SRR - Offsite Offenses

[stringcheese]

Did any of the above posters look into my idea? The idea of allowing a limitation after 6-12months but with a mandatory confessional (+twc or a new OSS label, off site scamming) required, etc.

 

[Punjabi3]

If someone has intent to scam on sythe, they're going to do it whether on their original account or vading because they got banned, so why just ban everyone? If they're going to scam, they're going to scam, banning everyone isn't going to change that.

Plus we have moderators, and isn't their job to deal with scammers?

If someone has the intent to be legit on sythe they should reimburse the scammed member on the off site, many people are unbanned easily if they reimburse the member they scammed which is the way it should be.

Why would we want another site's scammers if they show no reform before coming here?

Also a moderator is stopping scams from occurring by banning them for off site scamming if they come here, preventing a potential scam occurring here, so I don't know what that was meant to mean.

 

[video]

I don't support any statute of limitations and here's why. If someone scammed 2 years ago on powerbot, and then came here and got caught, that's not any different than if they scammed 2 years ago on sythe, and then got caught later. They should have to pardon, just like everyone else. I don't believe in giving people free passes for scamming regardless of where it occurred or how long ago it was. I do believe in the merits of the pardon system though

 

[n4n0]

And you're going to be the one complaining when russia invades the US and tries to blow us all up.

See how easy it was to make some random statement and try to say it's true?



How the fuck do you know that? You're just saying that to try and make it seem like you're right. That's just some made up statement and has no credibility. Just because you think something should be done one way does not make it the absolute truth.

Do not attack me like this again. I clearly stated it was MY OPINION, which I AM ENTITLED TO.

If someone has intent to scam on sythe, they're going to do it whether on their original account or vading because they got banned, so why just ban everyone? If they're going to scam, they're going to scam, banning everyone isn't going to change that.

Plus we have moderators, and isn't their job to deal with scammers?

It's our job to protect sythe by doing everything we can to prevent them from being scammed, which is why the rule is in place.

 

[Terrankiller]

One can obviously exploit this rule to get someone banned. I explained it in detail before some terrible moderator deleted the thread and infracted me.

 

[x339]

Do not attack me like this again. I clearly stated it was MY OPINION, which I AM ENTITLED TO.

Awesome? You stated your opinion, I stated mine. Is that a problem?

 

[Jei jei KK]

Two years is a long time. People change a lot in two years.
x339 plis calm

 

It's our job to protect sythe by doing everything we can to prevent them from being scammed, which is why the rule is in place.

Again, we need to prevent them from happening, not prevent people from accessing the forum with their name, it's harder to know a vader will scam than a person who is marked to have scammed in another forum.

We need to educate people, increase MM offerings, etc.

 

[FireZ]

I don't support any statue of limitations.

 

[Emperor Nero]

One can obviously exploit this rule to get someone banned. I explained it in detail before some terrible moderator deleted the thread and infracted me.

It takes a lot more than two or three posts over a month or two to get someone banned. Your points were meaningless because they all assumed that you could post somone's contact twice and get them banned. Most offsite offenses are banned when it is obvious that their account is linked to a sythe account. Such as the offsite account has been a long time member and has posted numerous times their contact information on the other site. Unless you are just going and paying someone to edit all of their posts to contain their contact information or have been planning the ban for a long time then there is little to no chance of getting someone banned. If you have an example please post it, I'd like to see.

OT:

More people want to see the rule changed or kept than there is people who want it removed.

 

A scammer is a scammer. No matter where they do it.
Keep the rule how it is.

 

A scammer is a scammer. No matter where they do it.
Keep the rule how it is.

Once a scammer always a scammer? If that's the case, get rid of the pardon system.

 

[Fallen Soul]

OT:

More people want to see the rule changed or kept than there is people who want it removed.

More people want it removed or changed.

I believe there should be a SoL to some extent. I do not believe if they were in some big scheme or scamming outright. Maybe if they were involved in phishing in game accounts a long time ago on a site that allowed it. Or Something more in the grey area like they might have attempted long ago.

I believe this issue has a lot of grey area, and people are choosing to be black and white about it.

I believe there may be some members who have had mistakes in the past while they were young teens or who may have matured overtime, who maybe deserve a SoL. I think people change, and it would be unfair to take a small mistake and turn it into a lifetime ban. Now if they were a mod, abusing powers, trusted users gone rogue for the chance of a large gain, or have a hibitual tendency to scam, they should not apply to this SoL.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

I voted to leave as is. If someone provably scammed off site, I want to see them banned, no matter the circumstances. We shouldn't ban based on the decision of the staff from another site though.

 

[Alex_J_Leon]

I'd like to reinforce the fact that some people are legitimate in some websites and not legitimate in others. I've seen it plenty of times, and n4n0 knows it too (unfortunately =]). I believe Black Hat should be removed altogether. Some people may do it for the curiosity just once, or things could be taken out of context. Just because someone is associated with black hat activities, doesn't mean they cannot be legitimate.

Just think about the people you are catching with this - you are catching people who merely use the same MSN or Skype or username - the serious scammers would steal accounts to scam or make new ones to scam with new information.

I used to ban people for scamming offsite, I still do depending on the case, but now it seems like they don't pose any threats.

I would make a general "we reserve the right to ban you based on the severity of offsite activities" while also making sure that staff DECIDES on said bans (i.e. multiple staff must approve to ban the user, not just one).

Off-topic rambling (ignore this) :

On a related note, I don't like the whole TWC thing... if I saw someone (for instance in the Amazon card case) act like that, I'd definitely ban said user without a question and protect legitimate users. The banned user can always open a dispute.

 

I voted to leave as is. If someone provably scammed off site, I want to see them banned, no matter the circumstances. We shouldn't ban based on the decision of the staff from another site though.

Your opinion on onsite scammers coming back?

 

[Terrankiller]

It takes a lot more than two or three posts over a month or two to get someone banned. Your points were meaningless because they all assumed that you could post somone's contact twice and get them banned. Most offsite offenses are banned when it is obvious that their account is linked to a sythe account. Such as the offsite account has been a long time member and has posted numerous times their contact information on the other site. Unless you are just going and paying someone to edit all of their posts to contain their contact information or have been planning the ban for a long time then there is little to no chance of getting someone banned. If you have an example please post it, I'd like to see.

OT:

More people want to see the rule changed or kept than there is people who want it removed.

The points had meaning as it is possible to impersonate a Sythe user off site. If you don't think this is possible then please elaborate on how it is impossible to impersonate someone and get them banned using the off site rules. Why would I put this point into practice to prove it? It is wrong and unethical.

 

[x339]

Everyone has the chance to scam. Banning someone does not make the site inaccessible....derp....

If someone wants to scam on sythe, they're going to scam. If they have to vade, they'll vade. So why go through all the hassle? You can't stop scams from happening. People with intent to scam will scam. That's a fact of life. Banning everyone just because they might scam is pointless, and banning people who discuss blackhat is pointless as well. I know how to make a bomb, should I be put in jail?

Again, this is a forum. A forum needs users. Just because someone MIGHT scam (which anyone MIGHT scam), doesn't mean you should ban them. If you keep doing that you're going to just continue dwindling down the userbase until the only people left are a righteous few standing atop their glorious pile of virtual dead bodies crying "we did it", as the domain expires and they all realize their hotpockets are ready.

 

[Raptor lx]

Maybe a TwC to those who have scammed offsite? And a ban to those who have scammed recently. (If scam occurred less than two months ago.)

I think this is the best option, because whilst it does mean there is a heightened chance of a scam occurring, we do not know the full circumstances of what happens on other sites.

 

Once a scammer always a scammer? If that's the case, get rid of the pardon system.

The pardon system isn't just for scammers. For instance, I was banned for archiving a highly controversial thread which got moved to the staff lounge, then shortly afterwards banned and had my old account hard deleted. I am back here now thanks to the pardon system.