Skype on profile e.g pmmeformyskype

[Add My Msn]

Are you serious? Do you know how many people I trade with who DON'T ask for a PM, so you're saying I could scam them all and not get banned? That rules seems kind of stupid..

That's because skypes keep getting hacked.

 

Are you serious? Do you know how many people I trade with who DON'T ask for a PM, so you're saying I could scam them all and not get banned? That rules seems kind of stupid..

Yes, lot's of people complain about the rule. Of course you shouldn't scam them if they don't request a PM though lol. That announcement needs to be bumped so new users know to requset a PM.

 

[Apith]

I totally agree anything like that should be REMOVED, new members may not understand what "PM" means especially if they're young.
Also John, if say I were to scam on my skype "Liveurfect_2" and people had solid evidence or even video evidence even if I didn't PM him I would still end up banned because there is proof on Sythe that the skype belongs to me, and obviously I haven't been hacked, so before you go saying w/o a PM someone can't be banned, you're wrong.

There were a few mass hacks, exploits with hotmail that allowed hackers to get access to a sellers skype. It cost people thousands of dollars to reimburse, and it was decided that the sellers/buyers approaching the big traders should be more cautious. So they needed a pm. You would have to pay if your sythe account was hacked, even if there was ip to prove you were hacked.

 

There were a few mass hacks, exploits with hotmail that allowed hackers to get access to a sellers skype. It cost people thousands of dollars to reimburse, and it was decided that the sellers/buyers approaching the big traders should be more cautious. So they needed a pm. You would have to pay if your sythe account was hacked, even if there was ip to prove you were hacked.

I still think that's so stupid, someone trusted could randomly scam a mass amount, avoid sending the PM then claim his/her skype was hacked when clearly it wasn't.
Can't really argue with that rule though, just my 2 cents.

 

[Apith]

I still think that's so stupid, someone trusted could randomly scam a mass amount, avoid sending the PM then claim his/her skype was hacked when clearly it wasn't.
Can't really argue with that rule though, just my 2 cents.

I would agree to change it when we are sure that skype can be secured. It was really easy to hack a hotmail, so i heard, with the exploit. And traders has their hotmail connected to their skype. That is something they couldnt control. So the safest way was for the people to ask a pm from the traders.

If they were say keylogged or something like that, the big trader would be at fault for letting his computer get compromised.

That announcement needs to be bumped so new users know to requset a PM.

Spot on, I never expected you having to pay since there was that sticky stating you need a pm. Just to raise more awareness for future potential victims. At least raise awareness to require a pm, and/or you can put nothing but your skype ID, as long as you possess what you put in your profile.

 

[Matresa]

If they were say keylogged or something like that, the big trader would be at fault for letting his computer get compromised.

Err, partly. Maybe if it was something stupid like download a random image someone sent them for example. But there are many silent exploits and ways to infect or hack someone without them having the slightest idea of it.

 

[Apith]

Err, partly. Maybe if it was something stupid like download a random image someone sent them for example. But there are many silent exploits and ways to infect or hack someone without them having the slightest idea of it.

Yeah but there are ways to prevent it. I dont really remember any big trader get hacked by means of something along the lines of what you said. If they go on sythe and only sythe for example, nothing would happen. But if anything were to happen and they got keylogged or anything like that, even unknowingly, it is the big trader's fault. Whether they click a malicious link or something else. They did it, unlike the hotmail exploit, all the hackers needed were the emails I believe.

But you get my point, if they caused it, they are responsible for it.

 

Just have it as "PM me for my skype" with spaces since skype addresses can't have spaces in them

 

[Heads447]

Just have it as "PM me for my skype" with spaces since skype addresses can't have spaces in them

You entered an invalid Skype name.

 

You entered an invalid Skype name.

Ah lame. Guess that can't be changed since it links up to that thing that sees if you are online or not. Guess leaving it blank is all we got.

 

[Alex_J_Leon]

Support and agree with Dave. There's no need for that to be there. If you don't have anything there, and someone wants to contact you via Skype... they will ask for your Skype. If they see something like PMmeforSkaipe... they might think "Haha, clever Skype name" and just add that hoping to contact you but instead reach a dead account / scammer.

There's no real way to enforce any of this stuff, and the newbie might even be the scammer himself, but I still see no reason for the field to be filled with a false Skype.

 

[We Out 1]

Oh my god, I can't believe some of you just care about what counts. Someone got stolen from because you made that your skype and someone took advantage of that. YOU COULD OF PUT NOTHING AND IT WOULDN'T OF HAPPENED. This is completely at the fault who put that at their skype.

 

[ThePrestigedMuzza]

No support here, ignorance is not a defence, now in this scenario Johng should be held responsible considering he should have that area left blank and leave a note on his thread rather then type something that can already be a user of an account, however that is just my opinion on that report as for why I don't support this, you are saying people who don't request pms shouldn't essentially be held as the liable party? PM should always be requested as a verification of whom you are talking to, if you don't wish to secure your trade you don't get to be exempt from any responsibility if you get scammed. Also as to your argument that people who are new dont know what PMs are, that's like someone saying oh I didn't know black hat activities were against the rules, it's your ignorance? And therefore is not a defence.

 

[Apith]

No support here, ignorance is not a defence, now in this scenario Johng should be held responsible considering he should have that area left blank and leave a note on his thread rather then type something that can already be a user of an account, however that is just my opinion on that report as for why I don't support this, you are saying people who don't request pms shouldn't essentially be held as the liable party? PM should always be requested as a verification of whom you are talking to, if you don't wish to secure your trade you don't get to be exempt from any responsibility if you get scammed. Also as to your argument that people who are new dont know what PMs are, that's like someone saying oh I didn't know black hat activities were against the rules, it's your ignorance? And therefore is not a defence.

Another argument from tpm. Why should john be held responsible? It states in the sticky linked in this thread by add my msn that you must ask for a pm if you are to be reimbursed. No support? The point of this thread is to enforce and raise awareness of the whole no pm no reimbursement. Johng never gave a pm. The sticky can only be found in the ras section, it should be put in the market, dont you think so? Which new user would read that ras sticky if they havent been scammed yet?

As I said earlier, this suggestion isnt about or affects johng, he was simply the first involved in the matter.

you are saying people who don't request pms shouldn't essentially be held as the liable party?

What are you on about. It is simply if you dont get a pm of confirmation of who you are talking to on skype, you wont get reimbursed. The scam report will be closed and you wont get back what you lost. If you are going to report a user for scamming and basing it on the chat logs from skype, you will need a pm confirming it is them, or they wont be held accountable regardless if it was them who scammed.

Also as to your argument that people who are new dont know what PMs are, that's like someone saying oh I didn't know black hat activities were against the rules, it's your ignorance? And therefore is not a defence.

I never said they all do. I said to give them the benefit of the doubt. There are a bunch of terms for a message, mail, email, private message, pm etc.

What defense are you talking about, i just simply stated because people were calling the victim an idiot to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not everyone are as tech savvy as the average internet user. My friend on Sythe isnt and ive given him a bunch of pointers. I never said that the victim didnt know what a pm was, what if he didnt? How do you know he does?

I didnt expect anymore than an argument like this from you. You dont support yet you say that john should have left his skype contact info in his profile blank, that is one of the main suggestions in the op. So you just contradicted yourself. Your opinion doesnt count if you make a fool of yourself.

Gonna have to spoon feed you, taken from the op:

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

 

[Feelgewd]

yeah bro, even tho this is just abit stupid (sorry if it's rude) but for the best never show anything that can get newcomers lured with that skype name

 

[Pockets]

What if he had filled out the section with a more realistic Skype user name that is also not his? I doubt we'd even be having this discussion because it would be clear that he's responsible for scams on that account.

To us it's probably pretty clear, but a new user could easily think that is his Skype address. However, it is filled in on his profile where it asks for Skype address. People have joke usernames all the time. It's not totally unreasonable that someone would make a name like that their Skype. Additionally, the lack of spaces further suggests that it's a real account name.

Two things about the "must have a PM rule"
1. Why the fuck is it in "Report a Scammer"? It's totally unreasonable to expect people to go and read a sticky there before trading. The sticky in the market section doesn't REQUIRE a PM for trading. It suggests it as a way to verify the user before trading. Looking at the Skype address filled in on that section of their profile makes just as much sense as PMing for that purpose.
2. Functionally, having one's Skype address filled out in their profile is the same as PMing it to someone. Both require access to the account.

It's $10 John. Even if it's not going to get you banned, you should accept that it's your fault and pay the guy his money. Be glad it's only $10.

Regardless of what happens, stickies need to be revised.

 

[Apith]

Thanks for the input pockets, I couldnt have put it better myself.

Regardless after your activity took a drop after you resigned, it's still good to see you interested in safer trading, taking the time and trying to do something about it. You were an ex market mod and were a player in the market in the past, your opinion matters more than most of us.

 

[ThePrestigedMuzza]

Another argument from tpm. Why should john be held responsible? It states in the sticky linked in this thread by add my msn that you must ask for a pm if you are to be reimbursed. No support? The point of this thread is to enforce and raise awareness of the whole no pm no reimbursement. Johng never gave a pm. The sticky can only be found in the ras section, it should be put in the market, dont you think so? Which new user would read that ras sticky if they havent been scammed yet?

As I said earlier, this suggestion isnt about or affects johng, he was simply the first involved in the matter.



What are you on about. It is simply if you dont get a pm of confirmation of who you are talking to on skype, you wont get reimbursed. The scam report will be closed and you wont get back what you lost. If you are going to report a user for scamming and basing it on the chat logs from skype, you will need a pm confirming it is them, or they wont be held accountable regardless if it was them who scammed.



I never said they all do. I said to give them the benefit of the doubt. There are a bunch of terms for a message, mail, email, private message, pm etc.

What defense are you talking about, i just simply stated because people were calling the victim an idiot to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not everyone are as tech savvy as the average internet user. My friend on Sythe isnt and ive given him a bunch of pointers. I never said that the victim didnt know what a pm was, what if he didnt? How do you know he does?

I didnt expect anymore than an argument like this from you. You dont support yet you say that john should have left his skype contact info in his profile blank, that is one of the main suggestions in the op. So you just contradicted yourself. Your opinion doesnt count if you make a fool of yourself.

Gonna have to spoon feed you, taken from the op:

tl;dr


Johng shouldn't have had skype on his profile unless it was his actual profile which he wanted to detail i agree, but people should still request pm's and it should be considered as a key evidence in regards to whom is liable for repayment etc.... Thought i made that clear, but you clearly didn't understand.... I didn't contradict myself, i merely was stating that johng should be held at least partially responsible for advertising his skype as someone elses profile, however not in regards to a scam where the victim did not even request a pm to confirm they weren't talking to an impostor.

 

[Apith]

tl;dr


Johng shouldn't have had skype on his profile unless it was his actual profile which he wanted to detail i agree, but people should still request pm's and it should be considered as a key evidence in regards to whom is liable for repayment etc.... Thought i made that clear, but you clearly didn't understand.... I didn't contradict myself, i merely was stating that johng should be held at least partially responsible for advertising his skype as someone elses profile, however not in regards to a scam where the victim did not even request a pm to confirm they weren't talking to an impostor.

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

No support here
he should have that area left blank

v.tr.
1. To assert or express the opposite of (a statement).
2. To deny the statement of. See Synonyms at deny.
3. To be contrary to; be inconsistent with.

So you say john should have left it blank but you dont support a suggestion that suggests to leave it blank?

but people should still request pm's and it should be considered as a key evidence in regards to whom is liable for repayment etc

Obviously someone wasnt here during the mass hacking and why that was put in place.

Johng paying is for the moderators to decide, it is a grey area because a sticky says skype conversations means nothing if you dont get a pm via sythe confirming it is them. Regardless if they say this is my skype in a thread. So how is it different if john has it in his profile or thread? If it is on his thread he wont be held liable without a pm. That sticky contradicts your argument, it says

we now require a SYTHE PM confirming the Skype you're talking to in order for a scam report to be considered valid

Clearly someone isnt reading through the thread properly.

So you dont even know about the stickies and rules yet you dont support this suggestion. You are also the first person against it, for what reason? I have no idea as your argument is making no sense.

Im not saying john should or shouldnt pay, but sharing the same view as pockets i believe he should pay back regardless of the outcome, not because a moderator tells him to. I dont have a say in this decision which is why ill leave that to the mods, and also why I said more than once that this thread isnt about john, it is about the stickies and rules. I have no idea why tpm isnt letting john go.

 

[ThePrestigedMuzza]

Lol i'm saying you can write whatever you want on your profile in the skype section, just know you could be held accountable for whatever that account does. 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....