Satanism said:I'm not too sure that everyone will agree with this.
GrƷƷd said:If there is 100% legitimate proof and it is not offsite then I assure you that I could care less how reputable the user is. And as to users claiming they are hacked, I think they should possibly have to show evidence of why they were too busy and didn't report their account as hacked before the scam took place, if that's possible.
I'm not saying off-site scams shouldn't count, but it's Philly's rule that off-site scams do not count.Plague said:I have talked to you quite a bit and I know that you see this the same way. But offsite proof should be enough to result in a ban, if there is proof it is their aim/skype action should be taken.
And as for the "hacking" anyone can simply use a VPN, 4G, or a friend's connection. And if they didn't realize it was hacked almost instantly then they sure as hell wouldn't the same day as a scam.
GrƷƷd said:I'm not saying off-site scams shouldn't count, but it's Philly's rule that off-site scams do not count.
Yeah, but I see where Philly's coming from, why should a random scam off-site count when people could easily just send one PM or make on thread/post to make it offsite. If they want there to be action taken, on-site, then they should deal, on-site.Plague said:I believe that should be changed, it would help the site dramatically. I could go make a thread right now say I'm going to start a scamming spree on aim.
By Philly's rules I will not get banned, if I did then it would be against his own rules.
GrƷƷd said:Yeah, but I see where Philly's coming from, why should a random scam off-site count when people could easily just send one PM or make on thread/post to make it offsite. If they want there to be action taken, on-site, then they should deal, on-site.
Cann!bal said:Yeah, get rid of the section! Let the scammers and wrongdoers roam freely! Great suggestion!
Truthfully, this is one of the worst suggestions I've ever seen. I mean seriously.
I treat all my cases without bias: for Evidence is the dictator. I don't question him. And one's popularity is not a benefactor of the ruling.
Bit said:Careful about speaking your honest opinion man, you might get negative repSpeaking of someone give this guy some of that green, he deserves it.
Plague said:I didn't want a smartass remark from this, if you don't see eye to eye with me on it simply say so. Don't come here being a dick because you think you are higher than everyone.
On topic, you do judge most fairly. However if you read the entire thread correctly you would notice that it is mainly about how bias cases are on popularity of one member. You can tell me that none of your decisions are bias but I know better than to think that. And you don't ban at all for offsite so why the fuck should onsite matter?
And to whoever deleted my most recent post fuck off, it did not break any rules nor speak badly of anyone.
Cann!bal said:I was trying to be humorous, not a jerk. My apologies if you misinterpreted that. I was emphasizing how ridiculous your suggestion was with sarcasm.
Don't believe me then. I know I'm handling these cases fairly. I don't ban off-site scammers; for off-site scamming is not a bannable offense. I'm not some rogue moderator.
You were discussing a prohibited forum, that's why it got junked.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?