Influenced by this thread; http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1260353&page=2
Scam reports lacking in key evidence, but nonetheless containing substantial content posing threat against the culprit shouldn't be taken lightly, passed off and locked, synonymous with every other 'incomplete' report.
Its not hard to distinguish between the reports completely lacking in any coherent evidence, with the reports that are unfortunately one step behind official regulations. Staff members should personally assess submitted reports, and, in their heart, come to a conclusion. If it is blatantly, PAINFULLY obvious that the accused did in fact scam, but got away scott-free due to a technicality, this rank should be applied. I don't see it enough, given the amount of incomplete reports discarded daily.
Scam reports lacking in key evidence, but nonetheless containing substantial content posing threat against the culprit shouldn't be taken lightly, passed off and locked, synonymous with every other 'incomplete' report.
Its not hard to distinguish between the reports completely lacking in any coherent evidence, with the reports that are unfortunately one step behind official regulations. Staff members should personally assess submitted reports, and, in their heart, come to a conclusion. If it is blatantly, PAINFULLY obvious that the accused did in fact scam, but got away scott-free due to a technicality, this rank should be applied. I don't see it enough, given the amount of incomplete reports discarded daily.







