Scam Accusations

[Yousuckv2]

Pretty simply put, I was wondering what the possibility would be of approaching scam accusations somewhat differently. There doesn't have to be a set rule stating that they must be handled in such a manner, but I think it could be something that could be experimented with in the future.

Essentially, as many people know, scam accusations are rather common on Sythe.org. Unfortunately, as many of us are also aware, the vast majority of them are true. Simply by searching the word "recovered" from time to time I am able to find accusations against users for account recovery and put together a report against a user who either has open accusations against them or has tried to hide accusations, a recent example can be found here:
http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer/1945644-reproducing.html

From personal experience and simply being around for a while now, as i'm sure many others have recognized, this is very common and as stated above, the vast majority of scam accusations are correct. Some of them may be impostors or posted out of spite, but this is a very small number when compared to the legitimate scams. I have noticed recently that when users have tried to have scam accusations against them removed, the staff member handling the spam report has asked the accuser to post a report with the information, but this doesn't always work.

What I am proposing is that in order for users to have a scam accusations against themselves removed, they should be required to show evidence that proves their innocence or disproves said accusation against them. At the very least, they should be required to show their side of the skype conversation/whatever chat method they were using. I have seen a large number of users pile up scam accusations against them, even receiving a TWC in some instances, yet users continue to trade with them and they continue to scam people. Some users get away with scamming several people because the prior victims didn't report it. I do not feel as if people should be victimized because the previous person was too lazy to report someone. I recognize that it should fall under a user doing proper research with someone before trading with them, but not all users do that, and while it's not a good thing, the victims should not be blamed. What were to happen even if they were to see the scam accusation and ask the user about it? In likelihood they would report it and it would be removed due to lack of evidence anyways.

What I am suggesting is that it if the accusation turns out to be a misunderstanding or something where the accused party isn't guilty (such as a case of impersonation), the accusation can obviously be deleted. If the user refuses to show their side of the story, the accusation should stay and perhaps they should be TWC'd. If they show their story and it lines up with the accusation against them, supporting the fact that they scammed their accuser, obviously they would be banned. If a user is found posting accusations against a user solely for the purpose of damaging their reputation when no trade actually took place, this user should be infracted (as happens now I believe.)

I understand this may seem a bit much but I'm rather sick of seeing scammers sweep accusations against them under the rug and continue to scam people.

Note that this would not apply to the RaSc forum or any of its sub-forums but rather the other sections where one would find scam accusations being reported.

 

I don't think something like this would ever work. In our system, you're innocent until proven guilty. Accusations are certainly not proof. While it may true that the majority of accusations are true, there needs to be reports. I believe the issue to be that people are scammed, they don't always report that scam. The fix would be get more people to report scams. How to do that I'm not exactly sure though.

EDIT: Compounding on to what I said earlier, before I delete any accusation I ALWAYS PM the person who did the accusing to make a report. I link them to the Report a Scammer section and link them the sticky. If every mod did this, I feel that's a good solution

 

[Yousuckv2]

I don't think something like this would ever work. In our system, you're innocent until proven guilty. Accusations are certainly not proof. While it may true that the majority of accusations are true, there needs to be reports. I believe the issue to be that people are scammed, they don't always report that scam. The fix would be get more people to report scams. How to do that I'm not exactly sure though.

EDIT: Compounding on to what I said earlier, before I delete any accusation I ALWAYS PM the person who did the accusing to make a report. I link them to the Report a Scammer section and link them the sticky. If every mod did this, I feel that's a good solution

As for the first paragraph this is, in fact, the problem. But the truth is a lot of them aren't going to post reports. Some of the popular reasons include either them feeling the scammed amount is insignificant (irrelevant when they end up scamming someone else, potentially for more), them being too lazy, or them not wanting to knowing that they won't get their money back anyways (unfortunately true the vast majority of the time.) So I feel the community has unfortunately reached a point where the only solution should be proving innocence. Perhaps it can be handled on a case by case basis but as has been mentioned a few times by this point, most of the scam accusations end up being valid.

As for the second part of what you've said, as pretty much covered above this would be a step in the right direction but unfortunately some users are still not making reports, and I do not feel as if additional users deserve to be scammed due to a previous victim not reporting a scammer.

 

The only way I could potentially see this happening is if there are multiple accusations. I know a few cases where there are numerous accusations, yet no reports; however, those are few and far between.

 

[Yousuckv2]

The only way I could potentially see this happening is if there are multiple accusations. I know a few cases where there are numerous accusations, yet no reports; however, those are few and far between.

Generally in these cases the user is TWC'd or banned anyways depending on amount of accusations or what evidence can be pieced together from multiple partial reports/accusations. There are quite a few users who scam multiple users and receive multiple accusations but over a fair amount of time (example: http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer-archive/1944275-billabong-recovered-account.html who was accused of recovering accounts multiple times last year as well, and assuming all accusations were valid ((given his poor explanations of how he "didn't" scam them, they probably were)), he scammed a number of people for a fair total amount) as well as users who scam a lesser amount of users but are still not reported until they've scammed at least one other user than the one who is reporting them. I do not feel as if scammers should be given less scrutiny because they've either been more hush-hush about their scamming or scammed fewer people than some others who have received large amounts of accusations against them. All scammers deserve the same treatment.

 

Generally in these cases the user is TWC'd or banned anyways depending on amount of accusations or what evidence can be pieced together from multiple partial reports/accusations. There are quite a few users who scam multiple users and receive multiple accusations but over a fair amount of time (example: http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer-archive/1944275-billabong-recovered-account.html who was accused of recovering accounts multiple times last year as well, and assuming all accusations were valid ((given his poor explanations of how he "didn't" scam them, they probably were)), he scammed a number of people for a fair total amount) as well as users who scam a lesser amount of users but are still not reported until they've scammed at least one other user than the one who is reporting them. I do not feel as if scammers should be given less scrutiny because they've either been more hush-hush about their scamming or scammed fewer people than some others who have received large amounts of accusations against them. All scammers deserve the same treatment.

Yes; however, without definitive proof, you can't necessarily call them a scammer. It may have been an impostor, it may have been a salty customer who received poor service, or someone who is just downright trying to mess with the service. In this instance, we'd have to investigate everyone. Whether the accusation is for a minute amount against a large gold company, etc. I just don't feel it's a viable option to request proof from the accused without a lick of evidence to suggest they did indeed scam, except for an accusation.

 

[Yousuckv2]

Yes; however, without definitive proof, you can't necessarily call them a scammer. It may have been an impostor, it may have been a salty customer who received poor service, or someone who is just downright trying to mess with the service. In this instance, we'd have to investigate everyone. Whether the accusation is for a minute amount against a large gold company, etc. I just don't feel it's a viable option to request proof from the accused without a lick of evidence to suggest they did indeed scam, except for an accusation.

But the truth is, as i'm sure most people recognize, 9/10 times it is a valid scam accusation with the exception of impostor cases. Dissatisfied or angry customers/users in general would obviously be infracted as they are now. As I said above perhaps it could be handled on a case by case basis, especially when handling scam accusations against large companies as staff can be near certain that it is an invalid claim, while the focus can be more on less trustworthy individuals. One thing I know is that there simply needs to be a way to eliminate more scammers from the community or at the very least restrict their ability to sweep accusations against them under the rug. It is a rather sad thing to see a user accused of scamming by multiple people and no evidence come forward, resulting in them not being banned until they've scammed half a dozen users. While it may seem unfair to request evidence from an accused individual; if it's an impostor, they now know about said impostor; if it's an upset individual, said user can be infracted; if neither are the case and they have indeed scammed a user, they end up banned or TWC'd.

On paper it sounds a bit unfair to refer to all accused as potential scammers, but the harsh reality is that they are near always actually scamming people. Comparing scam accusations against users who are actually scamming vs. invalid accusations tends to speak for itself and I feel something like this could in the end be beneficial.

 

[Pain]

Innocent until proven guilty is where I stand on it tbh.

 

Sounds like a pain in the ass.

 

But the truth is, as i'm sure most people recognize, 9/10 times it is a valid scam accusation with the exception of impostor cases. Dissatisfied or angry customers/users in general would obviously be infracted as they are now. As I said above perhaps it could be handled on a case by case basis, especially when handling scam accusations against large companies as staff can be near certain that it is an invalid claim, while the focus can be more on less trustworthy individuals. One thing I know is that there simply needs to be a way to eliminate more scammers from the community or at the very least restrict their ability to sweep accusations against them under the rug. It is a rather sad thing to see a user accused of scamming by multiple people and no evidence come forward, resulting in them not being banned until they've scammed half a dozen users. While it may seem unfair to request evidence from an accused individual; if it's an impostor, they now know about said impostor; if it's an upset individual, said user can be infracted; if neither are the case and they have indeed scammed a user, they end up banned or TWC'd.

On paper it sounds a bit unfair to refer to all accused as potential scammers, but the harsh reality is that they are near always actually scamming people. Comparing scam accusations against users who are actually scamming vs. invalid accusations tends to speak for itself and I feel something like this could in the end be beneficial.

Suppose we ask the accused for their side. "I never spoke with them" would likely be the most common response. Now it goes back to the person who has done the accusing to provide the proof. I just don't feel this is a viable option.

 

[Yousuckv2]

Innocent until proven guilty is where I stand on it tbh.

On another thread you mentioned taking a look at all pardons/disputes/reports, I assume this means the ones that users don't continue to update and as a result are never handled? Take into account how many of them are actually scamming. The sad truth is with this community the vast majority of them are guilty although 'innocent until proven guilty' sounds nice on paper, it's allowing scammers to continue their work here.

Making decisions based on emotions is never a great idea and it kinda sounds like it's the basis of this idea. No support.

Thanks for your entirely worthless input and spam comment on my thread that has no relation to the topic at hand whatsoever.

Suppose we ask the accused for their side. "I never spoke with them" would likely be the most common response. Now it goes back to the person who has done the accusing to provide the proof. I just don't feel this is a viable option.

All that would need to be requested would be them showing their skype pov and proof that no conversation took place between them and said accuser's skype name. Additionally if they claim they've never spoken with a user and proof later comes forward of the contrary, they've been caught in their own lie as well, which i've seen take place before.

 

[RiskofSTDs]

Are you not proposing that one should be able to ban a user without proof based on accusations and the way the mod is feeling that day? If the ban is not based on proof. The ban will be based on accusations/emotions no???? Sorry if I'm not understanding this properly........... Saying my opinion is worthless spam is a little unnecessary.....

 

[Pain]

Are you not proposing that one should be able to ban a user without proof based on accusations and the way the mod is feeling that day? If the ban is not based on proof. The ban will be based on accusations/emotions no???? Sorry if I'm not understanding this properly........... Saying my opinion is worthless spam is a little unnecessary.....

What I am proposing is that in order for users to have a scam accusations against themselves removed, they should be required to show evidence that proves their innocence or disproves said accusation against them.

What I am suggesting is that it if the accusation turns out to be a misunderstanding or something where the accused party isn't guilty (such as a case of impersonation), the accusation can obviously be deleted



To answer- No he didn't mention a thing about banning a user without proof o.o.


@ yousuck you should know better than to not include a tl;dr in a suggestion like this lol.

 

[RiskofSTDs]

What I am proposing is that in order for users to have a scam accusations against themselves removed, they should be required to show evidence that proves their innocence or disproves said accusation against them.

What I am suggesting is that it if the accusation turns out to be a misunderstanding or something where the accused party isn't guilty (such as a case of impersonation), the accusation can obviously be deleted



To answer- No he didn't mention a thing about banning a user without proof o.o.


@ yousuck you should know better than to not include a tl;dr in a suggestion like this lol.

Ah makes sense. Thanks for clearing this up for me civilly and w/o being a total knob.

 

[uJesternWind]

Yes; however, without definitive proof, you can't necessarily call them a scammer. It may have been an impostor, it may have been a salty customer who received poor service, or someone who is just downright trying to mess with the service. In this instance, we'd have to investigate everyone. Whether the accusation is for a minute amount against a large gold company, etc. I just don't feel it's a viable option to request proof from the accused without a lick of evidence to suggest they did indeed scam, except for an accusation.

And this is fine - but for those who specifically wish for the scam report to be removed, they should be providing proof of innocence. Asking for proof before having evidence (the report itself) removed it different from calling them a scammer, I support this idea.

 

[Gun]

What I am proposing is that in order for users to have a scam accusations against themselves removed, they should be required to show evidence that proves their innocence or disproves said accusation against them.

What I am suggesting is that it if the accusation turns out to be a misunderstanding or something where the accused party isn't guilty (such as a case of impersonation), the accusation can obviously be deleted



To answer- No he didn't mention a thing about banning a user without proof o.o.


@ yousuck you should know better than to not include a tl;dr in a suggestion like this lol.

This truly make no sense in the grand scheme of things. Why would it be a guilty until proven innocent system? Allowing said things to remain public without proof could be detrimental to a user's reputation, regardless of the length of time the post is up.

If an individual wants to blurt out an allegation, this should be backed with proof AHEAD OF TIME; not after a mod replies 5 times for the correct info to be posted. If a report doesn't have said info, and is strictly an accusation it should be closed and archived, and that user can re-post it if they truly have the proof of their claims.

 

[Yousuckv2]

What I am proposing is that in order for users to have a scam accusations against themselves removed, they should be required to show evidence that proves their innocence or disproves said accusation against them.

What I am suggesting is that it if the accusation turns out to be a misunderstanding or something where the accused party isn't guilty (such as a case of impersonation), the accusation can obviously be deleted



To answer- No he didn't mention a thing about banning a user without proof o.o.


@ yousuck you should know better than to not include a tl;dr in a suggestion like this lol.

I specifically didn't include one because I want people to actually read it before posting their opinions. If someone is not able to actually read what i'm suggesting then i'm not sure why their opinion should be valued if they're going to formulate some pseudo-opinion based on skimming the thread. I'm not looking for an influx of people supporting or not supporting without having actually read anything but rather users with actual knowledge of the situation and an educated opinion to give valid reasoning for or against my suggestion and perhaps suggest changes that could make it better and easier to implement.

Ah makes sense. Thanks for clearing this up for me civilly and w/o being a total knob.

Maybe next time you should actually read things.

This truly make no sense in the grand scheme of things. Why would it be a guilty until proven innocent system? Allowing said things to remain public without proof could be detrimental to a user's reputation, regardless of the length of time the post is up.

If an individual wants to blurt out an allegation, this should be backed with proof AHEAD OF TIME; not after a mod replies 5 times for the correct info to be posted. If a report doesn't have said info, and is strictly an accusation it should be closed and archived, and that user can re-post it if they truly have the proof of their claims.

I pretty clearly said this would not apply to RaSc but other scam accusations as there is already a policy in place for reports. If you were capable of reading the suggestion you'd know exactly why I am proposing a more or less 'guilty until proven innocent' system and that is because near all scam accusations are, in fact, accurate. Obviously it would be preferential for the user making the accusation to provide the evidence, but as outlined above, this is occasionally not the case for a number of reasons. Scammers should not be able to simply get rid of the accusations against them as a result of another user being too lazy to upload evidence, resulting in further users getting scammed. As for it being detrimental to a user's reputation, I fail to see how this is relevant? If it's an impostor, it'll be deleted. If it's a user posting these accusations for the sake of being a cunt, it'll be deleted and they'll likely be infracted. If they are innocent, they have nothing to worry about and as a result can have the accusation removed as it's invalid. If they're guilty, they're a scammer and fuck their reputation?

 

[Pain]

What I am proposing is that in order for users to have a scam accusations against themselves removed, they should be required to show evidence that proves their innocence or disproves said accusation against them.


I can recognize this issue ironically very close to home, Staff Refuse to take my word on who's RSPS staff banning people because it's impossible to gather proof unless somebody flat out tells you their staff- most of the time u just logged in wiped, no evidence.


I'm very split, I don't believe the accused should be forced to post proof of innocence but at the same time I know there are cases(like I described above) where its frustrating to see the same rsps staff trading and banning users and even I cant get staff to put a precautionary ban.


I'm kind of 50/50 after thinking about this, I'll post back whether I support or don't later.

 

[Yousuckv2]

What I am proposing is that in order for users to have a scam accusations against themselves removed, they should be required to show evidence that proves their innocence or disproves said accusation against them.


I can recognize this issue ironically very close to home, Staff Refuse to take my word on who's RSPS staff banning people because it's impossible to gather proof unless somebody flat out tells you their staff- most of the time u just logged in wiped, no evidence.


I'm very split, I don't believe the accused should be forced to post proof of innocence but at the same time I know there are cases(like I described above) where its frustrating to see the same rsps staff trading and banning users and even I cant get staff to put a precautionary ban.


I'm kind of 50/50 after thinking about this, I'll post back whether I support or don't later.

This is something else I failed to take into account but as you mentioned it applies here pretty well. I feel quite the same when seeing a number of users I know full well are scamming but there just isn't conclusive proof to ban them, and they're able to get rid of all accusations against them because people are, unfortunately, too lazy. In this sense I feel the RSPS staff and scammers i've discussed are one in the same as malicious users that should not be allowed to continue in this community. I have also noticed several RSPS staff in the past and tried to get rid of a few of them as I am quite aware of their behavior, being former staff myself (as i'm sure you also recognize while being former staff yourself). One example is this user who received a number of accusations against him for being staff, and he's just one of dozens i've seen (some of whom have been banned, some of whom have not.) http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer-archive/1881131-guaranteed-support-twc.html

This is rather irritating to see and sometimes punishments such as a ban or TWC can be carried out against them whether they're staff or scammers (example of a scammer whose been banned following suspicious behavior and multiple accusations: http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer-archive/1920801-eliterspstrade-slyfer.html ) but the sad truth is that while many scam accusations are valid, it is far too uncommon for there to be enough for staff to do anything, meanwhile they're just reporting posts with users accusing them of scamming and they're slowly disappearing.

 

[Yousuckv2]

bump.