Rule

[reindeer.]

wouldnt you rather have people not getting scammed than people not being called/judged to be scammers?

[Byble]

You Could Be Faking It.

[sierk1]

You have to realise that there is no way we can stop people from getting scammed, this is still their own responsibility. Even if we would allow people to name whoever scammed them, these members will just create a new account.

wouldnt you rather have people not getting scammed than people not being called/judged to be scammers?

[le harry]

You should be able to PM a high staff / smod with enough proof to add them to a bad traders list :S

[beau03]

The rule should say:

No accusing people of hacking, scamming, or scripting without enough proof to support what you are saying.

[GommeInc]

The rule is fine I think. If people name someone for scamming, then it could be to make others look bad and you don't have the person who scammed's opinion or side of the story. Besides if you get scammed/hacked you probably should be less careless anyway.

[nvrspk4]

The rule should say:

No accusing people of hacking, scamming, or scripting without enough proof to support what you are saying.

What is "enough" ? Then that becomes ambiguous, then the mods decide that the proof is not "enough" and of course if there is any proof at all the member will say its "enough" so its one idea against the next.

In my opinion, I think the rule should stay, because removal or even editing would be too easily abused.

However, it is very easy for you to simply PM the member they were going to trade with and inform them that you have been scammed by the person they are going to trade with. If they get enough PMs, or maybe even one, it will alert them. The counteraction to this is that if they get one or two PMs, but 5 people post saying the other person is trusted, they can see that it may be a personal grudge.