Dicing Rules [Updated 2017]

There is a distinction in that in normal trades, you lose something tangible. In a dicing game, unless you have paid up front, you lose only an owned debt and if you win but the debt is unpaid, you are not less well off than you were before. In a normal scam, you would be.

It's called opportunity cost.

If I rent a room in my house out to someone and they nick off without paying, that is not the same as never having rented it.

If I jump through a burning hoop and come out the other side without injury for money and never get paid that is not the same as never having jumped through the hoop.

Just because it isn't a tangible loss it doesn't mean nothing is lost. The taking of a risk is an intangible item of value being traded, one which cannot be recovered.

And in regards to faking vouches: Trading GP back and forth is a red flag. Moderators can easily find and stop that sort of behavior because it isn't normal and is obviously an attempt to inflate vouch counts. Dicing in different in that people will naturally be giving each other money back and forth and there is no way to tell if the people are dicing for fun or if they are doing it just so they can keep vouching each other.

I would suggest it would throw up the same red flag.

If dicing vouches are adequately as such marked I don't see the issue.

 

[HNCdice]

Disagree with SuF's tl;dr
Instead of vouches, I have "feedback" in my thread , where I place the feedback people have given me after payouts. However it would be nice to claim them as vouches!

 

[Lvl 75 Def]

A new rule to be added: Every bet made should have either '1 person only' or 'multiple people allowed' in it. To avoid any confusion which has been in the past. If there's put one person, the first person to quote, accept and roll gets the bet. after that the bet is invalid from that point on. If a person puts up the multiple people tag, he/she has to manually edit the post or make a new post stating the offer is no longer valid.

 

[K-3-V-1-N]

final word on dicing vouches?

 

[dangelo]

final word on dicing vouches?

Also interested in this. I have some on my vouch thread currently before it was posted they were not allowed. Unsure how to remove.

I think the winner vouching for the looser should be allowed though. They are paying for something, the same as any other trade, except they receive nothing in return.

 

[SuF]

It's called opportunity cost.

If I rent a room in my house out to someone and they nick off without paying, that is not the same as never having rented it.

If I jump through a burning hoop and come out the other side without injury for money and never get paid that is not the same as never having jumped through the hoop.

Just because it isn't a tangible loss it doesn't mean nothing is lost. The taking of a risk is an intangible item of value being traded, one which cannot be recovered.

I would suggest it would throw up the same red flag.

If dicing vouches are adequately as such marked I don't see the issue.

I'm sorry if I haven't been clear. Communication has never been a strong suit of mine. I did not mean to deny that there is a loss involved if someone doesn't pay up after they lose a dice game. What I meant is that the loss is inherently different than other forms of risk taking and trade and thus we should handle feedback (vouches) for these transactions differently.

I'm not sure if you mean that the two examples of opportunity cost you gave are supposed to be the same as dicing or not but there are differences. You only have a finite number of rooms to rent and if you rent to someone who does not pay, you potentially lose out on a paying customer. In dicing you do have finite time but it takes such a short amount of time to do, you really are not going to lose out on customers unless you are dicing so many people at once you have to ask others to wait. And in the hoop example you are risking your bodily integrity and not your money, which I would consider to be fairly distinct.

Regardless, you are obviously right in that there is an element of risk involved and I agree with that. However, as I've said I believe this to be inherently different than other forms of risk that people experience and due to that, feedback should be handled differently. We should simply not allow users to call their dicing feedback vouches and not allow them to use count dicing feedback as normal vouches.

This alternate form of vouch or feedback could be counted and listed along side normal vouches and could include other types of feedback that we currently do not allow, such as graphics vouches. This would certainly mark them as you suggested and deal with the issue I raised about artificially inflating vouch counts while still allowing reputable dicers to stand out from the crowd.


Edit:

I should clarify. If someone is acting as a "dice host", aka, is taking money before the dicing actually happens and then distributing the winnings to the winner (assuming it is a group dicing) then the host should be able to receive a normal vouch from the winner.

 

[SuF]

On another note (using a new post for visibility and since it's a new point): Editing posts should be disabled in this forum if possible. That would stop people trying to hide the fact that they lost a bet if they scam and would give the staff a full record of what went down if someone scams.

 

inb4 everyone dices for all the vouches and then scams

(reminiscent of the graphics vouches problem)

 

[Swadq]

inb4 everyone dices for all the vouches and then scams

(reminiscent of the graphics vouches problem)

Why wouldn't they just scam via dicing, in that case?

 

Why wouldn't they just scam via dicing, in that case?

i said scams

that's a general term for all scamming

generally though, cunts don't do $10000000000000000000000000000000000 dicing bets so they'll move to GP trading for the bank loot if they aren't retarded

 

[SuF]

Why wouldn't they just scam via dicing, in that case?

You can't really scam the same way in dicing (unless people are paying you first) as you do in Runescape. You can't just get on and steal someone's party hat. First you need to be lucky and be up money and then you simply don't pay. That's not going to be a very large payday since you're just going to get banned almost immediately since we have all the proof on the forums.

 

[Heeatz]

If they are allowed vouches, candarin would be up around 100 vouches already... People can easy mass-vouch farm via dicing..

 

[Swadq]

You can't really scam the same way in dicing (unless people are paying you first) as you do in Runescape. You can't just get on and steal someone's party hat. First you need to be lucky and be up money and then you simply don't pay. That's not going to be a very large payday since you're just going to get banned almost immediately since we have all the proof on the forums.

I mean, do 100 dice duels, charge back any outgoing payments, keep any incoming. That would be a big payday.

 

[SuF]

I mean, do 100 dice duels, charge back any outgoing payments, keep any incoming. That would be a big payday.

Oh yea. I forgot that Paypal sucks. But people would just be able to charge back their own payments and if it is a fair dice roll, they should be on average fairly even.

 

i pm'd both n4n0 and sythe voicing my concerns but received no response as of approx 1 week ago

 

[Swadq]

Oh yea. I forgot that Paypal sucks. But people would just be able to charge back their own payments and if it is a fair dice roll, they should be on average fairly even.

That's true. I didn't think that Sythe supported counter-scamming though?

 

[Heads447]

That's true. I didn't think that Sythe supported counter-scamming though?

Richard allowed it a while back ago I believe.

 

That's true. I didn't think that Sythe supported counter-scamming though?

Richard allowed it a while back ago I believe.

Directly from the official rules: "NB: 'Counter-scamming' (i.e. attempting to recover your property from a scammer) is not against the rules, but attempting to scam someone who previously scammed you is. There is a big difference between the two. You should be aware that if you attempt to recover your property from a scammer, that scammer may attempt to report you on sythe.org. If you have insufficient evidence to back your claims that you were indeed recovering your stolen property the staff may be forced to ban you."

 

[Heads447]

Directly from the official rules: "NB: 'Counter-scamming' (i.e. attempting to recover your property from a scammer) is not against the rules, but attempting to scam someone who previously scammed you is. There is a big difference between the two. You should be aware that if you attempt to recover your property from a scammer, that scammer may attempt to report you on sythe.org. If you have insufficient evidence to back your claims that you were indeed recovering your stolen property the staff may be forced to ban you."

I'm quite aware of the official rules, thanks for that though... I was actually referring to an altercation that happened between R2P and Kevin001 which resulted in Richard ruling that counter-scamming was OK (as long as there is enough proof, etc.)

 

[SuF]

I'm quite aware of the official rules, thanks for that though... I was actually referring to an altercation that happened between R2P and Kevin001 which resulted in Richard ruling that counter-scamming was OK (as long as if there is enough proof, etc.)

The rules were amended after that I believe.