yes

 

The problem with falsified evidence isn't timestamping, but the evidence itself.

In your second photo, andrewkm is in "agreement" to pay you $1,000,000 tomorrow - You can still easily legitimately timestamp that agreement given that it's visible to you and your client. Having a /timestamp requirement won't do anything, except complicate things further, which isn't what we need.

There's nothing we can do about falsified agreements unfortunately - although remember, if someone is using falsified evidence against you, you can always contact Administrators and ask them to do a log dive for you.

-1

 

Admins log dive like this lol.

 

The problem here is using screenshots as evidence instead of something more trustworthy.

 

Yes I agree. We should lose screenies altogether and use contracts.

 

Contracts still require evidence. Contracts themselves are not evidence. I meant something more like snippets of chat logs instead of screenshots.

 

For this specific part, -1 million. Pardon my elegance, but the american date format is simply moronic. ISO 8601 standard forever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601

 

What's to prevent someone from faking the timestamp?

Sure it has the ID that can be compared to logs, but I'm just better off searching for the original message at that point.

 

You know nothing about contracts, do you?

Chat logs can be easily edited.

As I've said in my previous post, timestamps aren't the solution nor the problem - Falsified evidence is the problem, and unfortunately, I don't believe we can do anything about it else than searching the logs to confirm that the said occurrence did actually happen.

 

Edit, my bad.

 

Uh? I read it, and I was actually agreeing, lol

 

Ohhhh, my bad. I thought you were trying to point out that I posted the same exact thing twice accidentally, which I didn't. Sorry the misunderstanding, lmao.

 

Who says I meant client-side chat logs? You think I'm stupid? Obviously I meant server-side.

 

He said log dive, not DOG dive :p