Rule on Saying someone is a Scammer

[Josie Maran]

I got an infraction for accusing someone of scamming

I think it is unfair if you have proof of the person scamming you should be aloud to post it or it means they are just aloud to keep on scamming.

Why does no one get banned from scamming when it's against the rules?

[Axel]

I thought the same thing. As long as you have proof, you should be allowed to name the scammer. Otherwise they could just keep on scammming innocent members.

[Josie Maran]

I thought the same thing. As long as you have proof, you should be allowed to name the scammer. Otherwise they could just keep on scammming innocent members.

Exactly Thank you i had proof on two people scamming me and they wont do anything

[---MAD---]

This has been debated so many times. The reason is because you can never ever prove something is 100% real as its so easy to fake screenshots, videos etc (by editing off course). If you really wanted to make someone look like a scammer, you could do a fantastic job of it simply by editing (it will look real too).

Obviously we cant ban someone without 110% solid proof which on the internet is nearly impossible to get unless Habbo confirm it from their logs or w/e (if they even have such logs :p).

I hope that explains it.

[Josie Maran]

This has been debated so many times. The reason is because you can never ever prove something is 100% real as its so easy to fake screenshots, videos etc (by editing off course). If you really wanted to make someone look like a scammer, you could do a fantastic job of it simply by editing (it will look real too).

Obviously we cant ban someone without 110% solid proof which on the internet is nearly impossible to get unless Habbo confirm it from their logs or w/e (if they even have such logs :p).

I hope that explains it.

Not really no because maybe video but screenshots are easy to tell if they are fake or not.

Moderators are here to make sure rules arn't broken and people who are scamming are breaking rules but do you tell them off no, you might aswell PM them congratulating them on what a performance they did.

[ReviewDude]

Sorry for a slight bump here - but the Habbo section, along with Trading, see the most breaches of this rule. Put it this way, imagine someone edits a screenshot of 'MrN00b101LookThisNameIsTooLongToBeARealHabbo' (not an actual person) scamming a poor guy out of furni, to make it say 'Tiked' did it.

Any trades you did in future would be ruined if anyone brings that up. As we know, it's incredibly easy to edit things - so proof is never final. The rule is there validly and needs to be upheld.

Thanks,

RD

[Nixt]

May I also direct you to this post (http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=2484880&postcount=4) which justifies this rule in detail.

[Josie Maran]

Sorry for a slight bump here - but the Habbo section, along with Trading, see the most breaches of this rule. Put it this way, imagine someone edits a screenshot of 'MrN00b101LookThisNameIsTooLongToBeARealHabbo' (not an actual person) scamming a poor guy out of furni, to make it say 'Tiked' did it.

Any trades you did in future would be ruined if anyone brings that up. As we know, it's incredibly easy to edit things - so proof is never final. The rule is there validly and needs to be upheld.

Thanks,

RD

I see your point and i know its done at the traders risk but if like 3 or more people complain couldn't it be looked into?

[F32]

Habbox staff arn't Sulake staff and thus cannot 'look into' cases of suspected scamming on Habbo.

[ReviewDude]

I see your point and i know its done at the traders risk but if like 3 or more people complain couldn't it be looked into?

If someone was reported a lot, the absolute worst Habbox could do would be to take them off the Official Safe Traders list, which I doubt they'd be on anyway :(

[Josie Maran]

If someone was reported a lot, the absolute worst Habbox could do would be to take them off the Official Safe Traders list, which I doubt they'd be on anyway :(

So basically someone could keep scamming and scamming and nothing would happen?

[F32]

So basically someone could keep scamming and scamming and nothing would happen?
Tell it to Habbo, not Habbox.

Habbox can do nothing about it.

[ReviewDude]

So basically someone could keep scamming and scamming and nothing would happen?

Yep. Well, if they did it on Habbox there's nothing we could do. Same goes if posting someone is a scammer was allowed - if I posted "OMG xxx JUST SCAMMED ME 2T DON'T TRUST" on every thread, Moderators couldn't prove it either way. This one is far better and less harmful.

[Seacat]

There isn't actually a rule in the Habbox Forum rules that state members are not allowed to scam. Clearly this doesn't justify people scamming but it means that unless we have solid proof we cannot ban for it. The rules do state that people must abide by Habbo Hotel rules as well, but if Habbo Hotel rules are broken then that is a matter for Habbo Hotel to deal with.

I have banned people for scamming in the past when there is solid proof or it is just obvious that the person has scammed, but unfortunately we don't have particular banning guidelines for suspected scammers, as that's what the majority are - suspected. In real life you wouldn't lock someone up because you suspected they murdered your aunt, because even if you were sure they did, if you don't have proof then you can't just ruin their reputation.

It's similar to that on Habbox. Even if you are sure that someone did scam, if you don't have solid evidence (and MAD has already stated that such evidence is hard to find) then you cannot ruin their future reputation, as this would mean that no one would trade with the person even though they didn't scam or there was a simple misunderstanding.




Moderators are here to make sure rules arn't broken and people who are scamming are breaking rules but do you tell them off no, you might aswell PM them congratulating them on what a performance they did.

[A4AOwen]

I agree with you, but I also agree that you can never be 100% sure. It's stupid that if you have the proof you need then the scammer should be dealt with. However, today you can get people who are amazing at pixel art. So, if you really hated someone it would be very easy to get them hated on the forum. Possibly this is a rule that should be looked into very carefully so the rue can be changed :)

[F32]

Thing is; this should work two ways.

You have a safe/trusted list - how can you be 100% sure that they're safe? You've only got people's word for it.

I fail to see how this is any different.

[A4AOwen]

I don't agree with having ay sort of list saying who is safe, who isn't or any sort of details. People gain a reputation if they are safe and likewise if they are unsafe. I have never liked list's because it can lead to problems and seems to always do so.

[ReviewDude]

Thing is; this should work two ways.

You have a safe/trusted list - how can you be 100% sure that they're safe? You've only got people's word for it.

I fail to see how this is any different.

We can't. We have the safe traders list as a guide, not a rule book ;) Anyway, we'd rather let a few scammers get through than have an innocent person's reputation ruined.

[F32]

We can't. We have the safe traders list as a guide, not a rule book ;) Anyway, we'd rather let a few scammers get through than have an innocent person's reputation ruined.
Then why not have an untrusted list as a guide and not a rule book?

Same principel applies.

[Typoh.]

I agree with both as i got an Infranaction from a SMOD for saying someones a scammer - i mean well i wanted to make sure noone elce trades him, like make them aware of it that user isn't even on HxF or Hx the reason was "Accusing/naming anyone of lying/scamming/hacking or any other bad things." soo its pointless if hes not even on the HxF :S but i understand why i was given it and i've accepted it, even though i think its still unfair but anyway his mates are those rich mother ********* on habbo like well rich soo he can get away with murder and he wont lose any rep... stupid..

[ReviewDude]

Then why not have an untrusted list as a guide and not a rule book?

Same principel applies.

Not really. Only a positive effect can be had by a trusted list. An untrusted list would only be negative. Sure, like the trusted list, there is a possibility that the wrong person would get on there. It's easy to shatter a reputation, but hard to build one up, which is why a trusted list exists.

[F32]

Not really. Only a positive effect can be had by a trusted list. An untrusted list would only be negative. Sure, like the trusted list, there is a possibility that the wrong person would get on there. It's easy to shatter a reputation, but hard to build one up, which is why a trusted list exists.
But, it's the same way round for an untrusted list - just the reverse.

[ReviewDude]

But, it's the same way round for an untrusted list - just the reverse.

Tried to explain this, no it isn't. We can't risk innocent people having their reputation ruined. We can risk scammers getting into the trusted list, albeit very unlikely. Yes, I know the risk of someone good getting on the untrusted is the same, but we couldn't afford to take that risk.

[F32]

I really don't see the difference but that's my opinion.

[Vodata2]

do ppl get banned if they admit to scamming someone?

[Nixt]

do ppl get banned if they admit to scamming someone?

Yes, I've done it a couple of times ;).

[Vodata2]

ok ill pm u some links in a min

[brandon]

It's there for a reason
but Greco pm me who you're getting banned

[sierk1]

I don't think we can ever allow that you can accuse others of scamming.

What we maybe could do is make a list like the "safe traders list" and call it "unsafe traders list", where people can nominate others for, and when somebody gets a few nominations from different people, his name will be entered to the list.
Of course this way it is still possible that somebody's name gets added wrongly.

[The Professor]

I don't think we can ever allow that you can accuse others of scamming.

What we maybe could do is make a list like the "safe traders list" and call it "unsafe traders list", where people can nominate others for, and when somebody gets a few nominations from different people, his name will be entered to the list.
Of course this way it is still possible that somebody's name gets added wrongly.


Not really. Only a positive effect can be had by a trusted list. An untrusted list would only be negative. Sure, like the trusted list, there is a possibility that the wrong person would get on there. It's easy to shatter a reputation, but hard to build one up, which is why a trusted list exists.

[At the above quotes] Hmm...

I think video proof should be accepted as valid proof of someone scamming. The time it takes someone to edit a video, frame by frame, is too long to justify anyone doing it. If it did happen, it'd probably be obvious because in a 3 min video, at 24fps, there are 180*24 frames, which without a calculator is about 3600 frames, there are bound to be mistakes which are noticable. But it is even harder to forge a rs for habbo trade, as you cant really edit a runescape window with pixel art due to the type of graphics used.

As for there being an "untrusted list," I completely agree with the principle but I dont think it'd work, purely because they can make new accounts in 2 mins, and if they have a dynamic IP the admins cant do a lot about it. It cant hurt, but won't do much good either.

But I think people get away with things too easily on here. The forum claims to be moderated so it's safe for children, yet the moderators resign to the fact that it will always happen so they choose to ignore it, and infraction people if they report it via a post. Even the stupidest moderators could make an educated guess as to whether an accusation is false or not, and if the user has enough evidence there shouldnt be any question.

For example, I was scammed by a user on an rs/habbo trade. I posted quotes of PMs and a screenshot showing that he wasnt online at the time of the trade, although he blatently posted that he was. Since the PMs were still in my inbox, and the moderator could have easily looked up the habbo name on the console (as he still hadnt logged in), he/she could have banned the user because the evidence was concrete.

Cases such as the one above should be taken seriously by moderators and not be automatically dismissed as a false accusation.

[nvrspk4]

With Jin's post, its not really necessary to justify the rule that much more.

The only reason we'd ban anybody is if they directly admitted it themselves on the forum, and we've banned before for that.

May I just point out that usually word gets around, and if not you can always PM the member who is about to trade alerting them of the scammer's "untrustworthyness" however anyone recieving these should be wary as the person could be lying, especially if alot vouch for the person. But yeah, if its really an issue, PM them.

[The Professor]

With Jin's post, its not really necessary to justify the rule that much more.

The only reason we'd ban anybody is if they directly admitted it themselves on the forum, and we've banned before for that.

May I just point out that usually word gets around, and if not you can always PM the member who is about to trade alerting them of the scammer's "untrustworthyness" however anyone recieving these should be wary as the person could be lying, especially if alot vouch for the person. But yeah, if its really an issue, PM them.

How come you can do that yet not openly accuse of scamming? Isnt that a bit contridictory? (sp?) You're still possible destroying the persons reputation, especially if a rumour starts