N4N0's MSN

It's just not right. You may be right these people may have wanted to make a quick buck, but in general it's not fair...

 

That's the thing though entrapment isn't about tricking.

If it ended here:

then that would be offering an opportunity and would be considered a sting, no persuasion or appeals were used.

Here's where the persuasion comes in.

After I denied wanting in on the scam, it was followed by:

Here's the persuasion aspect of it, as N4n0 said before the average sythe user is stupid so people would be persuaded by this. It appeals to emotions, and reason if this was sent to somebody who was in dire need of money in real life say they were in financial difficulty simply giving them the opportunity may not be enough but supporting it with the arguments shown above I'm positive it would be. Which would make it an entrapment since they otherwise would not have but this is basically like putting marijuana in a persons hand and arresting them for possession. You guys gave them the evidence and then persuaded them into using it so it is entrapment.

This is good to hear assuming it doesn't mean fooling more people into thinking they will make a quick buck.

 

Viou does have a point, but what's the point in not being allowed to have fun once in a while and doing something good with it as well?

For example Time to buy probably would have ended up getting banned on a big trade. So now he will be prevented from scamming the bigger amount.

I don't see this can do any harm. Good job guys
I yeah, I lolled quite hard irl

 

K i honestly give up on this but in all seriousness i've had my fair share in court not by me but by friends and relatives.
"
01/12/2011 6:33:55 PM Punjabi3 n4n0 lol ur still hacked ehh
01/12/2011 6:34:55 PM n4n0 Punjabi3 yeah but u could always help me get some more pepole
01/12/2011 6:34:56 PM n4n0 Punjabi3 ill share
01/12/2011 6:35:28 PM Punjabi3 n4n0 oh that sounds so fun! after that can you suck on my cock?
01/12/2011 6:35:37 PM n4n0 Punjabi3 nah but easy money in your pocket
01/12/2011 6:35:47 PM n4n0 Punjabi3 not hard w/ a trusted email
01/12/2011 6:35:49 PM n4n0 Punjabi3 u kno u want to
01/12/2011 6:36:08 PM Punjabi3 n4n0 how much u scammed like 1bil?
01/12/2011 6:36:25 PM n4n0 Punjabi3 about 8b so far
01/12/2011 6:36:29 PM Punjabi3 n4n0 rofl
01/12/2011 6:36:34 PM Punjabi3 n4n0 dont boost your self
01/12/2011 6:36:37 PM n4n0 Punjabi3 nah
01/12/2011 6:36:42 PM n4n0 Punjabi3 i got a lot of ppl before he posted the thread
01/12/2011 6:36:48 PM n4n0 Punjabi3 ive had his msn all day
01/12/2011 6:37:58 PM n4n0 Punjabi3 so
01/12/2011 6:38:00 PM n4n0 Punjabi3 u interested?
"
Wether it matters or not. In a United States court this would be classified as entrapment. Get a lawyer to confirm it he'll say the same. My 2 cents.

 

i just rofllmao'd

 

Similarly to others, I had the same "assholes got what they deserved, etc" opinion but after reading through the thread.. I wondered to myself whether this was ok or no.

I think it succeeded as an overall operation but at what price...?

This played on peoples emotions. Some people may have felt that if they help the scammer out then they are not doing it themselves and the next person would help, so its justifiable. I agree with Punjabi3 that in the US this is considered entrapment.

 

Great job n4n0 & Govind. Btw was it Govind or n4n0 himself who talked to me:

 

Lol, that was Govind. About 90% of the conversations that took place were him.

 

Okay... I'll clarify some things.

All of the people who were banned were people who forged proof of their own free will.

Everyone on this list did one of the following:

• Posted on the thread claiming to have been scammed
• PMed n4n0 claiming to have been scammed
• Confronted [email protected] to get him to admit to scamming them

They were not entrapped.

Two, I can't speak about any conversations that I didn't do myself (like the one Punjabi posted).

 

Punjabi3 is not on that list though, and from the conversation he posted he was clearly offered more than just an opportunity to scam. After saying no and being totally disgusting with "the hacker", whoever was chatting with him at that point pushed him even further, almost goading him into agreeing to help scam, just so that you could add another name to the list of users that would be banned. That would definitely be considered an attempt to entrap him, and completely oversteps just simply offering him a mere opportunity.

To me, it definitely looks like whoever that person was took things a step over the line by trying to coerce him into helping, even after he said no. If you were just simply looking for people who could be "potential" scammers, then I am surprised you were not satisfied with the simple, and straightforward answer that he provided you, which was "no". Trying to persuade him even further after that point is a bit shady imo... I wonder if there are any other users who had similar conversations with "n4n0" that we have not yet seen?

 

That conversation was probably the only one of its kind because 99% of staging the "hacker" was done by me and I never used tactics like that >_>

The staff does not condone that kind of pressuring, though, and if someone who had been banned for that reason had disputed they'd be unbanned. No one was banned for that though.

 

Punjabi is the only one I extended that offer to, and looking back at it I'm glad he's the only one who I did it with (I'm not saying I'm glad I did it to him)

Punjabi, I wish to extend my sincerest apologies for the discussion in question. I've thought about it and I understand and admit it was a foolish move on my part. I do also want to commend you for being a solid and legitimate user however. You handled the temptation very well and I'm proud of you for that.

Again, my apologies to you as well as everyone else for that. I took that one a little too far.

 

Fair enough. I was just wondering if there were any other similar conversations out there. I still believe you guys had good intentions with this whole sting operation, but maybe at some point, whoever that was talking to punjabi3 (I believe it had to be n4n0) started to get a little carried away with things?

Like Scottay said earlier, "I feel like it was probably done more out of entertainment and curiosity purposes, rather then the thought that it would effectively catch people."

This whole conversation with Punjabi3 seems to support that notion. Maybe during this part of the "sting", the person in question began to stray a little from their original intentions and began to run with their roll of playing "n4n0's hacker" and tried to continually persuade another person to become a victim to this sting?

Luckily, Punjabi3 is an honest user and did not give in to the temptation no matter how much he was pressured to do so. If he had been banned instead, I think this particular conversation would definitely be considered entrapment, and he would probably have to be unbanned on the grounds that he originally said no, and likely only gave in to increased pressure to commit wrongdoings.

EDIT: It took me awhile to write this because I had to keep leaving the computer to deal with small irl issues, but I see that n4n0 has apologized and acknowledged that his conversation with Punjabi3 crossed the line slightly. Your ability to take responsibility for your actions just like the rest of us have to is very admirable n4n0. I will not pursue this point any further, as I feel my message was delivered and considered, and that an appropriate course of action has been taken in admitting & acknowledging the tactics used in that particular conversation were slightly out of line.

 

As long as none of those people on the list were spoken to the same way I was then they should stay banned, if they created the proof and were not simply handed it then they deserve it, I just had the assumption that they were spoken to the same way I was.

I do believe the whole situation could have been handled better such as at the end this thread was a slap in the face to read after attempting to help you when we thought you were in serious trouble.

Anyways like I said above if they weren't handed the proof then I support their bans.

And I accept your apology just next time try not making it seem like a big troll.

 

Due to the questions/statements that people have been coming forward with, I wish to clarify one thing to everyone seeing as it would appear that a lot of people are a little confused by our tactics.

After posting the thread claiming my MSN had been hacked, we did NOT message people first.

EVERYONE that we banned had contacted us first (Be it via PM or MSN) and claimed to have been scammed. They went out of their way to begin the discussion and to make themselves look like the innocent party. The ONLY case where either one of us stepped over the line and started trying to entrap/convince anyone to do anything was my conversation w/ Punjabi, which I've already addressed.

 

I hope that's not all its taught you guys..

 

Some staff have learned more from it, don't worry.

 

ofcourse not, I was just saying that they're also things that we gained from this.


Govind has said what i think of this situation

 

People who think we should be reprimanded for the sting are frankly being completely unreasonable. This was a sting operation just like the ones policemen do in real life. Sythe told me ex post facto that the underlying idea of a sting operation was fine.

We netted 24 users, anyone who understates the achievement either doesn't know how many people are normally banned for scamming each day or are intentionally trying to misrepresent it.

 

To be honest, I love this haha.