December 3, 2017 lord nibbles 2Comment

Accused player:  rollinrollin  (at time of abuse)

Accused of: not splitting: dex scroll (62.4m split to 4 players for 15.5m personal)

Submitted by: lord nibbles – Friday, December 1, 2017 @ 02:45:01 pm

The story: team ran a few raid runs, I came in on the last raid run and he ran with the scroll… kicked all of us. I instantly posted in osrs gwd cc.

Accused receiving the drop.

Victims being kicked from accused’s clan chat.

GIF of one of the victims not being able to join the abuser’s clan chat.

Date of Abuse: 2017-12-01

Victims: lord nibbles, kush charms, sugar leafs

Clan: osrs gwd

Submitted by: lord nibbles – Friday, December 1, 2017 @ 02:45:01 pm

 

2 thoughts on “Cannot type

  1. Poor case, where is the proof of you all agreeing to split the drops at raids, where is the proof of that raid not being a ffa.
    how do we know that you just didn’t gang up on the guy because he got a drop but you didn’t.
    him ignoring you is the only evidence you have, which is far from good. in my point of perspective you need to have decent amount of evidence to make a thread about someone scamming, since the people from other pvm clan chats instantly add everyone they see on rsjustice to their blacklist – which is right thing to do for the most of the time but there are few cases that are possibly written in rage when there was no beforehand agreement to split the drops. that is to be expected though, since many clan leaders are inexperienced when it comes to blacklisting scammers.

    it is probably impossible/hard to implement so that the people that submit a case, don’t get to rate the the case, as you can see, 2 people that supposedly got scammed rated the case as excellent when its clearly far from excellent evidence wise. Remember, if you actually got scammed but have vague proof, the case is not Excellent, it’s poor, your opinion matters the least when it comes to a poorly structured scam report.

    something simple to implement would be prefixes for every scam report that would indicate how good the evidence is: in-depth(100% guilty), average(some evidence but still no 100% proof) and bad(no evidence whatsoever, only a couple of people claiming that they got scammed)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.