Something bothering me ..

[Cami3532]

I have noticed this a few times and it has happened to me personally, but I feel as if Sythe(site not person) isn't very supportive when it comes to getting scammed players money back.

One area where this is especially evident is in high pardon requests. Sometimes a high pardon is willing to pay people back but claims to have issues getting in contact with them. I saw one request where someone was trying to pay people back but it got vetooed before anything came up. I think it would be better to give no answer an hold these in limbo until paid back, making a decision then. I am not sayin people should be allowed back in hopes of them being more willing to pay back their misdeeds, but there could be some kind of better effort done. It is really frusterating when someone owes you money and they are trying to come back and you can't get a hold of them and there is no help.

My situation particularly was with Arashi when a lot of sales he made got charged back from what he claims was a paypal reversal. I pmed multiple mods trying to let it be known he still owes me $18 on this and I have been unable to get a hold of him. It would have been nice if this information was posted in his high pardon to try to see if he would pay me back but it just got vetooed i believe. It honestly isn't so much about the money and more so about principal, but it would really have been nice for it to have been put in his high paedon that he owes me $18 as I attempted through multiple staff to let it be known. The issue he claimed was he didn't have access to who he owed still and he claimed willing to repay the users.


I really don't know what the answer is, but this has been rather frustrating for me and others in my situation I imagine.

 

[tMoon]

How exactly would you like moderators to support getting an individual's money back? Moderators ban the individuals, we can't go after them and force them to pay what they took from you (which odds are was completely avoidable.)

In order for someone to be high pardoned, they have to pay the individuals back. If an admin vetoed a pardon, it was for good reason. As for your specific case, he wouldn't be pardoned if your $18 wasn't returned.

O, and the only way you will get someone's information is if it's requested by the police, or by finding it yourself.

 

[Alex_J_Leon]

I'm not sure how it works here, but it would be better to simply respond with "please pay the user back then make a thread".

Also, I don't see a problem with paying the money to a trusted staff member (perhaps add on a holding fee) for users who have quit or are unreachable. It's just not fair for someone to not be able to come back because someone is unreachable.

 

[Cami3532]

I didn't ask for real life information or anything like that, it is just that a lot of time the staff seem not to care. I am not some new idiot to trading but with paypal there is always those chances, arashi was a well vouched member which is why I had allowed paypal.

Like I said it could have been posted in a reply to his pardon. With an automatic veto their is little chance. It could be held like a reply saying in pardon, one of the people you owe is Cami3532, what is the status of this being repaid and try to actual see if the guy will repay it before vetoing. It just seems lazy and easier to straight veto than to try to see if money would be paid back and than veto or and than judge.

I am not saying just because money is repaid they should be unbanned but some attempt to allow money to be repaid should be exercised before auto vetoing.

How exactly would you like moderators to support getting an individual's money back? Moderators ban the individuals, we can't go after them and force them to pay what they took from you (which odds are was completely avoidable.)

It is different when the banned member is coming forward asking who he owes money to he would like to repay and staff do nothing. I am not saying sythe should track people down.

In order for someone to be high pardoned, they have to pay the individuals back. If an admin vetoed a pardon, it was for good reason. As for your specific case, he wouldn't be pardoned if your $18 wasn't returned.

He previously received 5 support votes and it even went to vote...

O, and the only way you will get someone's information is if it's requested by the police, or by finding it yourself.

Or sense he was here trying to get a pardon the staff could have asked. The issue is the scammed members can't reply and ask, we can't pm his unregistered account, we have to rely on staff. Staff dropped the ball and did nothing.



So this makes more sense, here is a link to his pardon: http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1451817

Here is a link to me attempting to get this information to arashi:
http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1454846

Firez responce was its fine, which I don't understand. I know this was a bit ago, it has just been bugging me the more I thought about it and the more I see other situations that could have been handled better in an attempt to allow users to be repaid.

 

Did you show proof?
If not, anybody can just say "oh yeah.. He scammed me too..".

 

[Cami3532]

Yes there was an approved scam report that was filed back when he got banned.

http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1281481


This link was in the post fire responded to and the PMs I sent staff.

 

[djweasel]

So you think mods should take legal action against every scammer so the person who scammed would be forced to pay back. This is just as bad as when a kid told me since I'm a mod and he was scammed here we should reimburse him.

 

[Cami3532]

Where did I say mods should go against scammers with legal action?

It would help if you read the post I imagine instead of guessing. Your post should be marked as spam and you should be infracted.

 

[Piramid]

I think he's saying that when a person pardons and is willing to pay people back, it shouldn't be vetoed until the person pays back because if it get auto-vetoed, there is little chance of the person paying back.

 

[nodnarbusn]

I'm not sure how it works here, but it would be better to simply respond with "please pay the user back then make a thread".

I like this idea, even if the mod knows they will veto the pardon them giving the person applying for it the smallest semblance of hope to get pardoned the odds of them paying back the people they scammed increases ten fold (atleast).

I know alot of the times mods do say something along the lines of "please pay the user back then make a thread" but not always and sometimes they prematurely veto leaving the person/people who were scammed with almost 0% likelyhood of being paid back. If this was made standard in pardons as well as ban disputes it would help the victims get paid back.

 

[Cami3532]

Yes exactly. Some standard auto reply like, "This pardon can not be considered until all affected parties are reimbursed or proof of attempt to reimburse is shown, you can file a new request afters this has been done".

With a veto it makes it very hard because the person can't attempt again for 6 months which means 99% of the time if the iser is going to be repaid it won't be for 6 months.

 

[Noam]

Makes sense. Effectively hold off votes until everybody is paid back, to try and reduce damage.
Beyond actually helping recover damages, which is rare on Sythe, it bars the progress of many users who say they are willing to pay back and are simply waiting to see if they seem to be garnering support. The fact they are doing this makes it unlikely that they honestly mean what they say in their pardon and will probably scam again, since they feel they should only pay back if there's a chance it will result in their return.

 

[MMA]

This will also weed out people who haven't really changed and are only paying the people they scammed back in order to get pardoned.