TR1BAL - unprofressionalism.

[kfjjjdst]

Today I posted an appeal:
http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=706494
"He has no obligation to answer your questions, you could of easily PM'ed him in that circumstance.

Denied." - was his reply.

If you read what I posted this should show you how unprofessional TR1BAL really is. I infact have NEVER stated it was anyone's obligation to view / answer, whatsoever, my dispute. I posted in the title - from SuF - meaning I recieved the infraction from him. He has declined my dispute to the a totally ridiclous reason, and I infact am on the oppinion he has exactly NO idea about what he is doing OR doesn't give the least about it.
I understand it is not your or anyone's job to reply my disputes - yet you replied. From that point I DO EXPECT a moderator to look behind the infraction or post something that makes sense, isn't complete crap.
I feel what you / he is doing is totally unprofessional and this should be changed.
thank you.

 

[Sin666]

Tr1bal wasn't telling you that Suf had no obligation to answer your dispute - he was answering the dispute for Suf by saying the poster - MXD3000 - had no obligation to comment on his post count, or the post count of his vouchers. You cannot implicate someone for being a scammer simply because they are new, or happen to have new vouchers - if you suspect their vouches are fake, PM a mod to check the IP's. There's no reason to try to hurt his sale if you're not sure. In this case, I checked the IP's, and they don't match his.

 

[kfjjjdst]

Tr1bal wasn't telling you that Suf had no obligation to answer your dispute - he was answering the dispute for Suf by saying the poster - MXD3000 - had no obligation to comment on his post count, or the post count of his vouchers. You cannot implicate someone for being a scammer simply because they are new, or happen to have new vouchers - if you suspect their vouches are fake, PM a mod to check the IP's. There's no reason to try to hurt his sale if you're not sure. In this case, I checked the IP's, and they don't match his.

I'm sorry but on that post I WAS actually interested in a fire cape was why I actually asked him about that. So this leads us back to the topic I wasn't hurting his sale and I only reported in the scammer section whatsoever, so someone could check the IP's so I could know if this guy was legit.

EDIT: Hwere does MXD3000 come into the picture AT ALL? I only asked him a question, someone else replied, and as A DEFENSE, I BASICLY posted "this was the reason I asked" and I got infracted upon it.

EDIT2: Now I fully understand your point, but the infraction I recieved still wasn't warranted. I, in my honest opinion believe, I am not obligated to PM him with my questions, I (as to my best knowledge) have the right to post on somebody's thread anything I want as long as it's not offtopic or flaming whatsoever.

 

[Sin666]

You were accusatory - you didn't merely ask why his images had different names (a question), but went on to state your assumption that they were therefore taken off google (an accusation). You then basically said his vouches were meaningless because they were from "leechers". In the post you were infracted for, you quoted one of his vouches, pointed to the post count, and said, "This is what I mean".

What answer were you expecting to get about why his vouchers have low post counts? Assuming the vouches are real, the only answer he could possibly give is pretty much "...because they happen to have a low post count". It's clear you were trying to point out the suspicious aspects of his thread, and it's fine for you to be suspicious - but, you need to let users make their own judgments. Unless you are absolutely sure that he's scamming, he has a right to trade without being harassed.

That said, the infraction was deserved.