If you make a rule enforce it.

If that rule was upheld, I would never vouch for anyone. It's absurd to think that a staff member would be held liable in the event of a scam. That staff member is vouching because they truly think that user is trusted, they shouldn't be held accountable. If that's upheld, I doubt aspiring MMs would get any vouches, simply because no one wants to be liable in a deal they're not really apart of.

I'm not supporting the rule, just pointing it out tbh.

 

I'm not supporting the rule, just pointing it out tbh.

Fair point. As I mentioned earlier, in this specific instance, Snow Patrol is claiming to be hacked, which means he did not scam. That would make his situation not applicable for the rule, since it specifies "you"

 

Fair point. As I mentioned earlier, in this specific instance, Snow Patrol is claiming to be hacked, which means he did not scam. That would make his situation not applicable for the rule, since it specifies "you"

who vouched pen lol

 

who vouched pen lol

Still not sure who pen is exactly. Only story I know is Finn, was he an OMM tho?

 

Still not sure who pen is exactly. Only story I know is Finn, was he an OMM tho?

Pen was admin omm who skemmed phat lel

 

[Boney]

Fair point. As I mentioned earlier, in this specific instance, Snow Patrol is claiming to be hacked, which means he did not scam. That would make his situation not applicable for the rule, since it specifies "you"

That's not really true because it's never been that way. The rule says "you" which in this case is directly refer to the Sythe user profile with OMM status. The definition of "You" is "used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing." in which case the speaker is addressing a vouch for that "Sythe Username" which in no way implies a real name/identity of a figure in person. In no cases ever when scamming occurs is it up to the victim to "verify" the real life identity of who committed the scam. All that matters is the SYTHE USERNAME was used to scam and if it can be proven with evidence that it was that "Username" by means of a PM/skype/post. This is why it's of great importance to secure accounts.

With that being said the text doesn't for sure imply that they are responsible for paying back in full but it directly states the user making the vouch will "be punished" which could mean something as a simple infraction or be as extreme as a perm ban. Since the "punishment" hasn't been made directly in the text it would be important to decide something Not saying this rule is a good one but it should be followed since it was made. It's only fair that some sort of punishment is given for this case and maybe change it after but rules are rules and should be followed or changed don't just "ignore" them because they don't make sense.

 

[Tyler]

@Im Solo

Thanks for the suggestion, I'm going to post in the OMM forums regarding this specific rule, as it seems to be completely outdated.

We (the staff team) should be enforcing all posted rules, unless of course extraneous circumstances or they are outdated rules.

I'll move this to approved as I'm sure the specific rule you are talking about will be removed after discussions by OMM and possibly staff.