Rule update. [triple impostor scam]

There a lot people who are carelessly sending pm to confirm who they an example of this can be found here Gyazo - 6d23267f1b5589f4926e98ca9761b5d8.png (this pm resulted in a person getting scammed can be found here Just got scammed trying to buy a name )and this is making double imposter scam a lot easier this is explained here:

1 trade with 2 people who they plan on scamming
1 trade that is fake, where they have 2 skypes talking to the mm.
They get real mm to pm them to make the trade look legitment
and they scam the 2 people in the real trade.

What do I propose to tackle this situation?

I propose that we hold the person who sends the pm 50% responsible for the scam if they send the pm without there skype in it and a user who they talking to skype, as they are kind of helping the scammer.

Now a lot of you may say that won't prevent anything.
Here an example of me preventing one when I could trade:
Gyazo - 84fe7c17b4ad3aa58b9b63ff592e74ed.png
Gyazo - 82bb20f963666dc617fd6e7a0b6bcec9.png

In my opinion, it reckless trading habits by gold shop and they should be help responsible if they don't leave some sort of indication of their skype and user they are talking to skype.even though they aren't directly scamming they assisting the scammers.

Edit: you can argue it's the person fault that they fall for the scam and fake skype, but how are they meant to know when the person send a pm verifying who they are? They fall for the scam because they think who their trading is that person from the pm. This is why I think some responsibility need to fall on that person

 

Sadly I don't believe this is how it works dunworry ,
As you see in the report I linked which lead me to make this Suggestion (Just got scammed trying to buy a name ) The user in question who send the pm Is not be held liable for anything by looks of things. even though the quality of pm was complete garbage. He has done over 250+ trades so I highly doubt he wasn't aware of this scam (His vouch Vouch! should be enough proof of this)

 

@Azie Can you lock this there no point in keeping it open since it already in place @video Thanks a lot for looking over that case!