[DENIED] Offsite blackhat ⇒ TWC

Exactly my point.

 

Interesting. I read through that thread, and it seems like many users understood the intent of the rule change, but were concerned about the ambiguity of the verbiage. They expressed concern that the vagueness of the rule would cause confusion down the line when dealing with reports/disputes, and based on a recent example, it seems like their concerns were at least somewhat valid.

The defendant in that report states that he is "not selling or advertising [the accounts] on Sythe. He is just reselling in his own discord and that has nothing to do with Sythe." However, he's leveraging his Sythe background, and directly contacting a Sythe user to help him sell accounts, something that is directly related to our activities on Sythe (as stated by Moes here). There seems to be a large overlap with the "offsite" Discord and the "onsite" Sythe, to a point where the lines are blurred.

It looks like the rule was established so staff didn't issue autobans for minor offenses out of their jurisdiction. However, due to the ambiguous nature of the rule, it seems like the sale of cracked accounts, which I would argue is not a minor offense, is now up to interpretation. Perhaps we should look into modifying the rule somewhat? At least to address the relation between Sythe and Discord when it comes to "offsite" activites.

 

Nicely put.

Ambiguous wording is a fair concern, but nothing has really changed about offsite blackhat in the last three years, so I'm convinced all of this is more a reaction to wanting a different outcome in that thread Marcie made than the result of there being a major issue with our handling of offsite blackhat cases. Fwiw I talked to video about Marcie's report, and we both felt it was an offsite blackhat situation, not an onsite blackhat violation.

Perhaps, as you suggested, clarifying the role of discord in determining what constitutes offsite blackhat activity is easiest. If anyone has suggestions definitely share them.

 

I'm going to go out and say that he is likely selling to Sythe users knowing that the accounts are hacked therefore by association a Sythe member is selling cracked accounts to other Sythe members, even if this is happening offsite I believe it should still be an offence regardless personally. I don't think that sounds too outlandish tbh, if you look at the big picture at least he isn't scamming people as far as I know, but ya it doesn't look great from a Sythe user standpoint to have another user knowingly selling them by own admission on the site. I think users should start being held accountable by association, whereas, if you own a Sythe account AND you actively participate in ANY selling of hacked/cracked/other illegal methods (on discord at least), accounts or other product you should therefore be banned on Sythe by grounds of association to Sythe. This is a big gray area for me and I don't exactly like how long this thread has gotten but I love wulfspades thinking, I can tell he was a good mod at the time he was and I'm glad we have his perspective. @Superfluous would you agree with wulfspade that the rules could be slightly changed when users are knowingly selling on discord where other Sythe members are a lot more likely to be exposed to cracked account sellers than say hackforums or another website pertaining to these sales?

 

Your description of why the rules was established is correct. Off site “blackhat” activities used to result in an instant ban which was not always justified in my eyes. The danger of a users’s offsite activities to the Sythe community is now up to staff’s interpretation.

 

Imagine my shock as an '09 user. :')

>The problem with blackhat activities and specifically cracking is that buyers have no way of knowing if they are part of a blackhat-scheme or not.
With that in mind, I'm already opted to take a nuanced approach in this matter. On the one hand, blatantly banning anyone involved with offsite-blackhat is unjust, on the other hand (as others and I argued before), leaving the matter untouched isn't ideal either.

I am all for a middle-ground in this matter. All arguments that have been mentioned so far are valid. The question is, how do they weigh-up?

I had no interest in the report I made tbh. I just stumbled upon the situation and thought it would be reasonable to report it. Maybe there was some sort of moral motivation. I wrote this thread, however, out of curiosity and because I wanted to find out what everyone thinks of our current policy.

What I find problematic is that it's very hard to differentiate what is happening on Sythe and Discord, because in their nature they are so intertwined. Therefore, I don't know if you want to separate these two too much. Any gap between the two is a window for abuse.

Another point I'd like to make is that the result of our current policy in reality only bans advertisement of blackhat activities, not them substantially. I miss a convincing argument that explains why we should allow market-access to violators.

 

I think this a pretty good point to be honest.

I totally understand not wanting black-hat activities on the site and I understand the logic behind "If there is no risk to a Sythe user"

But I think we should establish some lines in the rules.

If you want to allow black-hat activities off site then I think there should be some rules about advertising a discord server that may or may not have cracked accounts there along with any other location/community for that matter. I don't actually think the person reported does advertise a discord/community but with that being said, it should be prevented so a Sythe user cannot be lead off site into a community where it occurs.

"You cannot advertise x if that community is associated with off site black-hat activities"

I think this would be the best solution if we feel that black-hat activities off site are acceptable as long as there is no risk to a Sythe user.

 

@Superfluous @Malcolm

Or more general, "if there are blackhat activities that can be directly linked to a user, and there is substantive proof to back this up, then that is a breach of Sythe rules."

For me, this is a pretty nuanced approach because, on one hand, it does reach the goal of broadening the scope of this offense, and on the other hand, it is not very easy to prove. You'd have to prove two things. 1. (complicity/instigation in) blackhat activities happening offsite by a specific person 2. linking it to the Sythe user.

Why is this effective? At the moment Sythe requires users to administrate their Discord UID in their profile, where everyone can see it. There are two possibilities:

• If a specific user was going use his Sythe reputation for blackhat offsite-activities, it would mean prerequisite 2 would be automatically fulfilled and the only substantive proof that would be required would be of the blackhat activities happening offsite by the specific Discord user.
• If a user is going to use an alien discord, his blackhat activities would be less efficient in their effect because he could not as effectively rely on his Sythe reputation.
  
  

 

Just ban them all, this should be a general rule considering the staff falsely ban people such as myself for not breaking such rules anyway.

Stop showing favour to certain people just because they are your friends, you shouldn't be allowed to moderate if you cannot cut things equally.

 

I just don't think people care enough. All the big gold flippers knowingly buy cracked gold every single day with substantial proof but nobody really cares as they just need to pretend they don't know it's cracked.

 

Pretty much, it's the same as the ol'outsourcing crap.

So many outsource without permission, given valid proof and yet they aren't given any penalty either.

 

We treat offsite blackhat on a case by case basis. If someone is involved with serious fraud or blackhat activities, it will result with a DNT/Ban from Sythe. However, minor offences that are not immediately threatening to Sythe users are not going to be punished.