I think you're mixing up what I said with talestyrone - that shows poor reading comprehension.
You think that I am mixing up what you stated with what Talestyrone posted? Your thought is incorrect.
Do you then state that such thought display poor reading comprehension from my side? Please, if you decide to respond, do at least consider responding wisely.
All I have said was that 1) multiple consecutive players messaging him to buy a certain "item" 2) all of which logged of prior to transaction 3) player never logs back on, all of which, makes a case of suspicion. You accused me of being disrespectful, citing "BR" when I have in no way mentioned them in my case for suspicious behavior.
Again, never had I said that logging off prior to transaction alone is suspicious, but the combination of facts 1) 2) and 3) of the aforementioned is suspicious.
Do not turn our source of our discussion even more inaccurate.
1) We do not know for sure whether or not they were consecutive players. It was an assumption of yours which we both may use (for safety purposes).
2) Talestyrone did not mention that they logged out. They did mention, however, that they went AFK; which is one of the reasons to why you would consider them suspicious.
3) Again, Talestyrone did not mention that they logged out, nor did they mention that the player(s) "never" logged back on. Perhaps you meant that they went AFK and did not return to the keyboard? Either way, both ways would not have been close to being "suspicious", I am aware that you mentioned that they might not be suspicious based off on that sole "fact".
No, I did not accuse you of being disrespectful, nor would I accuse somebody of being disrespectful right off the bat.
What I stated was that what you proclaimed was extremely reckless and disrespectful, the act itself.
To clarify further: It was also not an accusation, it was my opinion that I shared.
It is extremely reckless & disrespectful for both of you to proclaim such.
BR Stands for "Brazil"/"Brazilian", and several players have chosen to display the tag along with their name. Not only in Trickster Online, but in other games as well.
Even if you were not aware of such, you should not be making any estimations of players displaying a similar tag, even if they were a little bit suspicious.
One or two scammers that own a "BR"-Tag in their name does definitely not mean that every player that own the tag is considered a scammer (or perhaps suspicious).
You should not attempt to report a player for being suspicious or perhaps them being related to a scammer as they "might be a potential scammer themselves".
I am going to assume that you are already aware of this, but that you were too bothered by UdyrBR to the point where you became way too cautious.
Talk about mixing up. The first time I cited "BR", it was for the purpose of explaining what it stood for. The second time I cited "BR", I was directing the statement to Talestyrone in particular, but I did involve you to it as well; as you suggested (without directly stating that you are suggesting) Talestyrone to report that player in specific. You have not mentioned them but Talestyrone's post mentioned them. The purpose behind Talestyrone's post was that the person also had the "BR"-Tag in their name, Talestyrone then thought that they might be the same player as the one that was reported in this thread OR that the approximate times it happened was perhaps by the same person; otherwise I highly doubt Talestyrone would post such as it may seem irrelevant to the thread itself. Your post corresponds to Talestyrone's post.
You may now properly "combine the facts". They still do not make a player suspicious. The seller in this case is at no harm. The seller was not asked any favors by the buyer (such as purchasing a Kell Usu Spada). Considering that they have no history of scamming (in both your case and Talestyrone's case), they remain non-suspicious.
For minor clarification purposes: In Talestyrone's case, if Talestyrone would have mentioned that the player(s) that they were planning to deal with had a history of scamming, my first post would have been tremendously different.
Partially agree with the first statement, which is why suspicious activities need be reported. If done the correct way, the ramifications of which you cite are invalid. One should not use a public setting to report a suspicion, but rather, a private message to one of authority. That way, there are no negative repercussions to said player. No conclusions were jumped.
Suspicious activities needs to be reported, of course. If done correctly, then the "ramifications" that you mentioned could be avoided.
I did not cite any ramifications though. Are you attempting to manifest your poor reading comprehension now?
I did, however, state that falsely reporting a player for scamming could severely harm the player that is being falsely reported (especially in a forum similar to ours, where we have a section named "Hall of Shame" - which is great for actual reports of people scamming; although the section's description states "Have an interesting story with a scammer? Share them here!").
Even in a report that was sent through Private Message, one may still have jumped into conclusions, except that there is almost no harm out of the person jumping into these conclusions, as they are sharing it rather privately with a Staff Member.
Furthermore, basic statistics of the probability of four consecutive players all of which logging off prior to transaction is extremely low. I need not get into those calculations for brevity.
Let's agree to disagree to avoid derailment of an important thread.
Yes. Basic statistics of the probability of such to happen is indeed extremely low. However, keep in mind that the "consecutive players" were part of our assumption (as Talestyrone did not clarify such). I slightly touched into this in the second statement of this post: "It was an assumption of yours which we both may use (for safety purposes)."
Yes once again, the probability is indeed extremely low; and even if such did occur, it still does not leave us with any suspicious activity (especially not any activity that needs to be reported).
You need not to calculate as it is rather unnecessary.
You may disagree. This is but my opinion after all, in case you have forgotten.
We may push this matter no further.
Again, I am only sharing my thoughts & opinion.
Tsunayoushi, Leader of Lunatics.