´wow really?? I really hope you´re lying, if SR support did do that and they are concluding investigations without even asking for justification from the accused then it makes me re-think a lot of things. Whats to ban someone with a grudge creating a few accounts with purchases behind them and claiming being harrased / scammed in the same way. how can one SR Admin have the power to take away someones livelihood ? is that the way it goes? one admin alone conducts the investigation, sets the rules and imposes the penalty? There is a reason in english law that the people that make the law are separate from the people that uphold it, and the people that implement it... One person being judge, jury and executioner is bery dangerous, especially when you perceive a high level of personal emotion in their communications. It sounds like that SR Admin got scammed heavily once or twice before themselves... I don't know the OP, he may be a scamming bastard, no offense, but you still cant just have one person deciding that, taking away the money that may well be feeding his family and banishing someone without sharing the evidence they used to reach the assumption so it can be disputed..
IMO DPR should be made aware of this, I don´t believe he would see this as right or just, he may reach the same penalty if the facts of the case are true but I think he would definitely question the method of administration.
makes me feel better about having auto withdraw set up, just hope our competitors aren't cowardly enough to resort to trying to destroy a competitor this way instead of engaging in market competition.
ACE
The ex-vendor in question was found to have threatened a buyer with sending them a package and alerting Law Enforcement to it, and admitted making such a threat in an attempt to "scare the buyer" into paying for a package that he insisted had arrived. He has also proven to be incredibly dishonest in his dealings on the marketplace and in his statements on the forums; he is the former vendor 'coachella420' who went out in a blaze of scamming foulness, and he felt he had the right to threaten a buyer from his 'InfiniteSource' account. He is unwilling to play by the rules and has made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of doing so.
It's important to weigh both sides of a story before you come to a decision on it - the admin did that in this case, and was entirely justified in their decision to strip this member of their vending privileges and ill-gotten gains.
Libertas
Show Posts
