Why do certain members get special treatment?

so if you tell people youve scammed before you prove changed its ok, but if you come straight out and say youve scammed before you get banned? Isnt that a little backwards?

 

Like our legal system, perhaps consideration should be made when it comes to learning from your mistakes. Finn IMO is very trusted and is an example of the issue. This I'm sure will be talked about in the upper forums.

 

Then ban him if you are going to ban everyone else who admits to scamming before they came to sythe, or don't ban those people.

 

Exactly this. If a prominent member of the community admits they scammed a few years ago, would you ban him? Finn changed. He was given a chance. Why can't the people who admit to scamming a long time ago be given another chance?

 

that promotes hiding the fact that you have scammed in the past, and promotes deceit. Also if using the legal system as an example Finn would be permm'd for evading arrest.

 

Understand we are just throwing ideas to be considered/debated. I would assume anyone allowed to return following a review would have a TWC for a period of time much like being on probation.

 

maybe I misinterpreted your post, what do you mean when you say "consideration" like consideration of what? activity in the community?. I was providing a con to your proposed solution.

 

I'm sticking my neck out on this one, but here it goes. As a regular, normal, underprivileged member, let me say that a TWC doesn't do anything for that person but hurt them. I've seen people denied entirely for having a TWC even if they are willing to use an OMM or go first. I even do it, I see a TWC and I immediately think they have done some horrid thing that they need to be labeled. It's like branding someone, even after a TWC is removed they are still known for it around the community. I think that in some cases, especially like the one posted about phishing, people should be allowed a chance. Everybody makes mistakes, everybody in this entire forum has thought about scamming somebody at one point or another, whether or not you will all admit it or not. Sadly, being honest gets you banned, even when you know you were at fault, and childish. Admitting to the thought will get you banned, you don't actually have to take action. My support goes out to SuF, he speaks my mind very well, and he wont get banned for it.

 

I agree with this. A ban is unnecessary. At the most, a TWC should be issued although i feel that is ALSO unnecessary. Sythe would benefit from Chris being unbanned because of the following reasons:
Chris is a great middleman, he is patient, helpful and honest whenever he middleman's.
1.Chris has various account's to sell to the Sythe community.
2.Any buyer of Chris's accounts would know that he ensures full customer satisfaction by providing SUFFICIENT details for a recover, most sellers will cannot provide this.
3.Chris has worked hard toward contributing to the Sythe community by educating users about DDoSing, Ventrillo and posting other helpful guides.

Last but not least, ask yourselves this, How would Sythe benefit by having one of its BEST contributors banned?

 

I actually just read that dispute thread and was quite disgusted by the response he was given. Aren't bans on this website supposed to be for violations of this site's rules? And wouldn't violations of these site's rules only pertain to actions that occurred on this website? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

A TWC is not unreasonable, hey have shown at the current time to be untrustworthy, and thus should be treated as such.

 

But isn't the whole point of this thread about how people can learn from their mistakes? If a person that scammed before they joined sythe should be given the benefit of the doubt and be unbanned, shouldn't someone that scammed before and received a TWC be given the same treatment?

 

that makes no sense what so ever. Im just saying either everyone who scams before sythe should get banned or get a TWC

 

I'm saying a TWC is unreasonable for someone who hasn't broken rules while on this site. If he was phishing when he was a valid member, and admitted to it, then maybe a TWC would be a good idea, but a TWC is a TRADE WITH CAUTION. He said he was phishing, phishing rarely involves trading with someone, more or less a bullshit website to scam someone out of their info. Actually, a TWC makes no sense should he be allowed back in unless he plans on using the Market sections, in which case I would see it reasonable.

 

But Chris was not banned for philsing, he was banned for SUPPOSEDLY scamming Darkspirtih who was banned 1 year before. It shows a miscarrige of justice, if a user can be banned with so little evidence

 

Chris' case was very sad as well, but I was directing at Skele's reply to someone who wanted to join the community.

 

My post was not in direct response to your post :S sorry for any misunderstanding caused :S

 

Pretty much.

 

Alright, basically:

1.) I don't know why you're all being so vitriolic to SuF. He is raising a valid point.

2.) You have undermined the validity of your own point by some of the voting you did during your time as staff. This isn't an attack, but you can't hope to maintain an argument if you've already contravened it yourself.

3.) It would be a lie to assert that we treat all situations identically.

4.) Exceptions can be made in cases where:

- The staff, as a majority, feel an exception should be made for whatever reason. This movement can be overturned by Sythe if he is in disagreement. This has happened in the past -- Sythe is not complacent.
- Sythe allows for an exception to be made if the staff are in agreement. A recent example could be Finally_Found_Freedom.
- Sythe personally pardons a user and or makes a decision himself. Ultimately, it is his site.