Partnership rules

[Imagine]

Right now, as it stands, if person one is partnered up with person two, and person two scams, person one must pay back everything that was scammed before they are allowed to return. I have to suggestions to change/modify this rule.

1). Do not immediately ban person one, rather, possibly give a TWC, or just give them a payment plan where they must pay X amount over X months. This would help for several reasons.

1. Many people make most of their RSGP income from Sythe. If they are not allowed to be on Sythe, it might be close to impossible to come up with large amounts of GP, say, 500M, on RS. (Some people are also not allowed to buy gold or prefer not to). This would allow them an opportunity to earn back the GP lost to compensate the scammed user.
   
2. It is much more manageable. Although I understand that the scammed user might want their GP immediately, they might be compensated higher amounts that were scammed (At an interest rate).

2). Allow some partnerships to be exempt from this rule. However, these partnerships must follow other rules. For example, they are not allowed to advertise their combined vouches in the thread title, only the amount of vouches of the lowest participating member of the partnership/group. (I.E. Person A has 50 vouches and decides to partner up with Person B who has 30 vouches. In the title, they are only allowed to add [30 Vouches] instead of [80 Vouches]. In addition, these partnerships must give the customers options to choose which user they would like to use to complete their order, and they must list in their thread that they are following this rule, or something similar.


I would appreciate feedback on both of these ideas, I can't be quite sure if would be good ideas without hearing the negative side.

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

The first one, perfect.

The second however, why would someone put 50+ Vouches and then not worry if the other scams, when they can have 600+ Vouches. Surely the other partner would be more successful by himself?

 

[Imagine]

The first one, perfect.

The second however, why would someone put 50+ Vouches and then not worry if the other scams, when they can have 600+ Vouches. Surely the other partner would be more successful by himself?

Yes, but it could be used to help newer guys out. Or even if they follow the rule, they only have to pay say 50% of what was scammed. Things as they are now do not favor some of the more trusted guys helping out newer users.

 

[Punjabi3]

The problem with this is majority of the partnerships on here do end up with one of them scamming and some times both the member and partner are together on the scam or are the same person. If one is left with a twc + payment plan there is still nothing holding him back from scamming if his partner has bailed on him and left him in a hole with a twc, they will just scam as well most of the time, it is sad but true. Look at fatality even with his twc he sold multiple accounts to multiple people, so really a twc doesn't mean much to be honest.

I do see where your coming from it is beneficial to partnerships but it would be a big problem leaving one member unbanned to continue scamming before getting banned or even as we have seen before where members team up but the more trustworthy member puts the blame on his partner he takes the fall while the trustworthy member scams some more.

If you do begin a partnership you should do so with a member you can trust and this problem won't arise.

 

[rtyrty1000]

The problem with this is majority of the partnerships on here do end up with one of them scamming and some times both the member and partner are together on the scam or are the same person. If one is left with a twc + payment plan there is still nothing holding him back from scamming if his partner has bailed on him and left him in a hole with a twc, they will just scam as well most of the time, it is sad but true. Look at fatality even with his twc he sold multiple accounts to multiple people, so really a twc doesn't mean much to be honest.

I do see where your coming from it is beneficial to partnerships but it would be a big problem leaving one member unbanned to continue scamming before getting banned or even as we have seen before where members team up but the more trustworthy member puts the blame on his partner he takes the fall while the trustworthy member scams some more.

If you do begin a partnership you should do so with a member you can trust and this problem won't arise.

And sometimes post count/vouches (while useful guidelines) are irrelevant. A person with extremely high trust might feel it is easy to scam a noob and get away with it.

AKA Plznate.

 

[Brendan]

I won't support number two. It will just cause issues over why certain people are given certain privileges or exemptions and whatnot, which I also believe that the staff do not like having to worry about.

Number one, I'm not too sure. I think a ban should be issued first, and then the TwC and ability to return to Sythe to make the money to be able to repay the scammed users be negotiated through the dispute forum. That way, a member can't use Sythes other features and aspects, and will need to put there full attention onto making a plan to show the staff that they will use to make the money to repay the victims.

 

[Wulfspade1]

You choose your own partnerships or workers. When one of them scams, they obviously have no intention of paying it back, so it's all on you. You've hired/partnered with a user that scammed; why should they leave you with no consequences, and if they TwC you, wouldn't that be hard to get trades done? I believe you'll have to face the consequences, and think of someway to pay back the user who was scammed. This was an example with an untrustworthy partnership/worker. If you have partnered with someone trustworthy, this wouldn't have happened.

What's the point of having a partnership for the second one? Anyway, I don't support it, like Brendan stated; it would just cause issues with why some users get exemptions, etc.

 

[FireZ]

All denied.