Full response to the "Secrets about Sythe" eBook

Grave, you're arguing for the sake of arguing, you know exactly why this has been made public, so it can be debunked.

 

I don't see what all the hype is about. It's a website for people to trade virtual goods, and have discussions about almost anything. I find this all nonsense, however I haven't been here long enough to notice the precedence of the situation.

 

Thanks for clearing things up, Govind.

Several high donors have been banned as soon as something was brought up against them.

 

As Wulf said your donation amount has NEVER played a role in whether we ban people or not. Our rules are the same for everyone.


Also its administrator privilege to bend rules as we see fit, as "bending" the leaking rule is perfectly fine here.

 

Once again, had this been posted by the author as the thread, you could quote entire parts of the argument, but that's not how it works. Since it was published as an eBook for sale, it should be treated as such, and therefore it's appropriate to quote parts of it. You can still make as strong of an argument by paraphrasing what the document stated that you're arguing against. If someone wants to verify the validity, they can purchase the eBook. It's how it works. Obviously it's not a copyrighted work or under any licences, but that still doesn't make it the right thing to do, especially when it's against the Sythe rules.

I'll just leave off my end of the argument here, as there's nothing more I can say if an administrator wants to bend the rules based on the situation.

Maybe you should bend the scamming rules to fund your living expenses.

 

Grave, stop defending a corrupt scammer. I think I can call him like that.

 

Thanks for the transparency with the users! Answered a lot of questions for people, definitely the right idea to clear this up.

 

Maybe you should get realistic. Just drop it.

 

It's hard to define what realistic is for one person to another. I, for example, have a set of standards I never break, which is why I wouldn't even scam hundreds of thousands of dollars if given the opportunity. However, it appears that most of the community likes to make exceptions. Thank god we don't do that in real life, or else judges could screw over whoever they wanted by disregarding laws when they saw fit.

You're the one who needs to get "realistic" or at least respect the fundamental laws of the world.


Alright, let me drop it.

 

Grave out of interest, why do you care so much?

 

Because Finn 'bent' the rules to ban me from this community, and it scares me when rules are bent, because bending the rules are for tyrants.

 

This is Richard's site, and its Richard's rules. If someone is using HIS site to sell an eBook to slander HIS site, he has every right to protect what is his. I'm 100% sure if somebody made a bullshit eBook about RSUltimate scamming and it was coming from a once reputable source, you wouldn't sit on the sidelines and do nothing about it either.

This ebook had the potential to hurt this site, the very site they were selling it on, so if you ask me its fair game. If you want to sell an ebook, at least fill it with facts, not fiction.

It amazes me that you're picking up for someone who is scamming every person who buys the guide, because no matter how you look at it, telling people that its fact when its not is scamming.

The eBook needed to be kept from the market and all of its false statements needed to be debunked. This was the best way to do both, and I commend Govind for doing such.

If you really thought the Administrators here were scamming, you would have left the site already. Its just the opposite and you're simply, as Karl said, arguing for the sake of arguing.

Theres a difference between bending the rules for the better and bending the rules to hurt people. Its time you stop being so blind and realize this.

 

Sure, Richard can be a complete asshole if he wants, and he can even bend the rules to make money, but that's called corruption. I'd like to think that we don't like corruption on Sythe.org. And no, we allow customers to openly criticize us, and respond to it as we see fit. However, if someone published an eBook about RSUltimate and sold it, I would not leak it.

Yes, there's a difference, but where do we draw the line? And if admins can openly bend the rules they want, what's it to stop them from going too far? Exhibit 1: Finn

 

1) This would constitute fair use given the circumstances.

2) The "book" isn't a book. It is an interview with "Finn". I can obtain permission to use "his" answers but I doubt that is necessary.

 

Other admins and staff stop admins when they need to, if someone gets out of line someone else will speak up.

 

But the interview was for sale, making it an eBook or whatever you want to call it, and protecting it under Sythe's leaking rules.

How long did it take for someone to speak up against Finn? Why did you guys let him ban all those people? Until the restitution system, everyone ignored it as if they deserved the ban.

 

This is simply an absolutely retarded statement to make, been explained 42 times in this thread why it was made public.

It took waaay too long but you have to understand how powerful and manipulative he was which only the staff can fully attest to. Finn was all about control, and he was a little weasel who had that game perfected.

 

Your reasoning for it is what's absolutely retarded: Oh, we don't like the content and believe it's untrue, and therefore, we have the right to release it for free. What kind of an example are you guys setting? This could have been handled in a much more mature way where it was criticized by quoting important parts of the piece, as people all over the world do.

Okay, so Finn was able to become powerful and manipulative by manipulating the rules, but it's fine to manipulate/bend the rules... because? Surely it won't happen again, and are we supposed to believe that? Please just consider having transparent rules and fully obeying by them. There's absolutely no reason to bend them under any circumstance if you make the rules very clear. Give me an example of a situation where it would be appropriate and I can easily shoot it down. Most of these bans where the rules are bent are political, and so is leaking this guide.

 

1) This would constitute fair use given the circumstances.

2) The "book" isn't a book. It is an interview with "Finn". I can obtain permission to use "his" answers but I doubt that is necessary.

3) Staff reserve the right to ban or infract for any unconscionable act. The above rules and associated punishments only apply when the staff can reasonably judge that a user does not deserve some other, perhaps more severe form of punishment for any unconscionable act they might make on the forums.

4) Guides that are fundamentally flawed (i.e. guides & eBooks that do not work) should be reported in the Report a Scammer section, which can be found here

We haven't bent the rules. We haven't broken the law. We haven't done anything wrong.

 

Could you show me the rule where it says if a guide is "flawed" we have the right to redistribute it? And obviously your third point allows the staff to do whatever they want, and it's exactly what Finn used to do what he wanted. We need to get rid of it, but obviously it'll stay there so the staff has flexibility.