Questioning the ruling on BigBoiBets

Cool. Would you agree for BBB to send over that $7k Probemas paid out of good will to an admin until that is sorted?

 

I'd agree for an admin to re-examine the case, listen to both sides of the argument, listen to the facts and logic of both parties, question both parties accordingly, then come to a decision as to whether this was a hack or an inside job.

 

The money was sent before any case was examined. It's kind of dumb that you agree to both parties being examined, but BBB holding the money Probemas sent out of good will.

 

I want the case to be re-examined without a seemingly biased admin and without the case being based on one party's assumption. This is something that rightfully should have been done in the first place regardless of who had the money in their possession at the time.

 

Situation1:
Q1: I apply my right to the 5th amendment and refuse to answer your question.
Q2: I apply my right to the 5th amendment and refuse to answer your question.
Q3: I apply my right to the 5th amendment and refuse to answer your question.
etc.

Hey guys I want another admin to take a look at the case, but I'm keeping the money in case another admin also sees that I am at fault so I can keep the money anyway hehe

Situation 2:
Hey, judges. This is what happened. Here is my explanation, I even paid out 7000 out of good will.

If BBB felt they were scammed, why did they not open a report?
Probemas only created the report AFTER he gave $7000 out of his own pocket and was met with no results regarding the police report. It's very simple. There was a promise of a police report if Probemas agreed to pay the "scammed amount" until the case was solved. If it was proven it was one of Probemas' employees, BBB would get to keep the money. If BBB was at fault, they would have to repay.

They refused to do anything to solve the case. I'm going to stop replying to this, it seems to me that you work for BBB.

 

You're close there but you forgot to add a few things

Situation 1:

Judge takes the first parties accusations/assumptions as fact, automatically assumes he's telling the truth, and bases the entire case, including questions, on the first party's accusation as being true while ignoring the second party's accusations/assumptions to focus on loaded questions.

Q1: I'm not answering a loaded question with the assumption that the first party is telling the truth while you ignore my assumptions and don't reciprocate loaded questions to the other party.
Q2: Why did you not listen to both sides and ask questions without the assumption that only one side is telling the truth?
Q3: I'd like for this trial to be re-done because clearly it's not being conducted properly.

Hey guys I want another admin to take a look at the case properly which is what I'm entitled to. How would I like it done? With an admin listening to both sides/assumptions, looking at the proof from both parties, then making a logical decision.

Situation 2:
Hey, judges. This is what happened. Here is my explanation, I even paid out 7000 out of good will.

Why did you pay out the $7000 out of good will? Oh, BBB said they believe that one of your workers was behind this? It must have been pretty convincing for you to give that $7000 to them, can I see BBB's proof to back up this claim? Wow, that's pretty damning, well let's listen to both sides and try to get to the bottom of this.

Helped you out a bit with your hypotheticals. And if you decide to stop replying that's fine by me. Yet another person who is still going under the assumption of a hack without saying anything about the proof BBB showed that proves otherwise. But at least you stopped saying I'm ban evading, at least one assumption's been cleared up in this thread. Not the one I was hoping for but it's a start.

 

Damn, really makes you think that maybe it was a bad idea to pardon BBB without making him pay the debts to the people he scammed before. Gave him the opportunity to scam another $7k.

 

This is silly. Of course it's not in the rules that you have to respond to staff's questions just like there's no law that states you must defend yourself in court... but it would be in your best interest to do so because otherwise the prosecutor can paint whatever picture they want.

How do you know both sides wouldn't have their claims examined? Probemas stated his case and that led Champ to ask BBB to respond to certain questions. For all we know all it took from BBB was a response to each of the questions and maybe a few sentences about why those questions are irrelevant and the report would've gone the other way. You have defended BBB here more than he/she/they defended themselves on the report. Staff usually starts by questioning the accused, and from there if they wish to make a counterclaim they may do so. First BBB needs to make a compelling case which requires answers to the questions that make Champ believe Probemas is right. Whether he's right, wrong, or rushed in demanding those answers, he is the judge for that particular case and it is BBB's job to lay it out clearly for him.



Also to the people saying "There's no one else who can step in because certain admins were asked to stay out of it," iirc it says in the thread that you may only REQUEST that certain staff members stay out of the report. There is no guarantee that your request will be granted.

 

@ShipTheFlip The courts still do due-process and act on the evidence that is provided to them even if the defendant chooses not to answer any questions - It's called the 5th amendment.

Not showing up vs not answering questions are two totally different things - BBB showed up and provided a response on their case(One that seems to of been ignored completely) and staff continued to tag them and threaten them with punishments if they don't answer Champs questions - THAT IS NOT OKAY.

BBB is not required to answer staffs questions - period. There's no rule requiring ANYONE to answer staff questions for a REASON. When staff pressure users through the use of punishment to force them to answer questions in my eyes that's closer to torture than it is any sort of actual court proceeding.

 

Sythe.org is not a literal court, we don't have months or years to uncover every piece of evidence and look at every possible scenario. If you're pleading the fifth you're telling staff you don't give a fuck about the report, and if you don't give a fuck why should they?

 

By Sythe's own words this forum is governed by a court - not police. Courts do not throw people in jail or torture them for potentially incriminating information(Such as BBB being DNT'd than banned). Police throw people in jail - Police investigate - Police interrogate - The role of Sythe staff are NOT POLICE. People on this forum have a right not to answer any questions posed by them by the court which is Sythe staff.

Yes it can hurt their cases - Yes it may anger that court(Staff) - But I have a fundamental problem when staff attempt to use punishment to force users to answer their questions and violate a right they are fully entitled to.

If Sythe wanted users to be forced to answer any question posed by staff at any time or face punishment than there would be a goddamn sticky or rule for it - The fact there is not speaks precisely as to where he stands on the matter and where staff should be standing.

It's the use of punishment and the fact they directly threatened punishment if BBB DIDNT ANSWER that I have a problem with.

 

There are clear differences between Sythe reports and court... we don't have jury trials here. You have to sway one judge or sometimes in more complicated reports you have to sway a group of judges (staff members). A DNT isn't necessarily a punishment either, they throw around precautionary DNT's all the time until a report is settled and once it is they remove it if it's been decided that it is safe to do so.

 

Are you so blind? What do you think issuing those precautionary DNT's are designed to do? Their designed to pressure users to answer and provide evidence even though they are not required to - It's a right many Sythe users never even realize they have.

You don't HAVE TO respond to cases - You don't have to provide ANYTHING to Sythe staff - They cannot ban you for lack of responding - They can only ban you if the evidence provided is sufficient enough to issue a punishment without you condemning yourself.

It's one of staff's most infamous interrogation techniques - I'd say over the 10,000+ reports I've read over the years that 50% of them ended up being punished for due to self incrimination. Most people feel pressured to speak or provide evidence(even if they don't realize it could hurt them) because staff use punishments(In your example: A DNT) as a fear tool - I indirectly provided Staff a goddamn torture tool to use on people on reports(interrogations) without realizing it until months later.

Silence is often a reported users best friend.

 

Thank you for making my point for me. That's exactly how staff should start, by questioning the accused, not by instantly believing the first party's claim and performing an action based off of the claim (DNTing BBB right after Probemas made his claim).

Instead, here is how Champ responded

-He instantly DNT's BBB

-He instantly assumes literally everything Probemas said in his first post is the truth, without any screenshots mind you, just Probemas' word, then he bases all of his questions on the assumption that everything Probemas claimed was true

What SHOULD be done is Champ asks for BBB about their side of things before making any loaded questions. If BBB doesn't respond in a timely matter then it would make sense to DNT them. Instantly treating everything Probemas said as the truth, taking action against the other party, and giving loaded questions is completely unfair. Allowing the other side to tell their version of things THEN giving each side non loaded or loaded questions would have been fair.

Also take a close look at #3 by Champ. It's clear that before BBB even said their side of the story that he's already leading on to the possibility that BBB themselves may have been behind this 10B hack. And yet he says there needs to be 100% proof that Probemas were behind the missing chips before making those assumptions. It makes zero sense.

Speaking of assumptions it's odd that Champ did not raise up literally any points that BBB made in regards to Probemas' worker being behind this. He did not ask one question to Probemas as to how a compromise and the steady removal of 100B EoC could have gone unnoticed. Nothing at all.

 

LMAO precautionary DNT's are designed to..... be a precaution. Get off your conspiracy theory shit. They issue precautionary DNTs all the time to nobodies, people who lose literally no business from the DNT. Is that just to cover up the fact that precautionary DNT's were designed only to pressure big businesses on Sythe?

If that's what we're arguing now then we're done here... agree to disagree I'll pass on the conspiracy theories. Cya bus

These are only loaded questions if you're coming into the report looking to take BBB's side. Lets break down his three points in his initial response:

1. This is an invitation to tell him exactly what you told us in the OP. Reading through your post I was inclined to agree with you even though I very much dislike and have had bad experiences with BBB. (Although I didn't go back through the report to verify all your claims, specifically the one where Probemas said the Helper account was never compromised. If this is true then you make a compelling case and BBB should've responded similarly).
2. I wondered about this while reading the report my first time through. As far as I can tell, no proof was presented to show that Probemas' $7k coverage was contingent upon a police report. I know that BBB later brought it up and it seemed to have been ignored. Champ definitely messed up by assuming that this was true without any proof from Probemas (unless it was given in private) but I don't think he was wrong for bringing it up in his initial response. Again, this is an invitation to say: "Here is our ENTIRE conversation regarding Probemas covering the losses. Nowhere does it state that this is contingent upon us filing a police report.
3. Seems like a fair question to me. I can see how it sounds like Champ is accusing BBB here, but he did ask if they had anything to prove their innocence. Like he says, if they have made no attempt at uncovering the truth then it's definitely fair to assume that there's a possibility they were involved.

Instantly DNTing someone is common. Click any report, precautionary DNTs are issued all the time and while it can inconvenience bigger businesses it's just how we have to do things since staff's time is limited and most scam reports that are posted are true. Most people don't do their part and check for open reports on someone before doing business with them. It's unfortunate but it's how it is, and completely doing away with precautionary DNTs would result in scammers being way more successful. I could understand requiring definitive proof before DNTing if it's a nobody reporting a major business, but when the report involves two reputable parties it's fair to assume there's at least SOME truth to the report.

He could've required evidence before DNTing/questioning BBB, but it's a big business that's able to scam much more than 7k if the report was accurate. My personal opinion is that it's fair to start with a DNT then try to get to the bottom of it.

I'll agree that Champ made some mistakes in handling the report, but I don't think he came into the report thinking "This is my chance to fuck BBB" like some seem to think.

 

Why are you taking things out of context to make it look like he got banned for not answering questions? Did you forget to pair that with the $6k he received? You want to bring up the court system, the court system can issue a subpoena to gather evidence. You can't invoke your 5th on that. The only way staff can gather evidence is when both users comply. And did BBB comply?

Might be a bit hasty of him and I'd agree if Probemas didn't show him some sort of proof. But more trusted people have been DNT'd (even banned iirc) for smaller amounts when there's proof of something isn't right. Won has been banned as a precautionary measure more than once when I was still active in the market for example.

Refer to the first paragraph. You're bringing up the court system and using it as an example but I'm not sure you completely understand how they work when you conveniently leave out the part about subpoenas which is used to gather evidence from either the defendant, another person, or an organization. Can staff issue subpoenas now?

 

Well said. RaS section is loosely based on the court system, but this isn't a perfect world and staff are limited in what they can do... meaning certain things need to change: Jury trials where you must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and subpoenas are two good examples.

 

This is well said and a fair conclusion. I may have used the word biased a bit loosely but I didn't want to say incompetently in case that was insulting. I guess saying he did handle it incorrectly would be a bit of a compromise.

I also did not know that automatically DNTing a business is how it's done here. Sythe might want to look into that since while it's understandable for random users it's aggressive for a business that's been around for multiple years without something like ever happening.

In regards to your reply about the questions, my problem is the first two questions is he automatically assumes Probemas is telling the truth by taking his word and yet when BBB gives their word he won't take assumptions, logic, or the screenshots provided. That's one of the reasons I thought he was biased but it could just be incompetence. He makes a huge deal about not accepting BBB's claim solely because he claims it's mostly assumptions and yet the first thing he does is assume every word Probemas said was true.

As for your take with the third question, that's fair.

Also look at what Champ said right after BBB claimed that Probemas found it justifiable to refund the $7352 based on the evidence showing it was his employee

So Champ decided to take all of Probemas claims as fact when the thread opened but when BigBoiBets made this claim he instantly wants to hear what Probemas has to say about it before continuing on this point.That's the privilege that should have been granted to BBB in the first place instead of just taking everything Probemas said as fact.

What's more is Champ did not once approach Probemas with why the evidence BBB provided look so incriminating against Probemas' team. It was just Champ going on the offensive against BBB without so much as acknowledging the proof BBB provided that appears to be infallible against Probemas.

 

That's the downside of having been banned multiple times for scamming. People don't just take your word for it anymore.

 

As I told @ShipTheFlip someone being compelled to appear before the court(subpoena) is not the same thing as having to answer questions from the court:

Screenshot - 88d77bc578e8e08808b144d0d9231b94 - Gyazo

You can google around if you want to - All the sites say the same thing. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on legal matters but I know enough that you cant compel someone through threats and punishments to answer your questions no matter what body of power you are. You are incorrect in your statements - What your referring to is a warrant issued to POLICE for POLICE to gather evidence by the court - As Sythe has clearly stated sythe staff are not POLICE. You should google subpoena vs warrant.

I did it for you though;

Screenshot - 373b890cee4aea11110a265cef89d6f4 - Gyazo

Screenshot - 572df82017d1c9807c400194efd5ae3d - Gyazo