Interesting, Interesting

[Emperor Nero]

So I always browse the pardon section for the new pardons and I saw this as the last posted in thread: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?p=9989541#post9989541

Just thought I would point out that chatlogs aren't proof; unless of course mods are above the rules.


Edit: I am not refuting the evidence presented. Just the medium in which it was presented because it is detailed in the guidelines that chat logs are not proof for substantiating claims.

 

[Herbeneering]

I don't think there above it, but i don't think Kero would lie about this type of trade, and at the little amount (For him). I don't think we should make a whole case about it really, since he described his situation. But I do see your concerns.

 

[Emperor Nero]

I don't think there above it, but i don't think Kero would lie about this type of trade, and at the little amount (For him). I don't think we should make a whole case about it really, since he described his situation. But I do see your concerns.

I see what you are saying, but if I made a scam report then chatlogs wouldn't be accepted so I just thought I would make a point.

 

[Imagine]

So I always browse the pardon section for the new pardons and I saw this as the last posted in thread: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?p=9989541#post9989541

Just thought I would point out that chatlogs aren't proof; unless of course mods are above the rules.

There's a difference. Kero is using those to prove his innocence. The other guy also has no proof, so even Kero's chat logs are better than no proof. In addition, N4n0 also screenshared with Kero to see those unedited logs

 

[Emperor Nero]

There's a difference. Kero is using those to prove his innocence. The other guy also has no proof, so even Kero's chat logs are better than no proof. In addition, N4n0 also screenshared with Kero to see those unedited logs

It works both ways though, I am not refuting his evidence I am just saying that the mods have to play by the rules too.

 

[SuF]

Chat logs are used to supplement information that the staff already has.

 

[Emperor Nero]

Chat logs are used to supplement information that the staff already has.

So can I use chat logs to supplement my information?

Let's say if I appeal a ban for some reason, maybe an account that I hypothetically sold 3 months ago and it gets recovered by the original owner. I stated in the chats that I am not the original owner and I took pictures but it has been so long that I have since cleared my 'evidence folder'; I retain the chat logs though.

 

[SuF]

So can I use chat logs to supplement my information?

If you are reporting a scammer, almost always that is a no. If you notice in the thread you posted, the accuser didn't actually provide any proof for his assertion. If he wants to come forward with his own logs that contradict the staff member's, he may do so and the staff will move on from there.

 

[Emperor Nero]

So I can use chat logs to refute anothers claims but not if I am establishing my own claims? Though only if they first do not establish their own evidence? Which members chat logs are you going to believe though, if they also produce chat logs? You can't take one persons word over another because that is unfair.

I am just trying to clarify everything, because there are so many things that go along with the rules that are so, so, so very vague.

 

[KerokeroCola]

You have to be kidding me, Emperor Nero. There was no proof at all that the person was even 603, nor was there proof that I sold him an account, nor was there proof of absolutely anything. I supplied the chat log voluntarily, and there was no "case closed" based on the chat logs because the case was never opened at all. If any other mod had read the dispute before I did, they would have merely said "Provide proof this really happened" and closed the report, because that is normal procedure for scam reports.

If "6 0 3" or his impersonator had any real proof provided, my chat logs would not have held up. However, there would have been no real proof whatsoever in this instance because he did sell it back to me. He would have to have faked the evidence.

 

[SuF]

So I can use chat logs to refute anothers claims but not if I am establishing my own claims? Though only if they first do not establish their own evidence? Which members chat logs are you going to believe though, if they also produce chat logs? You can't take one persons word over another because that is unfair.

I am just trying to clarify everything, because there are so many things that go along with the rules that are so, so, so very vague.

Pictures > Chat logs. If there is other evidence chat logs might be used but that only happens when the staff digs deeper and asks for them. That doesn't mean in any way they are proof for anything but rather just give the staff a better understanding of what is going on to try to make the correct decision.

 

[Emperor Nero]

You have to be kidding me, Emperor Nero. There was no proof at all that the person was even 603, nor was there proof that I sold him an account, nor was there proof of absolutely anything. I supplied the chat log voluntarily, and there was no "case closed" based on the chat logs because the case was never opened at all. If any other mod had read the dispute before I did, they would have merely said "Provide proofif this really happened" and closed the report, because that is normal procedure for scam reports.

If "6 0 3" or his impersonator had any real proof provided, my chat logs would not have held up. However, there would have been no real proof whatsoever in this instance because he did sell it back to me. He would have to have faked the evidence.

I am not arguing the validity of your proof, as the original post states. I am trying to clear up what is and is not allowed. I know you wouldn't fake proofs... As I said there are a lot of 'grey' areas in the rules.

Pictures > Chat logs. If there is other evidence chat logs might be used but that only happens when the staff digs deeper and asks for them. That doesn't mean in any way they are proof for anything but rather just give the staff a better understanding of what is going on to try to make the correct decision.

Thank you SuF.

I am just trying to find a definite in the vagueness of the rules and how the staff deal with things.

 

[Karl]

The fact is is that its not a case, ergo its not really evidence.

 

[Emperor Nero]

The fact is is that its not a case, ergo its not really evidence.

You can lock this Karl. I was just wondering about it.

 

[Karl]

Done, I'm sure any mod would answer anything related to the matter if you asked them in PM.