Remove the Ruling Holding Hacked Victims Liable for Refunds on Forums without 2fa

Yeah I could do everything possible on a site to secure my account. But then your not taking into account the users actions, what if they got themselves into the situation by clicking a link which in tern lead to them being hacked. There are various things that could be done intentionally or unintentionally to get "hacked". Would make it very hard for staff to distinguish who's at fault, and if they have decide whether a rf is needed. And in the end who loses out? The customer so what are you gonna say "oh im sorry I got hacked which means I dont owe you jack". Disgusting. No support.

 

I probably wasn't specific enough.

What I'm really trying to say is that if someone has managed to secure their account and they get hacked through no fault of their own, then they shouldn't be held liable.

By no fault of their own I literally mean no fault of their own, for example a database leak.

 

It seems as though you're only looking at this situation from your perspective.

What about the customer who did absolutely NOTHING wrong? Where is their compensation?
They did nothing wrong, yet they get screwed out of their money just because YOU couldn't adequately secure your account.

You can argue that the forum is at fault for not installing 2FA, but in the end, you're the one who was hacked, and you are the ONLY person who can be held liable.
Don't try to weasel your way out of refunding the poor people you failed to trade safely.

TLDR;
If you don't like it, leave the forum, if you're on it, accept the risks. This is really something you should take up with THOSE forums.
As someone who occasionally trades on some of those forums, I would gladly refund in this situation, because IMO, it is morally and from a business POV the right thing to do.
Personally, I would be furious if I was scammed by someone and the staff held him not liable because he was "hacked".

No support.

 

100% agree with this

s/o Lean

If you don't want to face the consequences, get off of the forum that doesn't provide 2fa. You might "lose massive income", but that's a risk you'll have to take when you're trading on other websites. Think about it from the customer's perspective.

 

If you got hacked due to a forum database leak and the hacker scammed $2000, you would feel you'd have to refund that?

 

If you're afraid of db leaks, stick to forums that offer 2fa.

 

Staff should decide on a case-by-case basis whether a refund is required or not. I could imagine a refund wouldn't be required if the cause of a hack is known to be a database leak.

 

Again, that is a suggestion for other forums, not here.

 

I don't really think you can pinpoint a hacking on a DB leak, being SE'd, etc. It boils down to the fact that you were hacked. For offsite issues, we cannot control their ruling. We do not have access to do our own investigation with their information. With that being said, it's not exactly easy to give the benefit of the doubt when a user is banned for scamming on another site. That is why our rule of being banned for offsite scamming is in place. Sythe and Skype have 2FA. If you decide not to use it, that's on you.

 

I understood where you came from, no worries.

The obvious answer to that is no, however if the ruling of that incident is you must refund the victim, then you're obligated to pay.

If a specific state/district/province has a law that is distinctive from others, would you bring up a law from a different area to vindicate your position?

"This happens there, so it should also happen here."

 

The obvious answer to that is no, however if the ruling of that incident is you must refund the victim, then you're obligated to pay.

If a specific state/district/province has a law that is distinctive from others, would you bring up a law from a different area to vindicate your position?

"This happens there, so it should also happen here."


I'm sorry but did u not just argue against your own point?

You just made the exact argument sythe staff use to force refunds to scammed victims on other forums lol.

ex- osbot requires offsite scam victims are repaid, so sythe should to guys, leggo!

Unless I misunderstood ur meaning, I'm quite tired.

 

My point is that a database leak would not be the users fault, but more the forum owners, therefore there should be an exception to the rule.

 

Tbh if it makes anyone happy, I think if I reposted this suggestion, saying to make refunds for off-site scams when a user is hacked case by case, this would be a lot more supportive.

I think it's the fact I suggested to ironclad just not hold people accountable period, I'm 99% sure if I suggested to make it case by case it'd be a lot more likely to get through(such as a database leak happening, sythe staff can then not require users to refund)

thoughts?

 

Exactly.

This suggestion belongs on forums without 2FA, not here. Being banned off-site is a bannable offense on Sythe and it should stay that way.

 

How did I argue against my own point?

If I'm riding a bike and I'm accidentally pushed while riding that bike and I crash into someone else's property, I'll be the one who has to pay for the damages. Would I feel like I have to pay? Obviously not, but if the ruling in the matter is I have to pay for the damages, then I'm obligated to do so.

Their fault how? It's not always a straightforward conclusion. If forum software is hacked into, the blame should fall on the creators of said software. This is also collateral damage, as I explained above. Either way, every other hacking is not going to be as a result of a database leak, this is actually the worst case scenario, so I'm not sure why this is being used to cement your position when the hacking influence (Arcus Isidar) of this suggestion was not deduced as a result of a database leak. It's also not certain that every forum will put the blame on hacked users if there indeed was a leak.

 

Which is exactly why I said it should be an EXCEPTION to the rule?

 

Read my earlier posts.

 

Yeah, I understand your point now.

 

It's always been an issue where offsite scamming is concerned. We're one of few blackmarket sites who honor punishment on other sites, depending on the conditions.

That being said, it's nearly impossible to confirm a link between users on different sites without assistance from staff on both sites. I have a network of staff I used to communicate with during my time as mod on Sythe, but without that you're basically screwed. There's nothing stopping me from creating an account called "Bus369" on any forums, setting my skype to yours, scamming myself and reporting it here. You'd be forced to refund "me."

There really aren't ways to determine 2fa/which/blah on other sites. We can't verify their 2fa credibility. We can't verify their internal proof. There is only one thing that we may always be sure of, and that's internal Sythe.org information.

In line with your suggestion, it would be better to entirely remove off-site offences as a punishable action on Sythe. I have seen it go both ways as harm/help, though I believe punishing for off-site actions has had far more benefit than detriment.

With the above stated, I do not support the suggestion, as it would make more sense to completely remove the rule against off-site infractions (which, with, I do not agree.)

 

denied