[RESOLVED] Keep Treatment Equal For All Users

Undoubtedly someone who receives a low credit score as a result of defaulting on a loan feels like they are being punished too. But this is not a punishment. Actions have consequences: if you don't pay your workers they won't show up the next day. This is not a punishment.

When staff review a dispute they have to consider three components:

1. restitution (repayment)
2. deterrence from re-offending and from others offending (this is the punishment branch)
3. protection of the community (this is the TWC and DNT branch)

I appreciate that TWC / DNT may feel to you like punishments but that is not what they are. Before we introduced TWC and DNT all we had were bans. Bans are punishments. The whole point of this TWC/DNT regime was to separate out punishments from debts.

Restitution, Deterrence, Protection. Simple Law Class basics.

Love it.

 

[gambling_babz]

The livechat operator was indeed waiting on the manager, which was R2P. Mistakes happen in businesses, no one is perfect. R2P is not a risk to scam by any means. He explained why the issue was caused and paid it once he could. This happens with every website, you should know this since you have sold a lot of gold in the past.

Why give R2P a trade with caution when he has not earned a TWC? If your argument is that anyone should be TWCed as soon as an issue as meager as this arises, then most of the people on this website would be TWCed more than once throughout their stay, especially goldsellers who run into issues here and there.

However, if we were to deal with a new goldseller in this market, he’d instantly be TWC’ed for poor trading practice.

I don’t know what else to contribute to this thread, it screams that people have been around for longer get treated far better than those who haven’t.

 

[Apples1]

However, if we were to deal with a new goldseller in this market, he’d instantly be TWC’ed for poor trading practice.

I don’t know what else to contribute to this thread, it screams that people have been around for longer get treated far better than those who haven’t.

I don't know why this thread hasn't been closed yet, The owner of the site has already stated that people will never be treated the same.

 

[Xier0]

If you were the one to handle that report, how would you have handled it then? Maybe I misunderstand you from your tone.

If someone presents evidence that they were already unable to collect an overdue payment from a user, that user should receive a DNT until the debt is repaid. Depending on the situation, the scammer may owe additional damages (e.g. the price of gold/btc/usd changes in between the trade and payment).

A TWC doesn't help the guy who got scammed get repaid, and it's not going to do anything to stop a highly trusted user in the process of scamquitting.

 

[Apples1]

If someone presents evidence that they were already unable to collect an overdue payment from a user, that user should receive a DNT until the debt is repaid. Depending on the situation, the scammer may owe additional damages (e.g. the price of gold/btc/usd changes in between the trade and payment).

A TWC doesn't help the guy who got scammed get repaid, and it's not going to do anything to stop a highly trusted user in the process of scamquitting.

I completly agree with you, The safety for users should be the prioty. A payment late should = A dnt until that is re-paid, R2 should of had atleast a twc for the shit business he did.

Saying that, The mods clearly know R2 more than myself and the actual owner, There feelings is strongly against R2 being a threat or anything, Argueing this is pointless as nothing will happen. Let's just hope if there is a next time they will consider this post, But you talk sense!

 

I see them hand DNTs quick as fuck when there's any minor or major mistake involved, and it's for a good reason. I completely support your topic, nothing can return those 48 hours that were lost due to that mistake, and it shouldn't have got the point where he had to wait 48 hours+ to make a report to finally get his money.

ANYONE like me would've instantly been given a DNT in any similar situation and this I can guruantee lol.

Edit:

I'd like staff to be clear on this actually. We all are wondering if we were in this situation, would staff act the same way? What parameters change their reaction towards the situation? Staff need to be clear with this, so we know what to expect. If staff will deal with a "high rep" user differently than an average user, how much rep exactly must that person require to push through the instant DNT? Staff, can you be clear regarding this? Thank you.

s/o to @video "handling" @Astro

 

[Sun]

We are beating a dead horse but why not?

Free market doesn't mean you get to scam people?

Threatening to not do return business is already implied by the fact the customer had to report the debt in order to get his overdue payment. Look at what he said in the report:

Staff didn't even bother to rule based on the evidence the victim provided. R2P changed his story for why he didn't pay the debt - first the livechat op was "waiting on a manager" (screenshot), then over 2 days later Will says he can't afford a $400 payment because he misallocated a $30,000 cashflow. There's pure favoritism at play here, "Highly trusted" people do not come up short for $400.

Ofc this site's scammer protection policies are a joke anyways, I'm just taking the piss.

This is not a scammer protection policy. R2 is not a scammer, this was not a scam, and he is not being protected/favored. The mistake here was an employee guaranteed a time he could not uphold and R2 is the one who justified the mistake later on. Being late on a payment is not always scamming.

So what earns a Twc. I think when you delay payments by days, then that warrants trading with caution. He held someones funds for a lot longer than the guarantee. What if someone needed that money to eat?

If you are waiting on rs gold to eat then you should probably be doing something else with your time but I digress. This is not the point and your example is poor.

However, if we were to deal with a new goldseller in this market, he’d instantly be TWC’ed for poor trading practice.

I don’t know what else to contribute to this thread, it screams that people have been around for longer get treated far better than those who haven’t.

R2 is trusted because of who he is and how how he has conducted business for over a decade, not because he has been around for over a decade. Don't confuse the two. I wouldn't trust a 2007 member just because they are a 2007 member, and neither would you, nor should we.

If someone presents evidence that they were already unable to collect an overdue payment from a user, that user should receive a DNT until the debt is repaid. Depending on the situation, the scammer may owe additional damages (e.g. the price of gold/btc/usd changes in between the trade and payment).

A TWC doesn't help the guy who got scammed get repaid, and it's not going to do anything to stop a highly trusted user in the process of scamquitting.

A DNT is given whether there is a threat present. There was not one in R2's case. If a valid argument had been made that the buyer had lost money in this process, R2 would have been responsible for compensating due to the mistake on his behalf. This didn't happen though.

 

[gambling_babz]

R2 is trusted because of who he is and how how he has conducted business for over a decade, not because he has been around for over a decade. Don't confuse the two. I wouldn't trust a 2007 member just because they are a 2007 member, and neither would you, nor should we.

I'm not confusing the two. I'm trying to justify that the entire staff takes a subjective stance on an objective problem.

 

[Sun]

I'm not confusing the two. I'm trying to justify that the entire staff takes a subjective stance on an objective problem.

That's the thing though: no justification is needed because I was entirely objective. Just because not everyone is DNT'd in the same one relative scenario does not mean otherwise.

 

[Xier0]

The mistake here was an employee guaranteed a time he could not uphold and R2 is the one who justified the mistake later on. Being late on a payment is not always scamming.

It's not a "mistake" at all. R2P is a very wealthy man. He has the means to acquire $400 in bitcoin, and I would even wager he probably transacted at least that amount in bitcoin sometime during the 30+ hours his payment was overdue before the report was made. Maintaining a guarantee sometimes means you have to pay more than you otherwise want to in order to meet your timeframes.

R2 is trusted because of who he is and how how he has conducted business for over a decade

Tautology.

A DNT is given whether there is a threat present. There was not one in R2's case.

The threat that was exposed is R2P using his customers funds as credit. Staff did nothing to hasten this when a victim provided credible evidence, and R2P was able to pay at his leisure just like he was going to anyway. I'm curious, what did the title of the report say before it was whitewashed?

 

[Champ]

I'll just leave this for another Admin to reply.

@Charlotte Made the correct decision in this report.

I understand some of the public eye may consider this to be unfair "treatment" but it was not. @R2Pleasent was in full cooperation with @Charlotte and the staff team as this report was being worked out.

If this was anyone else holding a $405 payment for more than 48 hours they would have been slapped with a DNT within seconds.

Shouldn't matter if they are high donor, no donor, have websites etc. ALL USERS SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME WHEN IN RASC.

If anyone has experience and should know this is not true, it should be you. I understand your point of view, but DNT's are given on users who A) We think are a scam threat to the community, B) Given to a user for debts unpaid by the deadline. If however, a second, or third report would have came out on @R2Pleasent he would have been DNT'd until the issue was resolved (Given the reports were legit).

@Charlotte Summed this up well in her posts:

This is not a scammer protection policy. R2 is not a scammer, this was not a scam, and he is not being protected/favored. The mistake here was an employee guaranteed a time he could not uphold and R2 is the one who justified the mistake later on. Being late on a payment is not always scamming.

If you are waiting on rs gold to eat then you should probably be doing something else with your time but I digress. This is not the point and your example is poor.

R2 is trusted because of who he is and how how he has conducted business for over a decade, not because he has been around for over a decade. Don't confuse the two. I wouldn't trust a 2007 member just because they are a 2007 member, and neither would you, nor should we.

A DNT is given whether there is a threat present. There was not one in R2's case. If a valid argument had been made that the buyer had lost money in this process, R2 would have been responsible for compensating due to the mistake on his behalf. This didn't happen though.

If anyone has any questions, feel free to message me on Discord. This thread is being closed, because all reports are handled fairly and by our staff team in team based discussions on larger reports.