Rule on Saying someone is a Scammer

[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.