The Bullshit Act

[claw bogy]

So do I get banned for pirating porn on other websites?

Sooooo... I can still pirate the porn?

 

[`Chainsaw35]

Overreacting but in a way, you're right. If people are banned for things they do outside of sythe, that has NO BEARING on sythe, it's silly. People banned for doing things outside of sythe that affect sythe, such as pin lining and mass reselling, it's logical to ban them, as you know they're affecting Sythe and it's community...
My 2 cents :$

 

[Brendan]

Skele DOES NOT use lines, however, I have proof he buys pins from someone who uses lines for there pins.

Huge vouch for Amanda, bought 7 pins via Paypal, I went first, good trader

Proof Amanda uses lines

yes he does not buy pins me and him have a method of obtaining them

OUT OF STOCK
PLEASE DO NOT POST
WILL POST WHEN BACK IN STOCK​

(Pinlines die after a short time and restock after each month, which is when she will be back)​

 

[Trip.Fagex]

I agree with the OP, I don't like how you can be banned on Sythe for other websites.

 

[Sin666]

Can the staff at least make this clear in the rules? You can't just assume no one reads the rules and thus have a rule without having it written in the rules. It just pisses me off when the staff assumes that others are supposed to know this without it being stated, especially the ********s rule that's not even on the rules but rather on a different thread that also states you can only sell pins you obtain yourself. You guys need to draw a line on what can and cannot be done, and need to stop bringing up bullshit arguments without listening to what your members think.

Also, if I may add, why was Finn given a second chance? I thought Sythe doesn't give second chances. Shouldn't there also be another 'act' that says if people are found deserving, their ban can be waived? Kind of like a reverse unconscionable act.

The rule doesn't exist because we didn't want it to. If users are going break the rule anyway, and only hide their involvement in such activities better if reminded of the possibility of being banned, and if we prefer to keep untrustworthy users from using (and gaining status on) the forum...why would we tell them?

It is not the action of phishing that we care about, as much as it is what their willingness to phish indicates.

Finally, I pity whoever takes over disputes if you write a rule saying "deserving people can be unbanned/have their ban waived." Everyone thinks themselves deserving (or capable of appearing deserving), and for the average user it is merely a false hope.

 

[Luuke]

I def think that the Sythe policy regarding a violation of rules on other forums should be more clearly defined, or at least specify which rules cannot be broken on other websites as well.

I agree, we need to elaborate more and make it more clear.

 

[Maleficent]

He gets them from whoever the fuck sells to him, that's where.

Show me one time we do 'prove it or your guilty,' if there's no proof why would we ban someone? Chat logs =! proof. That's to protect your 'innocent until proven guilty' thing. Otherwise, barely any proof would be needed.

If you're trying to make that in to Dorians ban, apparently, Sin caught him trying to buy ********s with the same MSN. So, he was technically, proven guilty.

clearly judging by the bans ive seen your guilty as soon as the report hits the table depending on who sent it imposter or not.


He was proven guility for doing business outside sythe. You said this site would be full of cheaters/hackers/scammers ect.. thats exactly what we all essentially are. More people came to sythe to cheat,steal most prob didn't come to have a social life on here and get banned for trying to make money. Granted you guys clean up scammers and remove with as you should do as admins/mods but some people with upper power push it cause they simply can and no one wouldn't even care.

 

[OldFinn]

Absolutism is generally unfeasible. On a site like this, a relativist approach is required whereby we make judgements on the basis of each individual case. The unconscionable act clause allows us to do this, rather than having absolute and dogmatic rules that do not consider circumstantial factors. For every ban, TWC, etc. there are individual factors in each case that need to be considered. For example, deliberately doing something and unintentionally doing something is a common factor which, realistically, ought to be considered, as it sets apart the malicious and the innocent.