Mods have different standings on same situation

Cool, I'm not a vader im SuF friend I had my ip checked 3 times yesterday. Now please, get off your high horse.
Oosh checked my ip and so did karl thanks!

 

Try to keep this on-topic and not devolve into a circlejerk of vader accusations/denials. I for one think this is a very valid point that needs to be properly addressed

 

Exactly ^ your putting your hard earned Sythe account at risk by affiliating yourself with randoms.

Agreed.

 

If only their business partner scammed, and they took no part in it, the other person (regardless if mod), should not be held responsible that they had no action in.

 

By partnering with another individual, you're tying your name, reputation, & trust with your business partner. In Dalpra's case, the O N L Y reason why Onex was getting sales was because Dalpra had vouched for him and publicly released that they were doing business T O G E T H E R.

Elaborate scams could easily be executed if business partners were not held reponsible for each other's actions.

For example,

Moderator + Newcomer start a business together to purchase RSGP, Newcomer = Moderator's irl friend or acquaintance they met over the internet who uses a VPN to create multiple Sythe accounts registered under different IP addresses.

Gold Sellers contact the Moderator looking to sell RSGP, Moderator tells the seller that he/she is busy and to contact his business partner instead [Newcomer]

Gold Seller trades 1 Billion GP to the newcomer since he was instructed to do so by the Moderator, newcomer runs off with the GP and gets banned, and the Mod gets off scot-free. Off-site, they split the profits 50-50 ($250 each)

Newcomer changes his IP address or purchases another VPN/VPS for $20/month, and partners with the Moderator again under a different Sythe alias. Together they pull the same scam over and over again and the Moderator gets away with it since he/she didn't actually trade directly with gold sellers.

 

This is so easy to pull off, the problem is I personally don't think the staff is smart enough to do this, now we're just giving them ideas and working against ourselves. :nuts:

 

I trust our current staff team not to pull off anything like what I stated, but hopefully this will get a good look at and the most recent cases [Most notably the Usairways or Hookups] will be set as precedents to avoid future controversies.

 

If what the guy said is true then the gold guy pleasentr2 and dalpra were both mods and didn't have to pay and as others said users have scammed with partners either they should both be banned or either some like hook ups as partnered with someone new he was banned

correct me if I am wrong I haven't beeen around here at all for that.

 

Why do people ignore posts that actually make sense? A partnership essentially means that you are in business together and as long as someone is buying through the business then both partners should be accountable. Once you get into more than two person partnerships, there will obviously be a leader and that person should be held accountable. Its really not that hard of a concept to grasp.

 

Both should be held responsible, not just one.

If I'm doing A robbery, & my partner is the driver, I go steal the money & my partner helps us get away, I go to jail... he does ALSO. The damn guy is an assist to the crime, whether or not it was his intention for it to happen. In the end, you chose the guy as your partner so you must take full responsibility for YOURS & HIS actions as HE must do the same for YOU.

 

I wrote up some rules on this issue for the staff as I was asked to by plznate after the dalpra incident. I dont think nate ever posted them in the lounge, however.

 

The way I see it:

A partnership is when two or more people enter into a contractual agreement to be co-owners of an organization. Partnerships by nature have an unlimited liability, and, should such a liability accumulate all partners are held responsible to pay the dues even if it means self-sacrifice of their own property. Unless a contract has been signed stipulating that certain members of the partnership have a greater responsibility, the liabilities must be met by the partners, or bankruptcy is filed.

Applying this to Sythe. Two or more members (usually two) enter into a social contract as co-owners of a certain business. If a liability is incurred by one member, it is held accountable to the both of them. In Dalpra's case though he did not scam, he is still responsible for any liabilities incurred by his business. As it stands, due to the fact that his otherhas incurred the liability and undoubtedly fled, the liability falls on him or the other respective partners where applicable to pay the liability.

Cutting out all jargon:

When two people enter into a mutual agreement to conduct a business together, they should both be held responsible for any amounts owed as a result of the businesses failures. In the case of a partner scamming, the other partners are bound, and required to pay the amounts owed. Should funds be insufficient, to emulate real life where bankruptcy is filed, a TwC or ban should be issued depending on the severity and mitigating circumstances.

They should definitely NOT get off scotch-free.