NOTE: Circumventing a ban in any way will cause the length of the original ban to be doubled. Evading a ban includes, but is not limited to creating a new account to play on. "Evading a ban includes, but is not limited to creating a new account to play on." I feel this can be taken the wrong way or found confusing by people with limited english skills. Perhaps it can be rephrased: Evading a ban includes, but is not limited to creating a new account to play on while serving a ban.
So, I think that maybe some of you guys have been aware of this for a while buuuuut… Why do people who scam get banned when it's not against the ToS? I did mention it in an earlier report section and I was pretty sure a GM saw it. Today I saw yet another post about it but the person still got banned. It might be that I've missed that rule, nothing that I saw that was obviously hinting at it though.
I dun see any reason why scamming should be allowed~ We are a great community we dun need no scammers here~
While scamming itself is not literally outlined in the rules, I'd say it's safe to say it falls under this: Engage in rude, unlawful, harassing, vulgar, obscene, hateful, threatening, abusive or otherwise objectionable behavior, including, without limitation, looting, kill stealing, making sexual comments; Punishment: 1st offence - 3 day ban, 2nd offence - 7 day ban, 3rd offence - permanent ban "Rude, or objectionable behavior" A revamp/re-write is in progress.
It's in the TL; DR part of the rules, but the TL; DR also states nobody can be held responsible for offences committed in TL; DR if it's not in the actual rules, which is a BIG issue in my opinion. An example of this are the two cases in which scamming was brought up, one which was questionable and put fault into the buyer of a mispriced item in a shop (offender was deemed unguilty), the other where it was obvious the scammer indeed didn't uphold his end of a mutual agreement and simply stole items + mesos in exchange for an untradeable item used for ITCG forging (offender was deemed guilty). Clear guidelines on this, please!
In the case of the person who was found guilty, I believe Sila explained on the forums, the staff found the offense as described fell under this rule: Engage in rude, unlawful, harassing, vulgar, obscene, hateful, threatening, abusive or otherwise objectionable behavior, including, without limitation, looting, kill stealing, making sexual comments; Punishment: 1st offence - 3 day ban, 2nd offence - 7 day ban, 3rd offence - permanent ban I would certainly say scamming is objectionable behavior. In the "questionable" case where the offender was not guilty, I believe this was a case of advertising the price as one thing but in the merchant the price was listed as something different. I don't think that would be scamming as the buyer is able to see the "terms" (price and quantity) of the purchase before making it. It's kind of like when a retailer advertises a large percentage sale but when you go to make the purchase you find out there are strings attached, thereby making the price not as displayed on the poster. Is that scamming? I don't think so as it's technically true. I'm not trying to refute your point Vic, as I certainly see what you're trying to say. I'm just trying to provide insight to you and everyone else why the two instances saw different outcomes in my opinion. I know you all have heard this over and over, but we are working on updating the T&C, there is just so many things that need to be done and so few of us. We will get there though.
