Skype on profile e.g pmmeformyskype

[Apith]

Lol i'm saying you can write whatever you want on your profile in the skype section

So why not just say john should pay? Why say he should have left it blank?

just know you could be held accountable for whatever that account does.

If you dont agree with the sticky where the staff as a whole agreed it would be better if they get a pm, due to the recent flaws of skype, then create your own suggestion. It is already in place, this suggestion is to improve it and to make people aware.

In regards to this suggestion as it's not just removing skypes from profiles that aren't actual profile addresses, i do not support the part about 'no pm, yet still held accountable' all traders should request pms, the rule in place now acts as a key motive in why people should request pms therefore should be sustained as such....

What are you on about once again. Who ever said anything about supporting no pm yet still held accountable? The rule is no pm, you wont be held liable. If you add arcus on skype which you got from his thread, and he scams you, he wont be responsible to pay you back unless he gave you a pm. Dont like that rule? Then make a new suggestion as stated above.

You are saying you do not support the part about no pm but the owner of the sythe account should be held responsible. So you are basically saying you support the fact that you need a pm for the user to be held accountable. Yet you say johng should be responsible regardless that he didnt give a pm.

i merely was stating that johng should be held at least partially responsible for advertising his skype as someone elses profile

Contradicted yourself again. Useless arguing with you when you do my job.

And to enforce and raise awareness about the whole requiring a pm if you were to get paid back. It is only seen in the ras sticky, where new users wouldnt go to unless after they get scammed.

That is the suggestion. Geez I feel like arguing with a child, hard to believe you are older than me.

Ill leave this suggestion to the staff as once again, just like in your sfa threads, it takes you way too long to get my point which always turns out right. Not to mention in the end you are the only one against this suggestion, no clue why, and the staff ultimately decides.

 

[ThePrestigedMuzza]

So why not just say john should pay? Why say he should have left it blank?



If you dont agree with the sticky where the staff as a whole agreed it would be better if they get a pm, due to the recent flaws of skype, then create your own suggestion. It is already in place, this suggestion is to improve it and to make people aware.



What are you on about once again. Who ever said anything about supporting no pm yet still held accountable? The rule is no pm, you wont be held liable. If you add arcus on skype which you got from his thread, and he scams you, he wont be responsible to pay you back unless he gave you a pm. Dont like that rule? Then make a new suggestion as stated above.

You are saying you do not support the part about no pm but the owner of the sythe account should be held responsible. So you are basically saying you support the fact that you need a pm for the user to be held accountable. Yet you say johng should be responsible regardless that he didnt give a pm.



Contradicted yourself again. Useless arguing with you when you do my job.



That is the suggestion. Geez I feel like arguing with a child, hard to believe you are older than me.

Ill leave this suggestion to the staff as once again, just like in your sfa threads, it takes you way too long to get my point which always turns out right. Not to mention in the end you are the only one against this suggestion, no clue why, and the staff ultimately decides.

Not sure why you are editing what i'm saying and making into a quote? you are just arguing with yourself, my position is very clear -.-...

 

[Apith]

Not sure why you are editing what i'm saying and making into a quote? you are just arguing with yourself, my position is very clear -.-...

Show me one part where you are making such claims? Where did i edit what you are saying and making it into a quote?

I dont need to edit anything to prove you wrong, but when you think i edited what you said and make a quote, thinking im arguing with myself, it just shows you know you're wrong but dont know it yet. Seriously, you cannot stick to 1 thing. Like your sfa thread of cheating in an exam/test then after everything people say, you mentioned you meant assignments which are take home. An assignment and exam/test are 2 really different things, seeing as you didnt even know the difference...

Trolling stays in the spam forum, unless you'd like an infraction. But feel free to point me where id stoop so slow to make moves like that to win an argument against you, it's you and id never need to go so low.

 

I agree with this. Even though it's somewhat obvious what he meant with putting that as his 'skype', I know many people are naive and could not know so and get taken advantage of as we saw with that scam report.

Imo, nothing but your skype id should go on your profile. If you don't want it public, then just don't put it on your profile and instead put on your signature to PM you for it or something.

Pretty much sums up the whole thread.

 

[AmitZ]

lol when someone gets scammed 3b from arcus the staff that handles the thread always says "always request a pm!" and now that the user actually stated he didnt request one john is suddenly liable?

 

[Snow Patrol]

The rules state that PM's are required

Before the rule was implemented mods were actually PM'ing people to take stuff like that down on people's profiles. I recall having the exact same thing in my profile when I first joined (pretty much had "shootmeapm" as my ID for every contact venue) and a mod sent me a PM asking me if that was my actually my ID and to take it down if it wasn't.

 

The PM rule in RaSc: http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer...skype-scam-reports-must-contain-sythe-pm.html was made because of Microsoft not being able to manage their own recovery system.

Before it, the rule was if your things were hacked - you were responsible for letting it be hacked. But in the case of Skype, the information used to recover the accounts wasn't anything you wouldn't be able to find on someone online. E.g. country of creation, estimated month/year of creation, some Skype contacts and on occasion an e-mail address depending on which agent you spoke with. Because of this, it was no longer the account owner's fault they were hacked and we decided to put the rule in place saying that if the "scammer" hadn't PM'd the victim - we couldn't be sure it was them.

However, recently it seems Skype has gotten their act together with the whole thing and hackings are now uncommon. The staff had a chat about this the other night and were talking about reassessing the rule. I will definitely bring forward discussion on this in the near future, because mass Skype hackings are something that's no longer relevant.



Re: john's situation:

He may not be required by rule to pay the kid back, but it's only the moral thing to do. It was stupid on his part as well as the victims. If you don't have a Skype visable, obviously people will PM you for it..

 

[Apith]

The PM rule in RaSc: http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer...skype-scam-reports-must-contain-sythe-pm.html was made because of Microsoft not being able to manage their own recovery system.

Before it, the rule was if your things were hacked - you were responsible for letting it be hacked. But in the case of Skype, the information used to recover the accounts wasn't anything you wouldn't be able to find on someone online. E.g. country of creation, estimated month/year of creation, some Skype contacts and on occasion an e-mail address depending on which agent you spoke with. Because of this, it was no longer the account owner's fault they were hacked and we decided to put the rule in place saying that if the "scammer" hadn't PM'd the victim - we couldn't be sure it was them.

However, recently it seems Skype has gotten their act together with the whole thing and hackings are now uncommon. The staff had a chat about this the other night and were talking about reassessing the rule. I will definitely bring forward discussion on this in the near future, because mass Skype hackings are something that's no longer relevant.



Re: john's situation:

He may not be required by rule to pay the kid back, but it's only the moral thing to do. It was stupid on his part as well as the victims. If you don't have a Skype visable, obviously people will PM you for it..

Thanks roary, and it's a good thing only $10 dollars was lost to bring this to attention. It is exploitable right now.

I was thinking of a possibility of having that sticky gone and a pm is not required. Right now one of the most likely cases someone gets hacked, they shiuld be held responsible as they didnt secure it enough.

Ill leave it at this as im sure the staff would be able to come up with a viable solution on taking this another step further on their own.

 

My personal opinion is the scam report was handled disgustingly.

 

[Snow Patrol]

The PM rule in RaSc: http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer...skype-scam-reports-must-contain-sythe-pm.html was made because of Microsoft not being able to manage their own recovery system.

Before it, the rule was if your things were hacked - you were responsible for letting it be hacked. But in the case of Skype, the information used to recover the accounts wasn't anything you wouldn't be able to find on someone online. E.g. country of creation, estimated month/year of creation, some Skype contacts and on occasion an e-mail address depending on which agent you spoke with. Because of this, it was no longer the account owner's fault they were hacked and we decided to put the rule in place saying that if the "scammer" hadn't PM'd the victim - we couldn't be sure it was them.

However, recently it seems Skype has gotten their act together with the whole thing and hackings are now uncommon. The staff had a chat about this the other night and were talking about reassessing the rule. I will definitely bring forward discussion on this in the near future, because mass Skype hackings are something that's no longer relevant.



Re: john's situation:

He may not be required by rule to pay the kid back, but it's only the moral thing to do. It was stupid on his part as well as the victims. If you don't have a Skype visable, obviously people will PM you for it..

Even with all the changes, I still believe Skype is MUCH easier to hack than say an @hush email, not sure if I'd be too happy with the rule reversal since I've always had a problem with imposters/hackers and dealing with Skype livechat is frustrating as hell

 

[Heeatz]

I just saw the report here:
Now the victim called VowOfSilence in the report given above, Im not saying they are on the same boat, but give him the benefit of the doubt for not being as tech savvy as we are.

Please. 'pmmeformyskype' You have to be FULLY fucking retarded to add that thinking it was johng. no support

 

[Apith]

Please. 'pmmeformyskype' You have to be FULLY fucking retarded to add that thinking it was johng. no support

Ignorance. Refer to the last paragraph in the op.

Geez people dont even bother to read the op at least.

 

[Heeatz]

My suggestion is to prohibit putting anything other than your skype ID in the skype contact info in your profile.

I read the last paragraph, and like i said, you must be mentally retarded to think 'pmmeformyskype' is a legit skype name -.-

Support to having the 'request a pm before trading' sticky to be covered more over skypes market sections.

 

[Dave]

I read the last paragraph, and like i said, you must be mentally retarded to think 'pmmeformyskype' is a legit skype name -.-

Support to having the 'request a pm before trading' sticky to be covered more over skypes market sections.

You don't have to be mentally retarded.

Anyone could have that as their skype name, some people have funky ass names.

The rule will stand as this, if you have something in your profile which states a skype whether it be PmMeForMySkype or IDontUseSkypeDontAddMe and that skype name ends up being used in a scam, you're responsible.

If you don't have a skype, then put it in your sig that you don't, or that you'll need to be PM'd to give out your skype name. Also, if for some weird enough reason you HAVE to keep "PmMeForMySkype" there, you better be sure as hell that you own the skype named "PmMeForMySkype" so no one gets scammed.