[RESOLVED] Keep Treatment Equal For All Users

If trusted users were getting away with scams because they weren’t being dnt’d you’d have a case. They aren’t.

 

It's got nothing to do with getting away. Of course they'll always be punished for scamming. It's the prevention principle.

 

Are you sure? I can easily dig up a few 'trusted' longtime, 200-300$ donors who scamquit sythe and dragged alot of money with them in the shortest time possible by exploiting their status.

I'll start: @Weeblord69, @Milotic, @Alice, @Vlad ex-staff member hmm... to name a few.

You still so sure trusted members are infallible?

That's a very dangerous sweeping statement you're making. We're all human here.

 

But i feel like you are confusing trusted with donator they are in no way one in the same thing.

 

All the said users I've mentioned(there are more) were large donators and trusted in sythe. Ask anyone here. Heck, vlad was an ex staff member from what i can see in previous threads. So no, I havent mixed the two up.

A large donator may not be an active trusted member, but a active trusted member is often(but not always) a large donor. I simply used donor status as a defining factor.

 

All of the above users were immediately DNT'd/Banned once suspicions and multiple reports were coming in. The basis of this thread is the lack of DNT on reputable users when a report comes up. Staff can use their judgement on the situation to decide whether the DNT is applicable and needed at all depending on the amount of scam risk varying from user to user. The members listed by you are not comparable to a highly trusted ranked user such as R2.

As mentioned before, "Applying DNT mechanistically to anyone who owes a debt regardless of their standing and reputation in the community would make DNT meaningless and prevent it doing its job."

 

U have just admitted that you do not treat everyone equally!

 

Two 2017 members (Vlad had an 8 year gap in his Sythe activity) and two members operating in by far the sketchiest RS market there is are far from trustworthy buddy. I think this is a good example of why people should actually do proper research on who they trade with.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that people who run large scale business and can face serious legal consequences for their actions aren't a risk of running off with a couple of hundred USD...
Do people not trust staff to correctly distinguish the few cases where this is the case or something?

 

Looking at some of the argument Plenty of *Highly trusted* Members have scam quit, I think it's unfair to assume that they are going to re-pay there debt. What if R2 was about to scam quit, You there have admitted that you would allow highly trusted members more time to repay what is owed in that time they could have scammed thousands.

All I see on here is mods banging on about protection about scammers, But there was no protection in this case whatsoever.

But I got a reply off the Owner, Moving up in the world here boys.

 

R2Pleasent wasn't supposed to have incurred the debt in the first place. He guaranteed payment within 18 hours and took longer than 48, forcing his victim to make a report, which took an additional ~24 hours to resolve. R2P incurs no penalty at any time for screwing over his customer, even after his customer has to resort to exposing the debt he called for to the public and site staff. By allowing R2P to continue operations as normal, you've done nothing to hasten the payment of his already overdue funds. And even worse, the title of the report is changed to "resolved", meaning people searching for evidence that R2P might be an untrustworthy trade partner won't even find evidence of his poor reputation.

 

Ive had an experience on this site with a Mod that i felt (and still feel) was treated poorly. Im not clued up on this exact report but in my opinion if you cant hold the moderators of this site to the same standard as anyone then theres no hope.

Rules are rules, no exceptions.

 

When the person making the rules tells you how they’re to be interpreted, that’s how they’ll be interpreted.

 

We are a free market. He probably wont have repeat business with this customer and other customers who have seen the report.

 

Free market doesn't mean you get to scam people?

Threatening to not do return business is already implied by the fact the customer had to report the debt in order to get his overdue payment. Look at what he said in the report:

Staff didn't even bother to rule based on the evidence the victim provided. R2P changed his story for why he didn't pay the debt - first the livechat op was "waiting on a manager" (screenshot), then over 2 days later Will says he can't afford a $400 payment because he misallocated a $30,000 cashflow. There's pure favoritism at play here, "Highly trusted" people do not come up short for $400.

Ofc this site's scammer protection policies are a joke anyways, I'm just taking the piss.

 

The livechat operator was indeed waiting on the manager, which was R2P. Mistakes happen in businesses, no one is perfect. R2P is not a risk to scam by any means. He explained why the issue was caused and paid it once he could. This happens with every website, you should know this since you have sold a lot of gold in the past.

Why give R2P a trade with caution when he has not earned a TWC? If your argument is that anyone should be TWCed as soon as an issue as meager as this arises, then most of the people on this website would be TWCed more than once throughout their stay, especially goldsellers who run into issues here and there.

 

Never suggested a TWC.

 

If you were the one to handle that report, how would you have handled it then? Maybe I misunderstand you from your tone.

 

So what earns a Twc. I think when you delay payments by days, then that warrants trading with caution. He held someones funds for a lot longer than the guarantee. What if someone needed that money to eat?