TWC evading.

[v3-]

The current stance on ban evading is that if Person A is banned and they create an account to circumvent this ban, their second account is banned.

The current stance on TWC evading is that if Person B is branded with a TWC and they create an account to circumvent this status, their second account is branded with a TWC.

I believe there needs to be a reform with how the latter situation is handled. A person is given a TWC for being suspicious, but not suspicious enough to be an outright scammer. I think by circumventing their TWC, they are taking yet another step towards intentionally trying to deceive others and should be outright banned. They should not be held to different standards than anyone else trying to evade a status placed on their account.

Ruling relative to the situation:
http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=813998


I would be interested in hearing peoples opinions on this.

 

[Fa1lBoat]

Yea, Good point. If they are making another account so they don't have the TWC sign anymore, I think that they are just trying to scam. If they weren't scamming, They would sell the item on the account that has the TWC sign on it.

 

[xHyperx]

Yea, Good point. If they are making another account so they don't have the TWC sign anymore, I think that they are just trying to scam. If they weren't scamming, They would sell the item on the account that has the TWC sign on it.

LOL I can see the girl in your sig's nips.
Might wanna change that gif, you could get an infrac for it
P.S. Support

 

[FireZ]

I'd like to see it changed to all evaders = ban on the 2nd acct and then the first acct also.

Take more garbage out to the dumpster.

 

[Socialize]

I support this is beast.

 

[Brendan]

Your right, there should be a higher punishment then the new account getting a TWC as well. However, the issue is "Is TWC evading enough to warrant a ban?"

TWC's are often given to someone who is believed to have scammed, or will scam, but the proof is not entirely sufficient. (Correct me if I'm wrong!) Which means it could go either way.

I'm going to Pm Skele_Master about this. I'd like to see his thoughts on this. Especially with which of the 3 below punishments seem best to him.

1. Warning first, then Ban?

2. Market Ban on both accounts?

3. Immediate Ban.

 

[Magic Arrow]

The current stance on ban evading is that if Person A is banned and they create an account to circumvent this ban, their second account is banned.

The current stance on TWC evading is that if Person B is branded with a TWC and they create an account to circumvent this status, their second account is branded with a TWC.

I believe there needs to be a reform with how the latter situation is handled. A person is given a TWC for being suspicious, but not suspicious enough to be an outright scammer. I think by circumventing their TWC, they are taking yet another step towards intentionally trying to deceive others and should be outright banned. They should not be held to different standards than anyone else trying to evade a status placed on their account.

Ruling relative to the situation:
http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=813998


I would be interested in hearing peoples opinions on this.

It should be circumstantial.

Your right, there should be a higher punishment then the new account getting a TWC as well. However, the issue is "Is TWC evading enough to warrant a ban?"

TWC's are often given to someone who is believed to have scammed, or will scam, but the proof is not entirely sufficient. (Correct me if I'm wrong!) Which means it could go either way.

I'm going to Pm Skele_Master about this. I'd like to see his thoughts on this. Especially with which of the 3 below punishments seem best to him.

1. Warning first, then Ban?

2. Market Ban on both accounts?

3. Immediate Ban.

TWC are given out for suspicious activity.

 

[kfjjjdst]

As far as IM concerned you arent allowed to have two accounts anyways, whats the point of this rule then?

 

[Brendan]

As far as IM concerned you arent allowed to have two accounts anyways, whats the point of this rule then?

You ARE allowed to have more then one account, as long as they don't meet each other in any way (Such as vouching.)

 

[SuF]

A perm ban is extreme. Just give them another TWC and ban them for like a month or something. >_>.

 

[Lukef555]

I support this as it makes alot of sense, but id also like to see ban evaders IP banned.

 

[Necromancer24]

It doesn't matter if they're IP banned Luke. It's so easy to get past an IP ban. I could do it in a minute.

On topic: I don't think a perm ban is necessary. TWC + 2 week temp ban on new account is good enough.

 

[Skillers FTW]

I support a temp ban for TWC evading on both accounts in question, of two weeks in length.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

The current stance on ban evading is that if Person A is banned and they create an account to circumvent this ban, their second account is banned.

The current stance on TWC evading is that if Person B is branded with a TWC and they create an account to circumvent this status, their second account is branded with a TWC.

I believe there needs to be a reform with how the latter situation is handled. A person is given a TWC for being suspicious, but not suspicious enough to be an outright scammer. I think by circumventing their TWC, they are taking yet another step towards intentionally trying to deceive others and should be outright banned. They should not be held to different standards than anyone else trying to evade a status placed on their account.

Ruling relative to the situation:
http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=813998


I would be interested in hearing peoples opinions on this.

Either that or they're trying to be able to trade freely without the hindrances of TWC.

 

[v3-]

Either that or they're trying to be able to trade freely without the hindrances of TWC.

They are still deceiving others. Actual thought process does go into determining when someone deserves a TWC. They don't just hand them out like Halloween candy.

 

[b0b3rt]

I think a market ban would be more appropriate, for both accounts.