free market there'd be no rules and no bans for scamming or anything. Your whole free market argument is just wrong and stupid no other way to put it.

I send the BTC address they'll be sending to Via sythe...? I also request their Btc address via sythe. Please stfu if you cant figure that out

 

[c0llin]

I send the BTC address they'll be sending to Via sythe...? I also request their Btc address via sythe. Please stfu if you cant figure that out

It's more about overall having a proper set format. Can you not read what the whole threads have been about. It's most of the community, I never said you send bad confirmations. But most of the people do and it leads to tons of scams. Asking people to do a bit more work to prevent tons of scams doesnt sound like to much to ask imo.

 

It's more about overall having a proper set format. Can you not read what the whole threads have been about. It's most of the community, I never said you send bad confirmations. But most of the people do and it leads to tons of scams. Asking people to do a bit more work to prevent tons of scams doesnt sound like to much to ask imo.

The only person who can keep "you" from getting scammed is yourself. Pointless rules are for the sheep

 

[c0llin]

The only person who can keep "you" from getting scammed is yourself. Pointless rules are for the sheep

People like you only prove my point. Would rather save your self a few minutes than support rules that would save tons of members over time. It's honestly just sad there's so many sythe members like you.

 

People like you only prove my point. Would rather save your self a few minutes than support rules that would save tons of members over time. It's honestly just sad there's so many sythe members like you.

Because I've been here long enough to know that morons are always going to get scammed. Doesnt matter what you tell them to do. Trying to stand here and scream for pointless rules they arnt going to follow anyways is a waste of time.

I must say I find it funny that you're sad theres so many sythe members like me. I dont scam and pay out thousands every day. Shit I wish there were more users like me. We could toss the trash out and sing camp fire songs.

 

[Pain]

How are bad PMs case by case? If you send a bad pm which leads to someone scammed you should be punished accordingly. They don't look at the amount scammed, if you included one Discord ID but not the other, etc. If you scam 10m or 10b you will still be punished by the same temp ban for three months and permanent DNT. The only difference is the amount you pay back and how hard pardoning will be.

The punishment should be the same (I'm pretty sure it already is you're just spewing shit out of your mouth).
Your reasoning has nothing to do with my suggestion. If it's dealt case by case we can't up the punishment for it? It scales off staff discretion based on the amount of offenses? That's what I'm suggesting.

That's not how it works, you shouldn't speak about things you don't know, considering I've actually *read* all the bad PM reports I would imagine I happen to know don't you think?

Its case by case, apparently @Hahanerd is unaware of this judging by this comment;

Screenshot - 6e9edf505aa2b6aa0d602bfc60aecb18 - Gyazo

"We cant have users refund" but in some cases (at least 5 I can think of) staff HAVE made users refund.

Temp bans are rarely given for bad PM's, its almost universally a warning first offence, if its a larger sum it might be a TWC to. 2nd offence is definitely a TWC and could be held liable/other punishment, 3rd offence your getting however much pain staff can deal you.
(There are exceptions based on who it is, value, etc but as a general trend I can just tell you the above is typically what happens as a whole).

There seems to be some confusion on what the punishment even is for bad PM's after reading this thread it seems like most of the people are talking out their asses or don't really know what their talking about. I can assure you that it is a case by case basis and everything from a month long ban to repaying $800 for a bad PM to a twc has occurred, so lets just make sure that everyone knows what their talking about before we try to find a solution to a problem.

It's staff discretion, the punishments vary vastly based on the individual case, THAT is how bad PM's are handled. Hopefully people read this and adjust their thoughts or comments appropriately because the entire first two pages are people just spewing incorrect information.

 

There is already enough punishment from the current rules, plus I'm sure @Champ is happy with the way it is anyways, a temp ban isn't something to do for a issue regarding PM's

 

2 week temp ban followed by a month TWC should kick everyone into gear alright

If the PM is intentionally bad, then TWC is enforced at staff discretion.

Have a set format every one must follow and enforce it. Take a picture of skype id of person you're talking to and portion of the conversation. The person wanting to do the trade can then see if its an impostor or another profile impostoring them they're talking to. The pms would take a few screen shots and one or two minutes. If proper pms aren't followed they are liable for the scam and people will learn to do it correctly.

Also i get tired of the same bullshit i see all the time where people say it will be to hard for everyone to do or take to much time. A good format should only take one to two minutes and be simple to interpret and save thousands and thousands of dollars from being scammed. If thats not worth it why have any scamming rules at all if simple preventive rules won't be put in place to stop it. If people don't want to do a simple format that takes a bit more work get the fuck off sythe. The big traders can send shit pms and never be the one who gets scammed because they dont have to go first so i don't expect them to support it as well as they send the most conf pm's. But they also benefit the most from trading on sythe and have the impostors who can do the highest $ value scams. A little more work for all of us should be worth ending scamming that doesnt need to be happening and has a simple solution.

If a bad PM is sent and it is clearly obvious that the person sending it half-assed it, which led to a scam, then we have many times held that person liable for the scam.

That's not how it works, you shouldn't speak about things you don't know, considering I've actually *read* all the bad PM reports I would imagine I happen to know don't you think?

Its case by case, apparently @Hahanerd is unaware of this judging by this comment;

Screenshot - 6e9edf505aa2b6aa0d602bfc60aecb18 - Gyazo

"We cant have users refund" but in some cases (at least 5 I can think of) staff HAVE made users refund.

Temp bans are rarely given for bad PM's, its almost universally a warning first offence, if its a larger sum it might be a TWC to. 2nd offence is definitely a TWC and could be held liable/other punishment, 3rd offence your getting however much pain staff can deal you.
(There are exceptions based on who it is, value, etc but as a general trend I can just tell you the above is typically what happens as a whole).

There seems to be some confusion on what the punishment even is for bad PM's after reading this thread it seems like most of the people are talking out their asses or don't really know what their talking about. I can assure you that it is a case by case basis and everything from a month long ban to repaying $800 for a bad PM to a twc has occurred, so lets just make sure that everyone knows what their talking about before we try to find a solution to a problem.

It's staff discretion, the punishments vary vastly based on the individual case, THAT is how bad PM's are handled. Hopefully people read this and adjust their thoughts or comments appropriately because the entire first two pages are people just spewing incorrect information.

I think either I didn't make myself too clear as I was on mobile when I posted. Staff have and will continue to use discretion when punishing those who send bad PMs. In some cases, yes, we have held people liable for bad PMs and made sure they refund. Other times users are given TWCs depending on the PM sent, etc. Every scenario will be different and it's hard to come up with one rule which will help mitigate all the risk involved. Punishments will be scattered as it is a system which isn't very easy to fix but if it was obvious that the person sending a PM sent a bad PM, then they'll be held liable for possible compensation.

 

[S]

their

their

their

their

Please. They're*.

I believe it would be beneficial, alongside providing increased transparency and consistency, if there was a quantitative ruling measure. I.e., first offence = warning, second = TWC, third = market/trading ban.

This would still allow for cases to be judged on a case-by-case basis, but more importantly, users would be aware of what repeat offences will result in.

It appears that these ''bad PM's'' are an inherent and ever-repeating issue, especially due to 3-way-impostor-scams. We definitely need to implement a ruling framework in which repeat offenders are met with harsher consequences.

 

[Teeto]

People like you only prove my point. Would rather save your self a few minutes than support rules that would save tons of members over time. It's honestly just sad there's so many sythe members like you.

You realize that there is a set format right?

 

[Teeto]

Please. They're*.

I believe it would be beneficial, alongside providing increased transparency and consistency, if there was a quantitative ruling measure. I.e., first offence = warning, second = TWC, third = market/trading ban.

This would still allow for cases to be judged on a case-by-case basis, but more importantly, users would be aware of what repeat offences will result in.

It appears that these ''bad PM's'' are an inherent and ever-repeating issue, especially due to 3-way-impostor-scams. We definitely need to implement a ruling framework in which repeat offenders are met with harsher consequences.

This. You can still handle it on a case by case basis but this is much more consistent. Take flaming/spamming infractions for example. Staff can apply infractions at their own discretion and there’s a framework set already for it. But cases can still differ hugely like @BumBum stacking infractions 24/7 so he was punished more harshly for infractions.
Also @Divine I don’t really care how many reports you read and how much “knowledge” you have on the rules. All your credibility was lost in my eyes when you said thread T.O.S trumps Sythe rules.

 

[c0llin]

You realize that there is a set format right?

There isn't a required format that must be used. That's what i mean by set

 

[King]

No support for reasons similar to what @WantaCookie mentioned (the 2nd half covers what I wanted to say for the most part). If a person sends a poor PM and the buyer proceeds, then that's both parties fault for being negligent enough to proceed with the transaction. In these cases we punish people accordingly, but further punishment is as @Hahanerd said at staff discretion (on a case-by-case basis can't be specific, but I'll leave an example where one would be held liable below).

Refer to this case as an example where the person would be liable for a scam - Deraticloud - 230M 07 Scam

That user not only sent a poor PM that didn't confirm anyone's Discord ID, but he also was advertising another Discord ID in which he didn't own, thus allowing someone to claim that and scam others. I believe the poor PM that doesn't include anything (such as PM's that only include a "keyword" / no ID's, etc) would be cases where users would be held liable for the scam, although like I said it's case-by-case at our discretion.

 

[Pendulum]

Our current system has had a pretty good results so far, I haven't seen any repeat offenders. Safe trading is something that both parties should familiarize themselves with. While the discord template is not in every section (and I agree with you, it should be), it is in the section where this is commonly seen: RuneScape Gold Exchange

If users continue to make poor PM's, the punishment will absolutely be increased, as well as partial or full liability for the mistake. This has been denied.