No PM = No Scam Compensation

Since everyone and their mother has decided to start with an exploit (requested not to release the method - as per Hahanerd's request), we need to counter it.

The only solution in my mind is the request a PM fix. They'll always float an excuse not to send the PM - at that point it's up the the trader to figure it out. If they insist on going through with the trade, it's at their own risk. Trusted users won't deny traders' PMs.

tl;dr version: You need to request a PM with the person you're trading with - otherwise no compensation for impostor scams.

 

No support :/

Before I say why - what exploit are you talking about?

 

Agreed, even though I think this has been discussed before.

 

100% support, this is logical and a necessary precaution.

 

Absolutely for all the reasons given.

EDIT!
Chriscross23 made nearly the same suggestion a few months ago, and it has pages of supporters
http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=909389

 

Support.

I don't think it's really a precaution. More like a punishment for the ignorant fools who don't take precautions.

 

Completely Agree. This has been suggested (or at least hinted) before, and I see no reason why it would have been denied. It's utterly absurd for people to believe those excuses that scammers use for not PM'ing - although remember this will only apply to trades with those that are imposters or not members on Sythe.

Rather than making it specifically no compensation, just make it that all reports/claims without a requested PM will be closed and archived without response.

 

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=909389
^I posted it

 

Let's trend carefully and take into account our new users. Requiring private messages or the idea of PM user verification is something moderately unique to Sythe. Throwing out reports simply because they lack a PM could be an erroneous judgment removing credible reports.

I know what exploit you're referring to, Feren Silver. I'll make an announcement tomorrow with enough information on the exploit itself but not enough so people know how to actually exploit it.

Sound good?

 

Only thing here is we don't need pms to prove scams happened.

I'd really like to hammer RaSc down to the point where if you link us to screenshots rather then posting them directly that we just archive that report as I don't find the humor in clicking 400 links at once.

Also like to hammer the format there as well but it comes down to whether to let scammers go "just because the report format isn't 100% correct', and that I just cannot bring myself to do.


As for the OP, I support somewhat and would advise ALL traders to use pm verification.

 

This is a bad suggestion. This only hurts the ignorant members who already don't know to pm / trade safely and no doubt they will be ignorant to this rule as well and complain if they are compensated/report denied. A better suggestion would be prevention by increasing awareness somehow.

 

I agree, I have just been Pm'd by About Six people saying Some one is using my Email =S

I Support, this will just put a full stop on Imposters.

 

All this will do is increase the amount of people pretending to be hacked...

 

Pretty sure a rule like this rule already exists. Back when I got scammed by Tyros MSN, Sythe made a ruling that if you didn't PM you'd only receive 50% compensation. If your msn hasn't be hacked and the victim was dumb enough to fall for an impostor than yes I agree no compensation. But if you were hacked I think your at fault, but only if you didn't make it public.

 

I really need to figure out what were talking about here.

Oh, but its fair when a trusted member has no say in getting their MSN hacked, that MSN scams someone, and then it is THEIR fault? Bullshit.

 

Discussing the fact that a PM is completely irrelevant to proving a scam. Therefore archiving reports just because of that is just not acceptable.

 

Wait, a PM is irrelevant to proving a scam? How so?

 

Most of the reports in RaSc never have pm proof or say anything about one. I still ban scammers even without a pm being shown between the 2 traders.

Although pm proof is also nice, mainly its used to prove someone has an msn that they don't post publicly.

I haven't run into any problems of the "trick" yet and guess we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

 

My issue is more that if somone hacks my MSN, then trades with me and doesnt get a PM, how is that my fault? Why am I held liable for the ignorance of the trader?

 

I don't see why you need a rule for this. Smart traders ask for a pm and stupid ones don't. Also why would you be "paying them back" if they got scammed by an impostor? That's their fault for not asking for a pm or some way to prove who they are trading with. Sorry if it seems harsh but I'm confused on how this is a rule, should just be more like guidelines.