SRR - Offsite Offenses

[MohtasaUnique]

Your opinion on onsite scammers coming back?

I have no opinion on the pardon system, and it seems that is what you have a problem with. I believe that people can change, so the saying "once a scammer, always a scammer" is not something I believe is true. However, if you scam elsewhere, and not on sythe, you've scammed and are therefore freshly capable of it.

 

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.

Could of been held in disputes. I don't get the pardon system..

 

i dont believe anything on other forums has anything to do with sythe.

 

[GodGenesis]

I think A TWC rank should be given to those who have scammed offsite.

 

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. But I do believe that once you have scammed that you shouldn't be allowed back.

 

[Grod]

Maybe slap them a TWC, for 6 months or longer depending on their offence on the other website. Obviously, I think if they where into blackhat activities elsewhere, why wouldn't they do them here? That way they could still be part of the community here, but people would know to be wary.

On another suggestion, perhaps add onto a TWC rank a clickable link to the reason they got the TWC? Some people with TWC try to hide the real reason they got theirs. Just a thought.

 

[n4n0]

Might close this in a day or two and start a new poll with the top 3 choices since they're so close in numbers, and make the ultimate choice from that one.

 

[SuF]

I think anything before your time at Sythe should be meaningless. I think anything other than scamming offsite while at Sythe should not be punished at all.

 

[Athlete]

This should of been done a long time ago. Sythe is exactly what it says "The craigslist of virtual goods". By all means, make stickies, inform members to use caution when trading, but in the end it's up to the user to make the right decision. Trying to prevent every single scammer/blackhat from coming into the community will prevent the site from growing large, but at the same time it will keep a tight-knit community. So those are the choices, you can either be a huge forum (with scammers, as every large site has), or keep a tight-knit community but without as much growth, and less scammers/blackhat. It'd also help if users that scammed were automatically allowed to come back with a TWC after they had repaid the member, instead of denying them or allowing them back in after. Unless of course there a serious threat.

To be honest I'd just say fuck it and reform the whole rule book.

 

Whoever voted to leave it as it is, is wrong. What people do outside of our jurisdiction is none of our business.

I've voted to remove it, I've always thought it was a stupid rule.

 

[malakadang]

Well. You have a murderer. They murdered someone in Town B. Town B evicted them. The murderer moves to town A. Town A welcomes them with open arms, even though they would evict anyone who murders.

This is the situation that would exist if we allowed off-site scammers into the community. Kind of stupid, don't you think? The 'what people do elsewhere is none of our business' is absolute rubbish; it would NEVER hold up in real life, and I don't know why the geographical location (or electronic location, however you want to draw a juxtaposition) matters when we evaluate their actions.

There are however obvious differences in the analogy, such as the demographic age-group of people who use sythe.org, potential for character reform, and so on. Factoring all that into consideration:

I would have to support this rule: "Add a stature of limitations of 1 year or more since the offense - Include Black-Hat". 1 year is a long time for development in one's adolescent years, and if they demonstrate sufficient character reform, they should be given a chance, as one would in real life. As for the actual rule itself, I'll repeat, the belief that what people do off-site is irrelevant is stupid. We judge people based on their actions, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[n4n0]

Well. You have a murderer. They murdered someone in Town B. Town B evicted them. The murderer moves to town A. Town A welcomes them with open arms, even though they would evict anyone who murders.

This is the situation that would exist if we allowed off-site scammers into the community. Kind of stupid, don't you think? The 'what people do elsewhere is none of our business' is absolute rubbish; it would NEVER hold up in real life, and I don't know why the geographical location (or electronic location, however you want to draw a juxtaposition) matters when we evaluate their actions.

There are however obvious differences in the analogy, such as the demographic age-group of people who use sythe.org, potential for character reform, and so on. Factoring all that into consideration:

I would have to support this rule: "Add a stature of limitations of 1 year or more since the offense - Include Black-Hat". 1 year is a long time for development in one's adolescent years, and if they demonstrate sufficient character reform, they should be given a chance, as one would in real life. As for the actual rule itself, I'll repeat, the belief that what people do off-site is irrelevant is stupid. We judge people based on their actions, nothing more, nothing less.

Well put

 

[Sun]

I didn't know what Black-Hat was, so I had to Google it.

"Add a stature of limitations of 1 year or more since the offense - DO NOT Include Black-Hat"

I believe people can change in a year, it's a good amount of time before allowing them the chance to prove themselves. I like the idea that scammers off-site get a TWC.

 

[Syed]

Lol at people comparing scamming to murder. Seriously...?

Scamming at most is petty theft, and if you think a petty thief can't change, then you're obviously as dumb as a bag of hammers.

I am strongly of the belief, that what happens before them joining Sythe shouldn't be considered at all.

And anything that happens on Sythe after a certain amount of time shouldn't be considered either. If some kid self-vouched like 2 years ago, and was trusted and is active in the community, then obviously he shouldn't be banned, people change.

If someone scams off-site while on Sythe on the otherhand, then he should get a ban.

 

[Punjabi3]

Lol at people comparing scamming to murder. Seriously...?

Scamming at most is petty theft, and if you think a petty thief can't change, then you're obviously as dumb as a bag of hammers.

I am strongly of the belief, that what happens before them joining Sythe shouldn't be considered at all.

And anything that happens on Sythe after a certain amount of time shouldn't be considered either. If some kid self-vouched like 2 years ago, and was trusted and is active in the community, then obviously he shouldn't be banned, people change.

If someone scams off-site while on Sythe on the otherhand, then he should get a ban.

If someone wants to be legit and has scammed in the past, they should be able to refund the person they scammed. If they aren't willing to reimburse the scammed amount its unlikely they will stay legit on sythe.

 

[SuF]

If someone wants to be legit and has scammed in the past, they should be able to refund the person they scammed. If they aren't willing to reimburse the scammed amount its unlikely they will stay legit on sythe.

If something happened four years ago it's hard to pay people back. Anything that happened before they agreed to our rules (made an account) should not be ban worthy (the staff would still retain the right to remove someone if there's an extreme case or something).

 

[mage3158]

If someone wants to be legit and has scammed in the past, they should be able to refund the person they scammed. If they aren't willing to reimburse the scammed amount its unlikely they will stay legit on sythe.

It's incredibly difficult to confirm or control this, and would probably just be a waste of time in the long run.

 

[Punjabi3]

If something happened four years ago it's hard to pay people back. Anything that happened before they agreed to our rules (made an account) should not be ban worthy (the staff would still retain the right to remove someone if there's an extreme case or something).

Then treat it how it is here if someone scammed 4 years ago and can't find the person to reimburse a decent amount of effort should be made to contact the scammed member and attempt to reimburse.

 

[win4fun]

Seems like the results would be a bit skewed by asking the community as a whole? People with the intent to scam are going to obviously vote for the most lenient ruling even if it isn't in the forum's best interest.

 

[Athlete]

Lol at people comparing scamming to murder. Seriously...?

Scamming at most is petty theft, and if you think a petty thief can't change, then you're obviously as dumb as a bag of hammers.

I am strongly of the belief, that what happens before them joining Sythe shouldn't be considered at all.

And anything that happens on Sythe after a certain amount of time shouldn't be considered either. If some kid self-vouched like 2 years ago, and was trusted and is active in the community, then obviously he shouldn't be banned, people change.

If someone scams off-site while on Sythe on the otherhand, then he should get a ban.

Dude, murder and scamming are like the same thing, pshhh. Everyone knows that scamming is the first step to murder.

But in all seriousness, I still stand by my statement earlier. You can't compare Murder and scamming, because they have completely different outcomes and consequences. Think of it as a butterfly. A murderer, is completely morphed into a butterfly, there's practically 0% chance of them changing again. A scammer, is still in a cocoon , it's possible for him to change, but to ban him it's also never giving him the chance. Furthermore, instead of banning every member for petty crimes, the focus needs to be towards making sure ALL the members know that there ARE scammers/blackhats here, and the steps to take to ensure they don't get scammed/hacked. People have become more cautious on Craigslist because of all the memo's and word of mouth that's spread from there usage, this should be the case with Sythe too, after all it's "The Craigslist of Virtual Goods"

So my conclusion would be to remove the rule of Off-Site offenses, and make it so only in serious cases, the user would be banned for off-site offenses (i.e. mass phishing, hacking, or scamming).