[N4n0]Buss Ban

If directly specifying I can beat "x"'s rate, that should be consider customer poaching...He just looks on people who posts on gold selling threads and SPECIFICALLY says I'll beat (Thread owner)'s prices. This means he OBVIOUSLY sent the PM as a result of the post on a thread, which would be equivalent to posting ON a thread.

Like I said earlier, I don't find a problem with people PMING my customers that they will beat COMPETITOR pricing - that's FAIR and just business. But when you directly target a user you have to ask yourself the question: "how did the PM sender know who to target?" I'm not the only IKOV seller on this forum. Moes, Dave, R2P, and Soul Rich all sell gold. Why did he have to specifically name me in all his PM's? Why were his PMs all directed to my customers?

Also, if I were able to PM anyone that posts on a low repped users thread saying I'll beat the lower rep user, no buyer would reasonably choose me over the low repped seller. After all, I have more vouches, higher donations, and I am offering a lower price. PM's that specifically target a seller SUPPRESSES competition in favor of high repped users. This in turns creates a monopoly as smaller users are forced out of the market.

The rule that I propose is that direct PM marketing should be allowed - but only after the intended receiver has shown interest in buying or selling gold (this is to avoid spammers pm'ing member lists, if people spam, they will still get infractions+bans) No direct competitor names should be included in the message - this way it's fair for everyone.

If Bus's ban is overturned and it is determined that direct PM's with competitor naming is allowed, trust me - I would PM every last one of the customers Bus has and offer a rate that he cannot beat and in turn, every one of his customers would choose me over him.

It's only a 3 day ban.

 

[nodnarbusn]

I don't understand most of you guys. If you worked at Target, would you go to Wal-Mart to advertise your goods? No. I see this as the same concept and believe the ban was fair.

Did you even read the thread? No one is actually arguing whether or not the act is ethical.

 

[sellinanbuyinrsgold]

And then there's this too. It's up to N4N0 to make the call. Trying to snipe a customer is cheeky, it's a black market yea, but that means people buy/sell. Where is there something that says stealing other peoples potential or non potential customers is allowed? If it's not allowed just don't do it. Everyone has their own business, some have been doing it longer and have more vouches than others, if a user wants to buy off you they'll contact you. If not why would you attempt to steal from someone?

Users will have more severe punishments as outlined below when major rules are broken.
If a user commits any unconscionable act not explicitly in the rules, or has repeatedly broken rules, the staff reserves the right to punish the user in any way.

 

[Dil]

And then there's this too. It's up to N4N0 to make the call. Trying to snipe a customer is cheeky, it's a black market yea, but that means people buy/sell. Where is there something that says stealing other peoples potential or non potential customers is allowed? If it's not allowed just don't do it. Everyone has their own business, some have been doing it longer and have more vouches than others, if a user wants to buy off you they'll contact you. If not why would you attempt to steal from someone?

It has been brought before a thread where Roary stated "sniping customers" are allowed. N4N0 responds with "I wasn't part of that." That is really unprofessionalism and a lousy excuse.

The Ban should not have happened because of the above. ^ There's nothing more to it.

 

[RSGoldstop]

It has been brought before a thread where Roary stated "sniping customers" are allowed. N4N0 responds with "I wasn't part of that." That is really unprofessionalism and a lousy excuse.

The Ban should not have happened because of the above. ^ There's nothing more to it.

This is more than sniping customers. This is directly targeting ONE competitor..

 

[Tyler]

This is more than sniping customers. This is directly targeting ONE competitor..

You realize your theory is completely shot out of the water if he has tried to do the same to one other person.


Quit crying

 

[sellinanbuyinrsgold]

Whether it be an admin ''abusing powers'' or not. If that's an issue you have then report it. The fact stands that bus was temp banned for doing something he shouldn't have been doing anyways. Just because something isn't against the rules doesn't mean you should do it. Almost like utilitarian ethics.
When users joined they agreed to the Sythe rules and certain staff have the ability to punish the users as they see fit. Even if it isn't against the rules, it's not that N4N0 was abusing his powers, he saw fit to punish bus and he has the right to do. You gave mods your word when you accepted the terms of service. If he really shouldn't have been banned then his dispute would've been overturned. If more than 1 mod+ agrees with something it can't just be power abuse.

 

[RSGoldstop]

You realize your theory is completely shot out of the water if he has tried to do the same to one other person.


Quit crying

And I'm the sure that other person would be displeased as well if they found out he was doing it. It's bad business practice to target 1 person like that.

 

[Dil]

This is more than sniping customers. This is directly targeting ONE competitor..

The whole idea is he shouldn't have done that-that's morally wrong as he worked with you and then when he left he started to get your sales.

But then again, this is a market. There's really no rules in a market other than don't scam. He techinally had the freedom to do it, even though he perhaps should have not.

Whether it be an admin ''abusing powers'' or not. If that's an issue you have then report it. The fact stands that bus was temp banned for doing something he shouldn't have been doing anyways. Just because something isn't against the rules doesn't mean you should do it. Almost like utilitarian ethics.
When users joined they agreed to the Sythe rules and certain staff have the ability to punish the users as they see fit. Even if it isn't against the rules, it's not that N4N0 was abusing his powers, he saw fit to punish bus and he has the right to do. You gave mods your word when you accepted the terms of service. If he really shouldn't have been banned then his dispute would've been overturned. If more than 1 mod+ agrees with something it can't just be power abuse.

But what if an Admin has already ruled this is allowed? And then you see another Admin banning a guy over what the other Admin said was okay. How does one know he's breaking the rules if it was oked by a man of high power?

 

Hello all,

I am reversing this ban.

For the record, PMing customers from other people's sales threads is not against the rules.

Sythe is run as a market economy, which functions on the free exchange of offer and acceptance.

We do not interfere in any way with people's ability to make an offer or acceptance in formation of a contract. The only time an offer is not allowed is if the offerer is posting on someone else's sales thread. The sales thread is considered their private domain for their staff and their customers only.

 

Hello all,

I am reversing this ban.

For the record, PMing customers from other people's sales threads is not against the rules.

The Sythe is run as a market economy, which functions on the free exchange of offer and acceptance.

We do not interfere in any way with people's ability to make an offer or acceptance in formation of a contract. The only time an offer is not allowed is if the offerer is posting on someone else's sales thread. The sales thread is considered their private domain for their staff and their customers only.

Knew this was coming, that's why I didn't bother weighing in

 

[Xier0]

Hello all,

I am reversing this ban.

For the record, PMing customers from other people's sales threads is not against the rules.

Sythe is run as a market economy, which functions on the free exchange of offer and acceptance.

We do not interfere in any way with people's ability to make an offer or acceptance in formation of a contract. The only time an offer is not allowed is if the offerer is posting on someone else's sales thread. The sales thread is considered their private domain for their staff and their customers only.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[sellinanbuyinrsgold]

Hello all,

I am reversing this ban.

For the record, PMing customers from other people's sales threads is not against the rules.

Sythe is run as a market economy, which functions on the free exchange of offer and acceptance.

We do not interfere in any way with people's ability to make an offer or acceptance in formation of a contract. The only time an offer is not allowed is if the offerer is posting on someone else's sales thread. The sales thread is considered their private domain for their staff and their customers only.

Which Is why I never referred to bus's ban as being justified by a rule. Thanks for clarification.

 

[Pain]

Thanks for the unban @ sythe, this has been fixed .

 

[Alch]

The only time an offer is not allowed is if the offerer is posting on someone else's sales thread. The sales thread is considered their private domain for their staff and their customers only.

Curious as to if that means trades that are currently in progress, or trades that have been completed. E.g is pming a past customer of someone by finding them on a page of someone's thread allowed as long as they aren't currently in a sale?

 

[Thatnameistaken]

Curious as to if that means trades that are currently in progress, or trades that have been completed. E.g is pming a past customer of someone by finding them on a page of someone's thread allowed as long as they aren't currently in a sale?

I'm pretty sure he means you can't go posting in other people's threads. EX: I come and post in your thread that I can offer 10% lower rates than what you offer, is not allowed.

 

Curious as to if that means trades that are currently in progress, or trades that have been completed. E.g is pming a past customer of someone by finding them on a page of someone's thread allowed as long as they aren't currently in a sale?

Just because they traded with you in past doesn't entitle them to only trade with you. Of course they can go elsewhere. This ain't no dictatorship.

 

Just because they traded with you in past doesn't entitle them to only trade with you. Of course they can go elsewhere. This ain't no dictatorship.

I think he meant PMing someone else's past/current customers, not specifically past customers of theirs who they see posting on someone else's thread

 

[Logic]

It's funny how most of the people who support this ban are the bigger sellers/buyers. Surely doesn't sound like market manipulation, not at all...

 

[penman2k7]

This is why:
1. Disputes shouldn't be handled by the staff member who banned "disputing user" . Disputes should be a chance at a second look, by a new set of eyes.

2. Staff should still make public reports and getting another staff's input BEFORE a ban is placed.

^^^^^

Nope.

http://www.sythe.org/denied-suggestions/1575492-suggestion-about-user-snipe-another-customer.html

Above is N4N0 denying a suggested rule for EXACTLY what OP was banned for.