Sythe Rule Reform -- which rules do you want gone?

As a caveat to this, please don't immediately go and post a poll. Let there be a little discussion on it first.

 

@n4n0 I'd be fine with some sort of time limit set up or something, but our current restrictions are far too strict to be healthy for the site. If someone scams 10b then makes a thread on sythe the next day for buying more gold, obviously there is an issue, but if someone scammed an upgrade last year and tries to join sythe, don't ban them and risk losing an active member.

 

Like I said, I'd be for the idea of a stature of limits, but the removal all together I refuse to support.

 

I think that any "blackhat" activities off-site should not make a person liable for a ban. If they do anything on Sythe, then they're banned, but if they just join and get banned because they post on hack forums, there is a problem. Plus someone who gets banned for that reason will most likely be angry, and may be more inclined to do something to a Sythe user.

Off-site scamming should be given a time limit. If the offense occurred within like a month or so (depending on severity), then they are up for the chance of a ban, but if they scammed an upgrade last year, who gives a shit?

Some of it would be case-by-case, but for the most part its the overall policy that could use some tweaking.

 

Maybe we should implement some sort of time frame on when an off-site action warrants a ban. I didn't like seeing active members being banned when they scammed a rune scimitar years ago when they were 12.

 

Edited OP with the link to the first poll regarding offsite offenses.

 

The warez rule, in my opinion, either needs some revising or clarification.
It's pretty obvious at this point that 90% of active Sythe members are involved, somehow, in some sort of warez (games, programs, etc), including staff members, gmods, and even admins. The fact that people talk about it on irc freely (although the irc isn't directly affiliated with the site nor is it official) and post links there partially speaks for the point that warez discussion doesn't speak for someone's moral compass at all. In fact, there's OMM's that are involved with warez.

Point is, I really would venture to say that warez discussion being prohibited is a pretty bogus (assumed) rule unless it has to do something with putting sythe (as a site) at risk for shutting down or anything of the sort. Now obviously this doesn't entail warez discussion and whole subforums based on the topic and its entities, but the casual linking of youtube videos or sites seems to be viewed as forbidden. And even then, it only directly states in the rules that direct links to downloads and sites associated with warez is a bannable offense. Yet people seem to think that any discussion involved with the subject is strictly prohibited.

Clarify the rule to either state general discussion/youtube or google searches are allowed or remove the rule in general
Granted this isn't the most important rule, but either way, I figured I'd put this out there for the general public <3

Edit: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1496036 is the thread but it says that it isn't valid. not sure if it needs approval, but yeah there it is for reference

 

I think 5 or at least a defined amount of temporary bans for infractions or whathaveyou before its 'permanent'. Right now it just says 'After a couple temp bans it will be perm' that could be 2 temp bans just for infractions and you could get permed if a staff member doesn't like you...

Also i believe pardons should be 4 month waiting periods, not 6.

Also; throwing it out there to matthew and sythe; I beleive that colored User Titles should be dropped down to a $75 donator benchmark perk, and the user image for the username dropped down to a $150 perk. Those who have already donated $200 for there UI could get somthing in return for this like...The ability to change there UI whenever they want, and $150 usertitles have to wait 1 week.

 

The defined amount of temporary bans for a permanent ban is a nice idea. I think it should be within a certain time frame though also, say perhaps a year?

 

I think the advertising ban is a bit harsh. What exactly does it mean anyway? I think there is confusion surrounding it.

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1471062

Not to throw anyone under the bus but isn't that advertising another runescape related community? Many times I have advertised other botting sites like rsbuddy, powerbot, rsbots etc. with the sole purpose of answering their question relating to bots.

Even if someone blatantly advertises their own runescape community here I do not think it warrants a 1 month ban. Unless it is an obvious newcomer with 1 post about some new community, I think a warning is a fair first action.

 

Seriously, a Name-Change option. Hear me out.

If not, implement a display name with the original username underneath. I understand this rule is to prevent scammers from simply changing names and stuff, but it could be easily doable so that people with large infractions or TWC, anything of the likes cannot change names. Only allow one name change per year and make it so you need 0 infractions that were of serious nature.

I made this account, v--own4g3--v when I was like 12 years old. Not being able to change name to my current account sucks, and I've been on and off of Sythe since before the user database got deleted in '06.


Edit: and another rule should be getting infractions removed by banned mods that had corrupt use of ability. Shredderbeam targeted me multiple times for spamming/flaming when I was contributing to the thread and said nothing offensive. They're expired but I mean they are still on record.

 

"No scamming scammers". Seriously? If someone scams my account and someone else comes and scams it back for me, why are they punished for doing so? It wasn't rightfully theirs to begin with, so...

I'd only want this rule changed if the scammed items were returned to the original owners. No keeping it for yourself bs.

 

Agreed. I don't understand why reclaiming something that was not originally the persons is frowned upon.

 

Black hat activities should be allowed to be talked about since it's part of programming and people can learn a lot about programming from hacking.

 

Agreeing with the general idea here, any sort of "Black Hat" activity should be questioned unless it directly or in-directly involves Sythe.org. Roughly a month ago the person who hacked Runetrack.org replied to my thread simply stating that he was the one who hacked into their database. He didn't receive a ban as far as I could tell, and he shouldn't be either way as it has nothing to do with this community whatsoever directly or indirectly.

 

But if I teach you how to create a phishing site that you then use to scam other people is that okay? Or what if I teach you how to DDoS people and you use it to scam billions from staking? I mean I can understand having a limited amount of discussion for safety purposes, but just allowing people to go all out and turn Sythe into an HF isn't a good idea. One you start running into legal conundrums really quick and two there needs to be some kind of moral obligation and trust that comes into play in a market. We are a market, and if we have an entire section that is blowing up about hacking this, that, and the other then how are people supposed to trust that I won't go into the programming section and learn how to steal your email address so I can recover your main that I just sold all that gold to?

 

People already have permission to post their bug abuse gallery for Runescape. The user I mentioned took credit for stealing the RuneTrack database as well. Neither users' posts were removed, and neither user received an infraction of any sort. What you're saying is if people are tutoring others and supplying others with guides on how to phish, etc. is a completely march in the opposite direction. If it's left to a minimum in terms of discussion, then there's no harm or foul seeing as nobody is gaining knowledge on how to preform and repeat the act but seeing the effects of the act.

 

You wont teach anyone because it's not as simple as you think. I'm talking about being able to discuss it. You shouldn't be in trouble for just talking about hacking.

 

See, this is where I disagree. User A talks about hacking user B, user B gets hacked a week later, user A is highly suspicious. Same with DDoSing, I asked for someone to be ddosed indirectly, (brought it up, made a joke), an then it actually happened. I got a ban. I deserved that ban for provoking an attack on a server. If you discuss methods of hacking/social engineering, it's more likely to happen. Easiest way, keep off the topics all together.

On a different note, the current self vouching/fake vouching ban is 3 months + 90 day TWC. This is it. No matter how many you fake, you get this. However, does anyone else think there should be a system for more serious self/fake vouchers?

Self/Fake Vouches - 6 Month UNAPPEABLE TWC, 6 month ban. However, if the S/F Vouches are over 2 years old, it goes to a 1 month ban.

 

Can anyone please post thoughts on my suggestion further up on page 2. It got overlooked in the midst of the argument.