Utter Disgrace

[raziaex]

http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1004543
^ If this is how moderators treat other members and their views, then it is a complete failure with regards to the way they are trained and/or selected. I sure hope I'm making making a gross generalization...

And to all of you suck-ups; please try and refer to this specified scenario rather than a disjointed and possibly historic account of on your own behalf.

 

[Gurtaton]

While I too disagree that every thread should not get slapped with a 'Denied', you're supporting a person who openly wanted to get involved in phishing.

 

[FireZ]

Hello bud, I didn't think an explanation was needed, it was self explanatory why he was banned.

 

[Karl]

Firstly, please use common sense, if one of the rules is against phishing, and we ban users for posting phishing links, why should we allow and support someone who actively wants to become directly involved with phishing know-how websites? Don't make any excuses like 'Oh he just may want to learn how so he can benefit himself just incase he gets phished' because alot of others seem to know when its a phishing website without needing any prior amount of knowledge.

Visiting a site like that only shows bad character, would he really be trustworthy in a blackmarket trade situation? This site relys on trust and honesty and legitimacy, we cannot allow someone who follows deceit to take something from someone else without them knowing.

@Firez's response, He doesn't have to give you the full reason for a users ban, because firstly, its only the business of the banned user and the staff.

As of recently (since Free Trade, etc.) we've had an influx in Spam and Scam reports, and Ban disputes, its almost overwhelming, sorry if some staff don't have the time for idle chit-chat or explaining a reason which is rather clear.

 

[Deveriski]

High Pardons are based on the discretion of the moderator/administrator.

 

[Magic Arrow]

I'd like you to try and get a single staff member who wants him unbanned.

In fact, I challenge you to do so.

 

[raziaex]

Firstly, please use common sense, if one of the rules is against phishing, and we ban users for posting phishing links, why should we allow and support someone who actively wants to become directly involved with phishing know-how websites? Don't make any excuses like 'Oh he just may want to learn how so he can benefit himself just incase he gets phished' because alot of others seem to know when its a phishing website without needing any prior amount of knowledge.

How can you make such an assumption?
How can you so radically assume that a person who simply wishes to discuss phishing will inevitably take part in it?
If he DID post a phishing link (which I obviously do not know about at present), then I will completely take back everything I've said and I give my sincerest apologies.

Maybe this is a bit beside the point; however..

This site relys on trust and honesty and legitimacy

Does this site truly rely on honesty and legitimacy? From my relatively little amount of experience as a user here, it'd become fairly obvious to me that concepts of 'trust' have merely been interpreted as tools which traders use for their own benefit. I cannot be absolute here, but every bit of my instinct assures me that the only reason that legitimacy even exists between members is for personal benefit. Terms such as 'trust', 'legit', and 'honest' lose their integral meaning when displayed so frequently and frankly; with such lack of depth.

Now, IF; and only IF, the scenario is as I see it (again, until someone actually explains to me a differing account); then no one would want to have him unbanned. However our desires must dissociate from moral action.

I'd like you to try and get a single staff member who wants him unbanned.

In fact, I challenge you to do so.

Thus my answer to your challenge is simple. I cannot.

 

[Sin666]

It's quite obvious, at least to everyone else here, that mage is involved in phishing, or has an interest in starting it. Not only because he created a thread seeking a forum to discuss it, but, if you try reading his posts,

Sorry, but I believe most of the percentage of this forum has shown interest in such, at some point..

After all, Sythe is a cheating community. We are all looking to gain advantages over others.

His use of the collective "we" is enough to show that his intent was clearly not from a purely educational standpoint. He was interested in doing it, and his interest is enough, since the advantage he seeks to gain is the wrong sort, and reflects poorly on him.

As for the response, mods have a dark sense of humor when it comes to disputes.

However; please do not simply 'deny' this without producing a reasonable reply that clearly accounts for the ban. There have been many occasions where I have simply seen a 'Denied' being posted without further explanation.

Really, you were asking to be "Denied." Especially since I believe there's a rule that you cannot dispute another user's ban unless they are unable to post for themselves.

 

I do believe it's common courtesy to at least provide a reasonable response when others are being courteous in their dispute.

 

[Encrypted]

I do believe it's common courtesy to at least provide a reasonable response when others are being courteous in their dispute.

This says it all.

Staff Members are to be idolized by other members. It will be a sad day when Staff Members decided that efficiency is more important that treating members fairly.

You serve to protect and help Sythe's members. To be so blunt as to say nothing more than "Denied" completes one of your duties as a Staff Member, but it certainly fails the other.

I still thank you for the service you have done for the community.

 

[iSpongebob]

/Support

Mostly because I would like to see reasoning behind denying the dispute(s) some times.

 

[Simple Merchant]

Staff members are busy enough dealing with the scammers not to have to explain themselves for what they do. If they start that, then every move they make will be criticized and questioned to be explained .

It would be smart to just "denied" it and move on and not leave a precedent where their judgement is questioned. and looking through the other links, that guy definitely should have been banned -- he clearly stated that he wanted to learn to phish to "gain advantage" over others.

And this inane suggestion to allow phishing forums on this site, is just disastrous to the people who have legit businesses -- we already deal with enough idiots without having to invite more in.

 

Staff members are busy enough dealing with the scammers not to have to explain themselves for what they do. If they start that, then every move they make will be criticized and questioned to be explained .

It would be smart to just "denied" it and move on and not leave a precedent where their judgement is questioned. and looking through the other links, that guy definitely should have been banned -- he clearly stated that he wanted to learn to phish to "gain advantage" over others.

And this inane suggestion to allow phishing forums on this site, is just disastrous to the people who have legit businesses -- we already deal with enough idiots without having to invite more in.

When I was an administrator I still found it easy to answer disputes quickly whilst being courteous and explaining reasons at the same time. It can be done, and should be done.

 

[Plznate]

I see no reason why a simple, "denied, you were clearly involved in malicious activity" would be too harmful.

While OP's assessment of staff on a whole is not only generalized and an incomplete view, it is grossly exaggerated, but I agree with the point listed above I guess.

 

[raziaex]

I see no reason why a simple, "denied, you were clearly involved in malicious activity" would be too harmful.

While OP's assessment of staff on a whole is not only generalized and an incomplete view, it is grossly exaggerated, but I agree with the point listed above I guess.

I sure hope I'm making making a gross generalization...

I just don't understand. 'Desire' and 'Morals' are completely different things (in retrospect). In nature, it's understandable that humans may be greedy, belittling of others, self-centered, and so on. But it's really cohesion that brings us the 'need' to abide by a set of rules or a form of jurisdiction so all of us can benefit mutually. Perhaps Mage was truly interested in phishing and hacking (now it seems I cannot deny this); however, this raises another issue. To which point can moderators mistake one's desire to do something as becoming motivation for them to act?
It's more of a moral issue; beside the way in which my dispute was answered.

 

[FireZ]

If you want to know why someone was denied just pm the mod who denied them and they may or may not tell you. Most are very obvious though.

 

[i noob killer i]

I have to agree with Verts It doesent take much longer to state why its denied. I know staff are busy but seriously I think people should know why its denied.

 

[Sanctuary]

Just a thought, but if phishing is bannable why isn't luring under the same category?

 

[FireZ]

Luring is nothing like phishing

 

It's more the issue that sometimes the person that's been banned doesn't necessarily know why they were banned. Sometimes it happens.