RE: Regarding the right to vanish

[Buyacc]

I saw the thread about Sythe's policy of moderators automatically denying any request of removal of personal information. Isn't this (very) harsh? You could potentially ruin someone's life if the first hit on Google is his/her name with "scammer" behind it, as everyone will Google someone before hiring them for a job position.

Why not make it an option for members to pay back whatever they have scammed and in return delete their personal information? I know Powerbot does this, so why not Sythe as well?

 

[McRevolation]

They shouldn't have scammed in the first place and they wouldn't be in the situation that they're in. It's the personal choices of those people that but them there. Don't scam and you don't have to worry about it.

 

I think it's a poor policy as well and unnecessarily abrasive.

With that being said, if someone is stupid enough to scam while having a Skype/other social component that has their personal information in it, then I have no sympathy for the reckless behavior and it should not be edited/removed.

My issue is with the cases that are incorrect and/or not related to malicious activity. I think staff should help audit these instead of going with a completely hands-off policy.

 

[FireZ]

Policy wont be changing. Its not our problem

 

[Tyler]

Also who uses the same skype or email for sythe/gaming as their professional one? Lol

 

Policy wont be changing. Its not our problem

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that you aren't obligated to help them out.

The "too bad" attitude just seems unnecessary here. These cases appear a few times a month tops and it takes a few seconds to remedy. It's poor practice.

 

[FireZ]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that you aren't obligated to help them out.

The "too bad" attitude just seems unnecessary here. These cases appear a few times a month tops and it takes a few seconds to remedy. It's poor practice.

Also who uses the same skype or email for sythe/gaming as their professional one? Lol

ding ding ding

 

[Buyacc]

Policy wont be changing. Its not our problem

One could argue that a system like Powerbot has is actually another layer of safety for the customers. When someone knows the seller/buyer their personal information they can use that in a report, which the scamming seller/buyer may see, which in turn may lead to the scammer handing the scammed goods back.
Right now, in Sythe, there is no reason to pay anything back as even if you do you will not get your personal information removed from the scam report.

 

[McRevolation]

So you're saying have them pay back the user they scammed in order to get their information removed?If that's the case I could see that being beneficial to the scammed party in getting some of that money back.

 

Thing about this is.. I support the removal of information if the scam report is incorrect or just for the purpose of releasing information because the thought of me being falsely accused and ruining potential job opportunities is frightening but I don't have much sympathy for those who have consciously decided that the current equity of whatever the value they scammed was more important than a future career.

 

[SuF]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that you aren't obligated to help them out.

The "too bad" attitude just seems unnecessary here. These cases appear a few times a month tops and it takes a few seconds to remedy. It's poor practice.

I disagree with the "right to disappear" and don't think people should be able to censor things they do online or information about them that is found online. Sythe should deny these requests on principal.

 

[Admires]

Personal information should be deleted upon request. What happens if I were a scammer that was using a friend's alias (first name and last name etc). Now my friend's first and last name might be tied to a scammer if i scam and said my name was "Frank Patel". What happens in this scenario? When someone googles Frank Patel, they see that he's a scammer even though I was behind an alias. Stupid rule, just seems that staff is lazy to delete the information so they have this rule. If I wanted to get back at someone, I could theoretically use his name on Sythe and scam a shit ton of people then his name is forever tarnished on the internet lmao.

In short, I 100% agree, and have agreed in the past, that the right to vanish rule is utter bullshit and needs revamping. Some people were kids when they scammed as well and have learned from their mistakes. If they pay back what they owe, there's no need to keep their information out there which could potentially haunt them the rest of their lives when they actually form a frontal lobe and become an adult.

 

Personal information should be deleted upon request. What happens if I were a scammer that was using a friend's alias (first name and last name etc). Now my friend's first and last name might be tied to a scammer if i scam and said my name was "Frank Patel". What happens in this scenario? When someone googles Frank Patel, they see that he's a scammer even though I was behind an alias. Stupid rule, just seems that staff is lazy to delete the information so they have this rule. If I wanted to get back at someone, I could theoretically use his name on Sythe and scam a shit ton of people then his name is forever tarnished on the internet lmao.

In short, I 100% agree, and have agreed in the past, that the right to vanish rule is utter bullshit and needs revamping. Some people were kids when they scammed as well and have learned from their mistakes. If they pay back what they owe, there's no need to keep their information out there which could potentially haunt them the rest of their lives when they actually form a frontal lobe and become an adult.

If an employer decides to not hire you based on a name on the internet that is the same as your's doing bad things, then you wouldn't want to work for that person. They should be doing more research first.

 

[Laptop65]

A big thread was posted after the policy was made "official"

"Right to vanish" policy

The policy does make sense but it doesn't take into account when people were younger online and were more oblivious to things like your "digital footprint" and in general putting up data online that things like your employer or whatnot may come across.

 

Personal information should be deleted upon request. What happens if I were a scammer that was using a friend's alias (first name and last name etc). Now my friend's first and last name might be tied to a scammer if i scam and said my name was "Frank Patel". What happens in this scenario? When someone googles Frank Patel, they see that he's a scammer even though I was behind an alias. Stupid rule, just seems that staff is lazy to delete the information so they have this rule. If I wanted to get back at someone, I could theoretically use his name on Sythe and scam a shit ton of people then his name is forever tarnished on the internet lmao.

In short, I 100% agree, and have agreed in the past, that the right to vanish rule is utter bullshit and needs revamping. Some people were kids when they scammed as well and have learned from their mistakes. If they pay back what they owe, there's no need to keep their information out there which could potentially haunt them the rest of their lives when they actually form a frontal lobe and become an adult.

There is more than one Frank Patel in the world. Anyone doing background checks won't go off just a name alone, there needs to be credence. Most situations involved in this matter are about emails. It all boils down to you are responsible for what you post online.

 

[Admires]

If an employer decides to not hire you based on a name on the internet that is the same as your's doing bad things, then you wouldn't want to work for that person. They should be doing more research first.

There are some people who have extremely unique names. The name along with other discrete information can link a certain person to a certain are quite easily. Also, what about the kids who came on the website to scam and years down the line, they make better decisions and would like to pay back their victims and remove the personal information that might have hurt their real life status?

There is more than one Frank Patel in the world. Anyone doing background checks won't go off just a name alone, there needs to be credence. Most situations involved in this matter are about emails. It all boils down to you are responsible for what you post online.

With that logic we can remove the report a scammer section because "it's your responsibility who you trade with". This site aims to help users, and it should aim to help the users who have come to atone for their wrongdoings by deleting their personal information if they pay back their victims. This doesn't mean they would be allowed back on the website. Just their personal information removed from public view (only for mods to see). Some people were stupid in the past and made wrong decisions. Let these people have a second chance by paying whoever they scammed back. The people who got scammed get their stuff back, and the scammer gets a bonus as well.

 

With that logic we can remove the report a scammer section because "it's your responsibility who you trade with".

Scamming is against the rules.

This site aims to help users, and it should aim to help the users who have come to atone for their wrongdoings by deleting their personal information if they pay back their victims.

Read below:

For clarification: We keep as much data as possible so that we have the best possible capacity for identifying scammers and excluding them from the site. This includes old trades, vouches, posts and PMs and accounts you used to have or still have.

Just their personal information removed from public view (only for mods to see).

Search engines won't be able to pick up deleted posts.

 

[Superfluous]

i think everyone overreacts over this because the policy sounds harshly worded. i, at least, consider each request i get for removal of content individually. the vast majority of the time, these requests are for someone asking to have an old post deleted or edited, and most of the time i say no unless the post is truly meaningless. however, in cases where personal information exists against the will of the requester, i'm more open to removal.

these requests are also exceedingly rare. it's not like we get dozens of these a month. i've had maybe half that many in a year... maybe.

 

i think everyone overreacts over this because the policy sounds harshly worded. i, at least, consider each request i get for removal of content individually. the vast majority of the time, these requests are for someone asking to have an old post deleted or edited, and most of the time i say no unless the post is truly meaningless. however, in cases where personal information exists against the will of the requester, i'm more open to removal.

these requests are also exceedingly rare. it's not like we get dozens of these a month. i've had maybe half that many in a year... maybe.

I've probably only had a handful during my time as staff and I think it's fair to assume that a few of ours were repeats.

 

I've probably only had a handful during my time as staff and I think it's fair to assume that a few of ours were repeats.

The same two cases pop up in my head, both regarding emails. Fairly uncommon request.