SRR - Offsite Offenses(Recreated)

[Uchiha_Sasuke]

I voted for leaving it as is, there's nothing with it, and removing it will only attract scammers.

 

[stringcheese]

removing it will only attract scammers.

Who will ban evade and join the site anyway.

Atleast with adding the 1 year + Confessional (as I suggested), the users will have something to strive for (regaining trust). Otherwise, ban evaders will just scam at the first possible opportunity because they know they will be banned when staff figures it out.

 

[cosrob97]

Who will ban evade and join the site anyway.

Atleast with adding the 1 year + Confessional (as I suggested), the users will have something to strive for (regaining trust). Otherwise, ban evaders will just scam at the first possible opportunity because they know they will be banned when staff figures it out.

If they have the mentality to continuously break rules on sythe why would you want them to come back at all?

 

[stringcheese]

If they have the mentality to continuously break rules on sythe why would you want them to come back at all?

Just to clarify, when I said ban evade, I meant evading a ban on sythe due to the OO rule. We are talking about offsite offenses so the rule breaking would not be from sythe but rather on other forums.

 

[Emperor Nero]

Just to clarify, when I said ban evade, I meant evading a ban on sythe due to the OO rule. We are talking about offsite offenses so the rule breaking would not be from sythe but rather on other forums.

I think you missed the point. If they're breaking the rules somewhere else why are they going to change all of a sudden when they come to Sythe? People aren't going to scam 1b from powerbot and come to sythe a week later to be legit. (Well except maybe to sell their scammed earnings.)

That is something else that hasn't been discussed. If you remove the rule completely Sythe is going to become to the place to go to sell your scammed gold, and we are going to actively support that by not doing anything about people who have scammed.

 

[n4n0]

Bump.

 

[Jimmy]

"Add a 1 year Statute of Limitations on past offenses, including Black-Hat."

Does this mean that if one engages in blackhat activities/scamming off-site while a member of sythe and then goes a year without being discovered, they cannot be banned?

 

[alsoforgotmyusernamenpass]

Think the stature should be longer for certain offences. But otherwise yeah, that.

 

[n4n0]

Seems the majority consensus is to leave it as is. Any alibi votes before I close this?

 

Seems the majority consensus is to leave it as is. Any alibi votes before I close this?

I think there are 17 vs 23 (Those who don't want to leave it as it is)

I would suggest a new poll with only "Leaving it as it is" and "Add a 1 year Statute of Limitations on past offenses, including Black-Hat."

 

[Punjabi3]

I think the problem is more with the scamming, people would be in support of the 1 year limitation if off site scamming was still perm until they paid back. Most people aren't bothered with DDoS, shell booting, and other minor black hats but a lot more oppose key logging and off site scamming. I personally think the black hat rule should be more lenient to not punish people who DDoSed or did something small in the past.

 

I think the problem is more with the scamming, people would be in support of the 1 year limitation if off site scamming was still perm until they paid back. Most people aren't bothered with DDoS, shell booting, and other minor black hats but a lot more oppose key logging and off site scamming. I personally think the black hat rule should be more lenient to not punish people who DDoSed or did something small in the past.

Yeah that sounds good, I like that a lot tbh. The users who were scammed should ALWAYS be paid back prior to a user returning.

I think there are 17 vs 23 (Those who don't want to leave it as it is)

I would suggest a new poll with only "Leaving it as it is" and "Add a 1 year Statute of Limitations on past offenses, including Black-Hat."

I also think we should do this.

 

[stringcheese]

I think the problem is more with the scamming, people would be in support of the 1 year limitation if off site scamming was still perm until they paid back. Most people aren't bothered with DDoS, shell booting, and other minor black hats but a lot more oppose key logging and off site scamming. I personally think the black hat rule should be more lenient to not punish people who DDoSed or did something small in the past.

Like the above poster, I also agree with this. As long as blackhat was not used against sythe or sythe users then it should be overlooked.

Seems the majority consensus is to leave it as is. Any alibi votes before I close this?

I don't necessarily believe that the poll is 100% correct because I only counted <25 posters explaining their reasoning and another 21 just voted. It makes me believe that there were people who didn't even bother to read the thread and just voted. I think its necessary to keep this in mind because it is such a close vote. Just saying...

 

[Wrote_Murder]

This is sythe.

Nothing more.

Shouldn't be involved in ANY outside activity, no matter what it is.

Can we be banned for real life stuff? Than why could we be banned on other internet issues unrelated to sythe.

If i wanted to be involved in "blackhat" activity, I feel very well like i should be able too, aslong as it's not concerning or hurting any sythe members.

I feel it invasive into our own privacy, this is the "craigslist of virtual goods", this isn't a morality site, when our whole purpose is to go against contract of games we agreed to play, which in turn is blackhat.

We agreed when signing up for MMO's not to buy or sell property of them.

Why isn't that considered blackhat? Because it's what we are based on. Bug Abuse isn't blackhat? Bullshit.

We cannot be so selective.

Since it cannot be avoided, my vote is to remove it completely.

 

[Punjabi3]

This is sythe.

Nothing more.

Shouldn't be involved in ANY outside activity, no matter what it is.

Can we be banned for real life stuff? Than why could we be banned on other internet issues unrelated to sythe.

If i wanted to be involved in "blackhat" activity, I feel very well like i should be able too, aslong as it's not concerning or hurting any sythe members.

I feel it invasive into our own privacy, this is the "craigslist of virtual goods", this isn't a morality site, when our whole purpose is to go against contract of games we agreed to play, which in turn is blackhat.

We agreed when signing up for MMO's not to buy or sell property of them.

Why isn't that considered blackhat? Because it's what we are based on. Bug Abuse isn't blackhat? Bullshit.

We cannot be so selective.

Since it cannot be avoided, my vote is to remove it completely.

Powerbot, mmmoexchange, epicnpc, ownedcore and several other black market forums will ban you for off site scamming. Its the norm for black market forums to keep their site safe and not want previously known scammers scamming on their site.

 

I vote for the 1 year clause. People make mistakes.

Exceptions:
- Fraud (Stolen Paypals, Chargeback fraud, etc.)
- Consistent scamming behaviour (If they have scammed large amounts of people, this should be fairly obvious - Staff discretion)

Basically, let people off who were up to shady activities when they were younger. You need to remember a lot of people on these forums are 14,15 years old. In a court of law, they would not be tried as an adult. This is because society has agreed that someone this age has not completely shaped their moral compass. So let's give them a break. A lot can happen in a year.

 

[iJava]

I like the idea of the 1 year thing as people change.

 

[stringcheese]

The results, if you take them for what they are, can be interpreted as: 31 want change while 19 want to keep it the same. (31>19)

 

[n4n0]

Alright, following Stringcheese's post - I'm tempted to make one last poll. Remove, or 1 year statute of limitations.

I was skyping with him a few nights ago as well, and he suggested that along w/ the 1 year statute of limitations, that all new and current users that fall into this category would also be be required to reveal any misconduct within a certain timeframe. This admission will not be punished in any way, but instead would act as a way to admit guilt and show reform of character since the offenses were committed. I sort of like the idea, but would like to get some more input on the idea before anything is set into stone. Personally, I would prefer to go with this option w/ the 1 year statute of limitations and call it good. I feel it would be the best route.

Thoughts and opinions?

 

[I Peter I]

Alright, following Stringcheese's post - I'm tempted to make one last poll. Remove, or 1 year statute of limitations.

I was skyping with him a few nights ago as well, and he suggested that along w/ the 1 year statute of limitations, that all new and current users that fall into this category would also be be required to reveal any misconduct within a certain timeframe. This admission will not be punished in any way, but instead would act as a way to admit guilt and show reform of character since the offenses were committed. I sort of like the idea, but would like to get some more input on the idea before anything is set into stone. Personally, I would prefer to go with this option w/ the 1 year statute of limitations and call it good. I feel it would be the best route.

Thoughts and opinions?

So anyone who has scammed offsite within a year has to reveal/confess their misconduct and then wait until the statute of limitations expires, upon which they can become a full member?