Scam Sites Policy re: Removal of Girl's Profiles to Blacklist

[Admin]

Second poll seeking input about reasonable policies for Scam Site Black Lists. Answer as many options as you like.

- Dan

[Shadow]

Provided a Black list posts profiles after verifying the reports, the only reason for removal should be the reports proven to be falsified, in which case the reporter should be blacklisted..

[Turboguy]

I think it would be a mistake to pull a blacklisted girl too fast but I think a place should be provided for her answer to the complaint.   Stories are often one sided. 

I think it should be removed if she has a reasonable explaination, there is only one complaint and she can provide one foreign man who will vouch for her and has actually met her.   After a second complaint it would not be removable but her explaination would be allowed. 

[SANDRO43]

Basically, never ("Once a scammer, always a scammer" ).

The alternative of adhering to a removal request has merit, but the various possibilities should be considered, i.e. her scam profile containing :

1. Her photos only: see the other thread on Stolen Photos.
2. Her name and address only: unlikely, real scammers HAVE to use different names/addresses, if only to be eventually able to collect from Western Union or other sources.
3. Her photos, name and address : in other words, it's HER alright. In this case, her request should be posted alongside the scam report(s), so that readers can form their own opinion.

I do not know if anti-scam sites are amenable to setting themselves up as Courts of Law to adjudicate these cases. It reminds me of the situation of Criminal Law in my country. Up to some 10 years ago, we had the procedimento indiziario (the Pubblico Ministero, our version of the District Attorney, would accuse someone of a crime based on some evidence, and it was up to the accused to prove his/her innocence), then we converted to the more Anglo-Saxon procedimento accusatorio (innocent until proven guilty). Both systems have their pros and cons .

[Patrick]

Ray you spoke the truth when you said that the stories are often one sided. How many times have we all seen this happen. All it takes is one step to start a long trip.

[Turboguy]

You can have a case of a guy who gets pissed off and wants to get even and may post her and it can be the guy who has problems and not the gal.   In a perfect world there should be some way for her to have herself removed but of course just saying "I did not do it" would be a course every scammer would take.  It means nothing. 

[Kevin]

My policy was to remove them once they are married and both parties request it. (husband and wife) in the past. Today I have one lady listed now that has a husband in Israel and an American that she is engaged too doing a k-1 visa after she left her husband and return back to Kherson. Plus 3 other guys sending her money though Aweb and CC.  In this case I will keep her on the site as long as she is active in scamming.

Since most ladies are posted with their maiden name when they do get married they want the privacy and out of respect for there husband they should have it.  (1st Point)

So, in my book their is no simply policy on when to remove a lady. It has to be a case by case request. (2nd Point)

Kevin

[William3rd]

I answered this question on another thread. The criminal standard does not apply here although a thief is a thief. Has the person REHABILITATED themselves? Made RESTITUTION? Paid back all those guys that she robbed?

If the answer is no, then burn an S on her cheek and let the scamming brand remain on her for all eternity. . . . . .

Evidence that she didnt do it gets her off a black list and nothing less should do.

[catzenmouse]

That doesn't make sense to me. Why you would remove someone just because she got married? What is to stop her from continuing to list herself and collect WU payoffs?

I agree with William regarding restitution and if this is done a request from the person she scammed should be needed to get her off the list. NOT a request from her and her new husband.

Ken

My policy was to remove them once they are married and both parties request it. (husband and wife) in the past. Today I have one lady listed now that has a husband in Israel and an American that she is engaged too doing a k-1 visa after she left her husband and return back to Kherson. Plus 3 other guys sending her money though Aweb and CC.  In this case I will keep her on the site as long as she is active in scamming.

Since most ladies are posted with their maiden name when they do get married they want the privacy and out of respect for there husband they should have it.  (1st Point)

So, in my book their is no simply policy on when to remove a lady. It has to be a case by case request. (2nd Point)

Kevin

[wxman]

I agree that the scammer should pay back the victims. However, some guys send money because they are foolish, but not necessarily because they were scammed. Two different categories. If the man has been giving her money at his own bequest, and it does not work out, then that's life. Some of these same men will then claim these women are scammers, which is not right. These women should not have to pay back the money as it was given as a gift and not requested.

The proven scammers will likely never pay back their victims. They don't feel guilty or ashamed of what they did, only because they were caught.   Also a scammer, just because she has married or has become engaged should also not be removed. She hasn't changed her stripes, instead she probably has found a man who has the ability to feed her lust of money.