Obviously this doesn't apply to staff as they suit-themselves ;).

To answer your question ( I know im not a GA+) Yes, you'd have to show /rn otherwise it couldn't be continued unless someone else had evidence

 

Proof isn't required as long as the felon admits to have taken the loan. This is Itz's fault, not the staff team's. Anyway, a log check would've been more than enough.

 

Sometimes people are vanished, making it physically impossible to get the real name of the user. So it really depends on context. If it's really suspicious or someone claims not to have said that, then a log search can be done.

 

People have to be unvanished to pay them, so....

And if simply a log dive can be done to prove someone is the felon, then why is it a rule to do /rn? Why have I seen loads of people being mugged off because they didn't do /rn? I have seen staff refuse to do a log dive because "it's the users responsibility to gather all the evidence"... but maybe it boils down to favoritism or something? *Shrugs*

 

This is a screenshot from the complaint itself.

Staff, when filing complaints themselves, aren't considered Staff members, thus they can't handle their own complaint and/or warn people on it. No third party Staff member has replied, yet iTz, as seen above, acknowledges that he is in debt to 7amoodw. Should he not have done so, the complaint would've been dismissed or a Staff member would ask 7amoodw to provide further evidence. I really do not get where this favoritism you mention all the time comes in. This complaint was handled as normal, and proper action was taken. Nothing would've changed if it wasn't 7am filing, but someone else.

 

Gernen where did I say that that complaint wasn't handled right? It was even stated before you posted in here that the complaint was used as an example that we're aware itz confessed to it.

But you say that staff would have came in and denied it because there was no proof of /rn. A mod, just above your last post, clearly stats that a log dive could have been done to sort it out IF itz would have claimed he didn't get the money. I have seen loads of complaint denied because the 'normal' user didn't have a screenshot of the /rn. So I was just stating that maybe because a mod said a log dive could have been done here, but it wasn't done for others.... maybe there was something special in this case?... you know since they wouldn't do that for people in the past...

 

A log dive would be done if there was evidence, but the other side still claims the evidence is false/fake. That's what I said. I might not have been clear about that.

 

Well, I think that when 7am said "do you itzxtremegaming agree" and the nicknamed user said "I agree", at that point it would mean that itzxtremegaming has acknowledged to taking the loan.

 

You saying a log dive could be done, just makes me question why is there a rule to do /rn then? I have went to higher ups and tried to get log dives when people didn't have enough evidence and I was told, "No, it's the users responsibility to gather all the evidence they need." So I was just curious what made this case special IF itz would have said he wasn't given the money.

@MCHelix3000 you do realize that someone with the same nickname as itz could still say they agree and it not actually be itz. Which is the whole point of why you're suppose to get a screenshot of the /rn, so everyone knows you were talking to the real legit person.

 

That is also true, and I believe that itz agreeing to the loan in the agreement further strengthens the case of him agreeing in the complaint, which was a rather responsible thing of him to do.

 

What? I don't understand your point. It doesn't matter what you 'believe', it matters what you can prove.
@David_Torento is just bringing up a point and making everyone aware that when people use nicknames, they need to remember to take an /rn screenshot... if that's still a thing.
Kuke then said a log dive would have been done if itz would have said it wasn't him and I asked why would a log dive be done here, but not for others in the past.

We are not saying the complaint was done wrong. We are not saying itz is innocent. We are not saying that itz is trying to say it's not him. We are only asking a couple questions we are curious about.

 

Could you give an example of a time where evidence was provided, yet the other party claimed the evidence was false and no log dive was done?

 

You've got to be joking... Can you?
Not like it'll be labeled /rn scam. It's not even like the complaint section has a denied part I can look in. I'd have to look through all the complaints in the past 15 months I've been a members.

 

You're making the favouritism claim, but you have no example to back that claim up. I shouldn't have to defend a claim without examples. As far as I know it only happened once before. Back in 2012, someone provided fake PMs with inappropriate language, he eventually got banned by andrew. But because andrew deleted all his posts I can't seem to find it. It's not exactly the same as nicknames, but it falls in the same trend.
Hence why I asked for examples, because I don't recall any other times where faking server messages was a problem. I know when I was a GA I would often go through the logs to solve issues where people made claims that they didn't do something. It was never actually the case of fake evidence. Just people lying.

 

#illuminati

 

Not a Loan Scam but the rule doesn't state /rn only applies to certain rules:

http://www.ecocitycraft.com/forum/threads/user-complaint-logan173.114954/
http://www.ecocitycraft.com/forum/threads/user-complaint-thenub.130706/ (Rule Was Mentioned even though Prime Admitted it)
http://www.ecocitycraft.com/forum/threads/user-complaint-melbot.129336/ (And Again)
http://www.ecocitycraft.com/forum/threads/user-complaint-upmoon.118539/ (Someone advising someone else to post a /rn and after he posted it, the complaint was dealt with)

Being you cant search /rn to look at the complaints, I wont bother going through the complaints to make my point...
In two of those also, you see that the Moderators in question states that without a /rn, complaint are usually dismissed:

So would a log dive be done there too if Prime didn't admit it? I doubt it.
Yes your gunna come back and say yes it wasn't to do with loan scamming. But nowhere in the rules states that if you don't have a /rn screenshot, we will or wont do a log dive.

---

Answering your question @David_Torento , I would think the complaint would be dismissed if the player accused didn't come into the complaint and the person filing the complaint didn't have a /rn screenshot?

It is your responsibility to provide all the correct evidence before filing :)
And staff do not log dive when you don't provide enough evidence (which includes a /rn if the user had/has a nickname on). So i'm not sure what kuke is talking about unless the rules have changed since i left the team. In which cause they should be public knowledge so we know if the /rn rule is obsolete.

Thanks

 

If primelval said "that's not me, that's someone else" then a logdive would be done. I never said anything about lack of evidence, nor did I mention anything you're talking about. The rules haven't changed, the situation I am referring to is just so rare you've never actually come across it.

 

Can you show me a time where this has happened?
So i can confirm your claim?

Im not saying I don't believe you, I just prefer to have proof so i know i wont have to /rn, just have to have some evidence.

Thanks :)