Ridiculous rule.

[Mint]

"Accusing anyone of scamming"

I have had countless infractions for accusing a particular person in the runescape section of scamming, yet all I am doing is trying to warn people about him. He has recently made a few safe trades but that doesn't mean that I should forget about what he did and not tell people to take extra care while trading with him. Anyway this is more about the rule than what has happened to me. This is a teens forum which revolves around quite a few online games, items can be traded for money or items on another game (e.g runescape and habbo). One problem with these sorts of trades is that it isn't always safe, it's not like trading on habbo where you are guaranteed to get what you are trading for. An issue that pops up a lot when trading between games is scammers, there's loads of them. Habbox however don't exactly help matters, they won't allow us to name the scammers so other people don't get scammed. They simply remove the post and punish the poster. And you say Mod's are here to help? I've since found 2 people that have been scammed by the person that scammed me, I'm sure that they would of warned everyone about him if they could. But no no no, they have to sit tight and allow other people to get scammed by him. I know the downsides of allowing people to name scammers, false accusing is probably the main reason. A way around this would be that you have to pm the evidence to a Mod, let them check it out and make sure it isn't fake, and if it is a genuine scam then the scammer should be named.

I'm not slating Habbox in any way, just slating this rule.

[Chaos]

There used to be a rule [Idk if its still about] But people who were unsafe. IF you have proof eg. Screenie / Video. They would monitor it and ban user if neccasery.

There also used to be a trusted list.
But i think that list should not happen again as as you said some people do low safe trades then scam on high trades.

[GoldenMerc]

There used to be a rule [Idk if its still about] But people who were unsafe. IF you have proof eg. Screenie / Video. They would monitor it and ban user if neccasery.

Thats a fairly good idea although not any more as screenies and video's can be easily edited.

[Chaos]

Thats a fairly good idea although not any more as screenies and video's can be easily edited.

It was like a hypercam video. But hypercam cant easily be edited, Screenies can.

[GoldenMerc]

hypercam can be edited easy

[Chaos]

Really? I thought you couldnt editit after you recorded.

[Immenseman]

I think it's a good rule. I could easily make a thread saying "Mint scams" and I guess people would believe me and people would believe you when you said you were innocent. That's the big trouble here; any member can easily call another scammer although they're lying and that person would lose all their "reputation" and could hamper their runsescape to habbo trades for example, ruining their forum experience.

I don't think the rule should be changed at all. Sure, screenies and videos could be taken into account but it doesn't take a genius to fake/edit such methods. It's way too inconclusive and people would happily go to such extreme lengths to annoy others thus not making it reliable.

Of course it's annoying when you get scammed. You just want to tell other people about your misfortune to ensure they don't fall victim by the same person. You can still do this just not via the forum. I can see where you're coming from but you have to understand where management are coming from also and their case it a lot more solid than yours.

[Inseriousity.]

I think it's a good rule. I could easily make a thread saying "Mint scams" and I guess people would believe me and people would believe you when you said you were innocent. That's the big trouble here; any member can easily call another scammer although they're lying and that person would lose all their "reputation" and could hamper their runsescape to habbo trades for example, ruining their forum experience.

I don't think the rule should be changed at all. Sure, screenies and videos could be taken into account but it doesn't take a genius to fake/edit such methods. It's way too inconclusive and people would happily go to such extreme lengths to annoy others thus not making it reliable.

Of course it's annoying when you get scammed. You just want to tell other people about your misfortune to ensure they don't fall victim by the same person. You can still do this just not via the forum. I can see where you're coming from but you have to understand where management are coming from also and their case it a lot more solid than yours.

I agree with everything here! It's a good rule as even though 'reputation' is only for an online game it doesn't matter that much. I think it's more the angry feeling I'd get of someone accusing you of scamming rather than the topic. Those 'SCAMMER' rooms on Habbo that people make annoy you because of the lies rather than the room itself.

As for the bold bit, I think people would be more likely to believe an ex-AGM as it normally comes down to 'reputation' so yeah, I'd rather this rule stayed for those with less of a reputation.

[nvrspk4]

The number of people who have been falsely accused even with the rule are enough for us to justify the existence of the rule. We would rather protect innocent people from being bullied as scammers. Especially because you do trade at your own risk and realistically we know that the more trusted members of the forum when they get scammed will tell their friends and word will spread. You can look up trades that user has done in the past and ask for vouches. Its not a perfect system but honestly its about as good as its going to get.

Jin did a nice long post explaining the rule a while ago, he even edited some screenshots and maybe a video (not sure about that one) in about two minutes just to show how easy it was to fake proof. I'll see if I can find it.

[Mint]

Yeh I agree with you Jake, but if it was all done through a Mod and the Mod posted it without naming the person that got scammed, reputation would not come into it. But even then we have the fake evidence situation, surely we can find a way around that?