I didnt know Sythe rules were applied based on a user his time on the forum

@King Made jurisdiction in this post of his, in regards to people claiming they have a name for sale which they do not have:

sage070 Possibly selling names he doesn't own

The person needed to show evidence of owning the names to a mod, couldnt and is now banned.

Not long after, this report was made: Milotic + Talon
Which claims that Talon does not own all the names which he claims to own. The names he claims to own are shown in the image below:



Unlike the earlier report however this was entirely ignored by moderators, assumingly because Talon is a longer forum member. He wasnt DNT'ed right of the bat, nor did anyone ask him to proof he has the names. Seemingly forum rules work differently when a forum member has an older join date? If so, when exactly can a person use these privileges?

 

This is so fucking riduclous llmfao

 

To add to this thread. I disagree with @Champ closing this report: Milotic + Talon

@Sythe his statement regarding Chad not being allowed to make any more reports shouldnt be the case with this report as it isnt just a report concerning Chad, its a report concerning the safety of Sythe's name selling market. In my opinion any report that can result in an increased safety of a certain market should be taken seriously, no matter who reports it. What will your reaction be if the accusations against Milotic and/or Talon were true and you end up only finding out after more people in the market were scammed?

Of course I am not indicating that it is proven that the report against Milotic / Talon is legit, but I think the report should be taken and researched seriously as it isnt just concering Chad's safety.

 

Just like you ban evading, Heads?

 

We no longer act as a DRO for Chad's reports. (That's not saying we do not take them into consideration)

The report was investigated, and is lacking proof. The Discord messages are spam, and proven to be just trolling back and forth.

That is false, and proof was provided of the name sales/ownership.

This report was open for a few days, and taken seriously. We care about the safety of our Sythe community. No report is just instantly closed of that magnitude (Unless it's flat out wrong), time was invested into the report.

This is incorrect. He was not DNT'd because no scams were taken place, and not enough proof was provided. Ownership of the names was provided as well as sales.

 

Not sure you realise just how much of a pain in the ass it would be to log into x number of accounts to prove ownership of names for no good reason other than 'you don't own those names lmao xd'.

 

Also I waited 24 hours for the guy to respond to me, he didn't. It was only then did I post, he had plenty of time to tell me.

 

As of yet, we haven't used Discord, so not sure how it works, but it would be great if staff could clarify something. It's probably a more generic inquiry rather than addition to the dispute/drama.

Could you please explain then why PaperShark received an initial 6 months/then 1 month ban for doxing threats, with Discord messages used as sole proof? What particular aspect made them qualify as valid evidence?

 

It wasn't just threatening. There's another reason why he got banned.

 

Unless it's related to a later scam report, then perhaps it would be great if this was clarified. Because from the pov of the "unenlightened" Sythe community, it was a 6 months ban - screenshots and drama over ban reason - ban reduced to 1 month. Publicly, however, we were shown Discord screenshots, and nothing else - no other reason stated whatsoever afaik.

 

Paper made the dispute referencing the screenshots for his main defense, which wasn't the significant issue, its the other information that is and should be private.

 

In reference to the sage070 report.

I can't understand why they were banned in the first place, reading the stickies, it doesn't state you have to provide proof of owning a name.

I can't see a rule broken that warrants a Dnt/Ban.

I feel that the wrong decision was made, that's my opinion though.

 

@Probemas You stated:

- It was not just a "Threat" it was a valid dox. Posting anyone's personal information with the sole intent on harming, or causing disruption is taken very seriously. There is a difference between spam on Discord, and a line that is an obvious intent on harming others.

 

Another scammer


I also personally feel this report wasn't handled in the way it should of been.
somebody disappearing/stopping replying to someone shouldn't be treated as an attempted scam.

"we are courts not police" is often a phrase thrown about, Where is the evidence to warrant a ban ?

its just the same with organising a trade and someone refuses to use a middleman.

E.g -https://www.sythe.org/threads/reporting-finestpker/

it goes on about free trade rules, why cant that person just decide not to carry on talking to them I don't think its banworthy, Maybe a TWC

Regarding the consistency of the way the reports are handled there all over the place one rule for one person, and another rule for the others.


That's, just my opinion. though and this isn't a dig at you @King I just think maybe it should of been different, As I said to you yesterday about how good you handled a certain report.
I think these weren't done to the best of your abilty

 

In response to @Rivenstarz

I think King handled that perfectly,
Another scammer and being banned for attempting to scam is justified, as you can see in the pictures " the trade was happening already" Seller said trading on OSRS, then buyer asked for a more recent picture. After which seller stopped responding to him. things that come into factor here why send an old picture in the first place? then say trading I am guessing to rush the buyer into making a decision. Then vanishes when the buyer requests a recent picture. Just my opinion though. Yes a TWC would have also been fine but he went with what he thought was right.

 

Those were photoshopped pictures, which ultimately means he was attempting to scam as he doesn't own that stock. A TWC wouldn't fit in any similar circumstance to that because he had no intention to do a legitimate trade what so ever. It's not similar to refusing a trade because as I stated before there was no attempt to do any type of trade. If that doesn't clarify the issue, then you're free to PM me about it anytime.

 

If you provide credible evidence that Talon doesnt own one of those names and present that to a mod, or even post it in the report section, then its at the mods discretion if the post was not a troll he will as Talon to show him the names.

We dont just ask people for proof of names because we want to, otherwise they may as well ask for proof of every name ever sold for ownership by every person on this site.

 

poor guy didn't get a chance to answer :c