N4N0's MSN

[xxtrem3]

We didn't want people to think that n4n0 had faked the hacking so he could get away with scamming a ton of people.

That is the major flaw of this method to flush out scammers.

If, by any chance, in the near future, N4N0 or any of you guys decides to scam tons of people, you guys can use this same shit and cover up what you guys have done. And by that, chances are most who were scammed are new members.

"No, the won't scam. They are mods and highly trusted" is nonsense. Nothing last forever, not even space and time, let alone mere trust.

 

[Shaaaaun]

Genius.

 

[Zerkerfist]

It's an interesting situation. Obviously there are some community members who are disappointed with this predicament. As a result, there's an internal discussion regarding this sort of operation in the future and how they should be put into action. Please remember to provide productive feedback. Insulting the staff doesn't help us improve.

I am very happy to hear that this is being discussed among the staff.

This situation has sparked a heated debate about the morality behind these sorts of operations, and I'm glad the unexpected negative response from the majority of the community has raised questions in the minds of the administration, mods, and the Sythe users alike. Lets take this situation and make something positive out of it.

Insulting the staff is taking things a bit too far in my opinion, but expressing outrage and disappointment in the actions of those involved in a respectful, productive way is the only way you can hope for this issue to be addressed properly. Like Nick said, no matter whose side you are on and whether you approve/disapprove of this sting operation, you should post your feedback here in a respectful, constructive manner and maybe something positive will come out of it.

In the end, the Mods involved were only trying to make this community a better place, and a safer place for us to hang out & trade. The less scammers that reside in the community, the better for us all. We can help them do their jobs to the best of their ability by providing them with the feedback they need to plan out better ways to execute these sorts of operations.

 

[Scottay]

I'm quite surprised that this ploy was allowed at all, I think that this is a topic really similar to counter scamming (which I'm pretty sure is not allowed either....) I just got internet back, and am just reading about this now but at first glance I find it ridiculous.

Granted, you had good intentions, I just don't think that it is at all right for staff to be lying and doing actions like this. If a normal user were to do something like this, they would get banned, obviously. That is why I don't think that it is right for Staff to do things like this, it is setting a very bad example for members, let alone it is a bad act to begin with. The methods for catching scammers that are already in place work fine, this was unnecessary and I feel like it was probably done more out of entertainment and curiosity purposes, rather then the thought that it would effectively catch people.

I don't really sympathize for the people banned, they are obviously idiots, and this ploy just gave you guys a reason to ban them. Although I just don't agree with the methods that were used to go about doing so. It is all over now, and there is nothing more that really matters but I don't see how it should even be a debate for you guys about using methods like this. I would really really hope that this type of thing wouldn't be attempted again, just let the current system do what it has always done...

This is just my thought at a quick glance, I am just seeing this all now so my judgement is just based off of the first posts in this thread and the n4n0s msn is hacked thread. Ill try to post a little bit more later..

 

[Lucster]

Also glad that i provided my unrequested knowledge and assistance to n4n0, and same for future references i am always here to help

I keep seeing these statements, okay we understand you tried to help please stop pushing to get your modship lol.

 

[Beav3r]

(In hindsight) it did appear suspicious that not a single person produced proof of a trade window.

 

[Sanctuary]

Phew, that was quite the read.

People can stop beating the dead horse now. It's in the past now, and there's nothing we can do to change that. But, with that being said, clearly the way they went about doing things was frowned upon by a fairly large group of people. The staff already stated they were having a private discussion on whether or not these tactics are "legal", per-say, and I don't think there's much more that needs to be said on the matter.

 

[gds08]

I think this was a great idea, only people with the intentions of scamming were effected and as far as I can see thats all that matters.

 

[Punjabi3]

You can't claim entrapment unless the users were FORCED to claim they were scammed. This is not entrapment, since the intent was there. All the staff did was display a door, it was up to the users whether or not they went through it.

If the staff pushed the users through the door, then yes, entrapment and it's wrong.

Overall I say +1, finally taking a pro-active approach to weeding out the dishonest users.

Entrapment: the luring by a law-enforcement agent of a person into committing a crime.

I know they aren't law-enforcement agents but technically over sythe they are the ones who control the dealings.

This is basically no different than what blade bro did to you. I'm surprised your applauding it.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/hackere.png/

^that is entrapment offering somebody the opportunity to commit a crime.

 

[Govind]

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.

^^^^^

 

[Beav3r]

Agreed. Nothing "illegal" about this.

But the main "other side" to this would be mistrust of staff with regards to announcements for the foreseeable future.

 

[mtn dew]

Phew, that was quite the read.

People can stop beating the dead horse now. It's in the past now, and there's nothing we can do to change that. But, with that being said, clearly the way they went about doing things was frowned upon by a fairly large group of people. The staff already stated they were having a private discussion on whether or not these tactics are "legal", per-say, and I don't think there's much more that needs to be said on the matter.

Haha, hell yes it was legal. I applaud this method. My oppinion of this site and moderation team has slightly changed. ^_^ I was wondering why it took so long to recover an emai. :laugh:

 

[Delta Squad]

isn't this what blade bro was banned for? purposely doing something to get someone banned? yes ik one was a link, and the other was trying to get freegold, but both have the same intentions. Would be nice to see some double standards around here.


Inb4mods/adminsgettodowhattheywish.

I am nethier defending nor attacking any of those names up above, but the method that was used.

 

[Govind]

The difference is that this was done with the intention of helping rid the community of scammers.

 

[Emperor Nero]

So I can scam someone if it is going to help the community? Because that is how it seems to be, if you can ban someone for this act but applaud it if it is to 'help the community'.

This is an extreme example, but the point is there none-the-less.

 

[Govind]

So I can scam someone if it is going to help the community? Because that is how it seems to be, if you can ban someone for this act but applaud it if it is to 'help the community'.

That made no sense at all. This wasn't a scam; no one was robbed of anything. How can you compare this with scamming?

We presented users with what appeared to them to be an opportunity to scam, and those who took it were deemed as having the potential to scam, and were thus banned, because they'd made it clear that they'd have eventually scammed someone else.

 

[Emperor Nero]

Blade bro presented the user with a chance to get banned for doing something (Warez links, if I remember correctly) but yet he was banned for entrapping the user into performing an action against the rules. Isn't it the same thing? One just wasn't 'for the community'?

 

[blindkilla]

Entrapment: the luring by a law-enforcement agent of a person into committing a crime.

I know they aren't law-enforcement agents but technically over sythe they are the ones who control the dealings.

This is basically no different than what blade bro did to you. I'm surprised your applauding it.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/hackere.png/

^that is entrapment offering somebody the opportunity to commit a crime.

The circumstances that surrounded the bladebro thing was different, not really the same situation.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.

There is a good description for entrapment that should clear anything up for people that still don't understand.

Blade bro presented the user with a chance to get banned for doing something (Warez links, if I remember correctly) but yet he was banned for entrapping the user into performing an action against the rules. Isn't it the same thing? One just wasn't 'for the community'?

It was a completely different situation. Blade bro legitimately was looking for warez links. I posted one, he got what he wanted. Couple days later he gets mad at me and reports my post.

 

[Delta Squad]

That made no sense at all. This wasn't a scam; no one was robbed of anything. How can you compare this with scamming?

We presented users with what appeared to them to be an opportunity to scam, and those who took it were deemed as having the potential to scam, and were thus banned, because they'd made it clear that they'd have eventually scammed someone else.

in all honesty how this was setup it was like " Hey, Free money!" Who isn't going to jump on that? If i din't know any better i prob would have tried this myself, is it scamming -yes, but would these people Have scammed if it wasn't set up how it was? now i can understand if these people had a past of scamming that hasn't came to the light yet, but i think to ban them for that without factoring in their trading habits, and how legit they have been, and to ban them solely in a ponzie scheme is pretty messed up. IF it wasn't n4n0 who had to pay them back, and i cared about money, i prob woulda tried it myself. but how i woulda went about doing it was acc getting scammed. what did you guys even do to those that acc did try to sell gold, or did anyone do that?




edit- i see FireZ is here now i'll be on irc if you want to further discuss ** runs from comm gen section*

 

[Govind]

The circumstances that surrounded the bladebro thing was different, not really the same situation.



There is a good description for entrapment that should clear anything up for people that still don't understand.



It was a completely different situation. Blade bro legitimately was looking for warez links. I posted one, he got what he wanted. Couple days later he gets mad at me and reports my post.

I never fully understood why he was banned till now. If it really was for that reason then these two things cannot be compared at all.