6th May 2017

[Scu11]

• A new Knowledge Base article has been added to teach users how to create a report
• Our stance on reporting stolen content has been clarified in the downloads section announcements
• Our stance on viewbotted YouTube services has been clarified in the market rules

 

[Vippy]

This is like once in a lifetime.

Jk, nice to hear about these but really teaching how to make a report. Never thought it was that bad.


It's a new era and I am liking it!

 

[xasterisk]

thanks for being an admin that does things

 

[ISAI]

Nice update, ty fam

 

[Jason]

It's great to see some more rules being added to protect users, great additions.

 

[Josh]

but really teaching how to make a report. Never thought it was that bad.

Most of the reported posts we get are for simple issues and they're fine, but as soon as we come up against a slightly more complex problem the quality of the reports are poor. This is an effort to try and improve the quality of the reports we're getting for scams, stolen work, malicious content, etc.

 

[sIlly gOOse]

making r-s great again 1 step at a time !! =-D

 

[s1ckman]

Great updates I'll be sure to only post graphs and information without directly saying theyre viewbotting

 

[Chivvon]

Nice updates. Good to see some improvements.

 

[Vippy]

Most of the reported posts we get are for simple issues and they're fine, but as soon as we come up against a slightly more complex problem the quality of the reports are poor. This is an effort to try and improve the quality of the reports we're getting for scams, stolen work, malicious content, etc.

Yeah, I understand it makes sense. helps both staff and the people reporting to get it sorted.

 

[Zoltus]

Nice to see some updates Good job!

 

[Planets]

• Viewbotted YouTube services are allowed to be advertised. Slander towards the providers of such services will not be tolerated.

Do these sellers have to inform potential buyers on their thread that videos are viewbotted? If so can we state this in the rules.

 

[Josh]

Do these sellers have to inform potential buyers on their thread that videos are viewbotted?

No, but if someone else was to post evidence to suggest the videos had been viewbotted, that would be perfectly allowed. This rule is more about addressing some of the baseless accusations that had been thrown around.

 

[Planets]

No, but if someone else was to post evidence to suggest the videos had been viewbotted, that would be perfectly allowed. This rule is more about addressing some of the baseless accusations that had been thrown around.

Seems a bit favourable to the seller imo. They're allowed to do something, thats near-impossible to prove (and quite detrimental to the buyer), without stating that they do it.

Don't get me wrong i understand that accusations without any proof negatively effect the seller and shouldn't be allowed. However i feel like maybe punishment for those that are proven to have, in my opinion, quite dishonestly sold viewbotted videos would be fair.

 

[Scu11]

Seems a bit favourable to the seller imo. They're allowed to do something, thats near-impossible to prove (and quite detrimental to the buyer), without stating that they do it.

If it's near impossible to prove then it sounds more dangerous to let everybody throw unproven accusations around at sellers. Allowing the services gives everybody a fair ground, as there's then no promise from the seller (or from R-S staff) that it won't be viewbotted - thus the buyer should establish this understanding before handing over their money.

However i feel like maybe punishment for those that are proven to have, in my opinion, quite dishonestly sold viewbotted videos would be fair.

It's up to both parties to agree on the terms of a transaction. If the buyer hasn't asked, and the seller hasn't explicitly said either way, then there was no wrongdoing and the seller won't be punished.

 

[Josh]

However i feel like maybe punishment for those that are proven to have, in my opinion, quite dishonestly sold viewbotted videos would be fair.

There is still ground for this though. If someone was selling views and categorically stated that they weren't botted, but then it turned out they were, that would still be scamming.
Personally I wouldn't advise anyone to pay for these sort of services (legitimate or otherwise) until they know for certain what they're paying for, which can be quite hard to establish. If there is room for the seller to promise one thing and deliver something else then it is up to the buyer to make sure what exactly they're paying for is in writing.

 

[Planets]

If it's near impossible to prove then it sounds more dangerous to let everybody throw unproven accusations around at sellers. Allowing the services gives everybody a fair ground, as there's then no promise from the seller (or from R-S staff) that it won't be viewbotted - thus the buyer should establish this understanding before handing over their money.




It's up to both parties to agree on the terms of a transaction. If the buyer hasn't asked, and the seller hasn't explicitly said either way, then there was no wrongdoing and the seller won't be punished.

There is still ground for this though. If someone was selling views and categorically stated that they weren't botted, but then it turned out they were, that would still be scamming.
Personally I wouldn't advise anyone to pay for these sort of services (legitimate or otherwise) until they know for certain what they're paying for, which can be quite hard to establish. If there is room for the seller to promise one thing and deliver something else then it is up to the buyer to make sure what exactly they're paying for is in writing.

Good points well made. Thanks for clarification

 

[Situations]

Thanks for the updates Scu11.

 

[uint32_t]

I see that stolen/leaked downloads are not allowed, however, what about advertisement threads of leaked sources - are those allowed or disallowed?

Either way, thanks for these updates - it definitely clears some things up.

 

[jet kai]

I see that stolen/leaked downloads are not allowed, however, what about advertisement threads of leaked sources - are those allowed or disallowed?

It would be hard to prove it's a stolen source from media though :\