[DENIED] Employee ruling.

[MrAndMrs]

Hello.

It is currently not an offence to hire a banned sythe user to do services, live chats etc.

I propose a simple change to the ruling, You should not KNOWINGLY hire a banned sythe user (For scamming, blackhat or any crimes that directly result in a client losing money).

I recently posted a report on a service provider who hired a prolific Sythe scammer (knowingly, knew him irl) who had access to peoples accounts and was actively providing a service. If said scammer worker can afford a deposit to work, surely they can afford to pay their debts.

https://i.imgur.com/WYD6vzZ.png

EDIT: Or make it compulsary (as with 99% of jobs) to run a "background check" on any user they plan on employing. Even if it's a simple IP run.

Edit: Added suggestions.

I'd also like to address, If a customer purchases a service from MrandMrs and i'm their "worker" in this situation, MrandMrs should (AT THE VERY LEAST) be required to tell the customer "My worker is banned on sythe, heres his profile & the report/reports that got him banned". Similar to how you must disclose to customers if a worker in general is going to work on account or if you will be botting their account, you should 100% REQUIRE people to warn customers that a banned member will be doing the service, that way at least the customer can choose to take the risk or find someone else.

Any service owner should be fully responsible for his or her own staff.

Or, they should be required to list the profiles of exactly who will be working on your account on their page. Information is key before we make a decision. If we don't know who is servicing our accounts, how can we make an informed decision?

 

Risk vs reward for this one, it is a rarer case and if someone risks it and loses then we can see why you shouldn't do it, on the other hand sythe can't punish people for employing who they choose, @Dbuffed accidentally hired a ban evader which I caught, so who knows. It's luck. He didn't even mean to

 

[MrAndMrs]

Risk vs reward for this one, it is a rarer case and if someone risks it and loses then we can see why you shouldn't do it, on the other hand sythe can't punish people for employing who they choose, @Dbuffed accidentally hired a ban evader which I caught, so who knows. It's luck. He didn't even mean to

My argument isn't the people who unknowingly employ that turn out to be scammers, if @Dbuffed knowingly employed that man and knew he was a rule breaker I feel he should have been punished.

He obviously didn't know therefor wouldn't have received a sanction. If someone can provide proof (like I did) that a service provider knowingly employs a scammer then that's when the ruling should apply.

 

Risk vs reward for this one, it is a rarer case and if someone risks it and loses then we can see why you shouldn't do it, on the other hand sythe can't punish people for employing who they choose, @Dbuffed accidentally hired a ban evader which I caught, so who knows. It's luck. He didn't even mean to

My argument isn't the people who unknowingly employ that turn out to be scammers, if @Dbuffed knowingly employed that man and knew he was a rule breaker I feel he should have been punished.

He obviously didn't know therefor wouldn't have received a sanction. If someone can provide proof (like I did) that a service provider knowingly employs a scammer then that's when the ruling should apply.

Whilst what @Bryan said is true, I also paid back whatever I had to pay via the staff ruling because of B3nj/Exotic Quester. The same as I have also had a worker die on a HCIM which I fully refunded out of my own back pocket, again not an issue as it happens.

If you actually know the person is a scammer, or was a scammer and is ban evading/trying to get work and such, regardless of the deposit it should be used to repay the victims.

 

[Pain]

I've employed many banned users over my course of time on Sythe, probably over a dozen at this point.

Only 1 ever scammed me and none ever scammed my customers.

Being banned does not always correlate with someone being a bad person, I know banned users who I would willingly trust more than I would a $1000 sythe donor.

It's up to each individual to understand the individual their hiring or partnering with, that's part of the risk you take when you bring on partners, sythe has a rule in place to punish those who partner with bad users when those partnerships go sour.

Than again after @ARIBA got away with the whole magebets incident and @video and the rest of staff let them off the hook, one wonders what is even going on anymore with that rule, I don't even know if that should be a rule when you directly violate its purpose because someone has a sythe banner but owell.

Can get chicks banned for an obscure statement referencing dirty gold but cant get Ariba(who is 1/100th the size) banned for being locked at the hip with magebets, who knows what the fuck is going on with this forum anymore, seems like every rule is at staff preference now lol.

No support regardless

 

I think for banned people they are banned for a reason, It is up to them to appeal and persuade the staff to unban them or lessen the punishment to a temp ban. I support your post, also regardless what Divine decides to write, It's a moral issue. Divine may be playing with fire, but I'm sure by the looks of it the majority of their customers wouldn't care less as long they don't suffer a scam.

I purchase services sometimes, I find it very odd that someone (a servicer) would hire anyone that is banned, regardless of reason. If I'm hiring someone and especially knowingly paying a premium for fast service or because they're vouched to the sky. I would hope someone banned from Sythe wouldn't be playing on my beloved pures, especially if the employer knows they are banned.

 

[MrAndMrs]

I think for banned people they are banned for a reason, It is up to them to appeal and persuade the staff to unban them or lessen the punishment to a temp ban. I support your post, also regardless what Divine decides to write, It's a moral issue. Divine may be playing with fire, but I'm sure by the looks of it the majority of their customers wouldn't care less as long they don't suffer a scam.

I purchase services sometimes, I find it very odd that someone (a servicer) would hire anyone that is banned, regardless of reason. If I'm hiring someone and especially knowingly paying a premium for fast service or because they're vouched to the sky. I would hope someone banned from Sythe wouldn't be playing on my beloved pures, especially if the employer knows they are banned.

Thank you, and I totally agree.

I feel that if i'm paying a premium for a service I shouldn't be wondering if the person doing the service has previously ripped someone off.

I don't think certain bans would warrant concern, I.E bans relating to false adv, etc etc.

Only bans that have directly cost a user on sythe or any third party website money. As in, you've stolen money. Which makes you absolutely untrustworthy.

 

[Ricky114EL1T3]

In my newfag opinion the risk < reward. Sythe shouldn't allow users to be placed at risk because someone's allowed a banned worker to do services for them. If you're banned, you're banned. You're probably banned for a reason.

If you are unable to offer services as a user with a DNT, why the fuck can you offer your services thru someone else instead to avoid/nullify the DNT? Banned is obviously even worse, but is it not similar to making a new acc/punishment evading? ...

If i scam someone for 400m and get a DNT/BAN, but then decide to "Work for" MrandMrs (With them fully knowing my previous situation), how is that allowed? I understand MrandMrs isn't DNT/banned so they're responsible for you, but im shocked sythe allows their users to be put at risk by allowing stuff like this to happen.

Sure, if i scam someone another 150m under MrandMrs name, my deposit will refund the player and all is fine. But if i suicide bot someones account because i'm being petty/lame because i was banned/DNT'd, fuck the 25m deposit i placed, say goodbye to your 7 year old account.

I'd also like to address, If a customer purchases a service from MrandMrs and i'm their "worker" in this situation, MrandMrs should (AT THE VERY LEAST) be required to tell the customer "My worker is banned on sythe, heres his profile & the report/reports that got him banned". Similar to how you must disclose to customers if a worker in general is going to work on account or if you will be botting their account, you should 100% REQUIRE people to warn customers that a banned member will be doing the service, that way at least the customer can choose to take the risk or find someone else.

 

[MrAndMrs]

I'd also like to address, If a customer purchases a service from MrandMrs and i'm their "worker" in this situation, MrandMrs should (AT THE VERY LEAST) be required to tell the customer "My worker is banned on sythe, heres his profile & the report/reports that got him banned". Similar to how you must disclose to customers if a worker in general is going to work on account or if you will be botting their account, you should 100% REQUIRE people to warn customers that a banned member will be doing the service, that way at least the customer can choose to take the risk or find someone else.

This ^

 

[Ricky114EL1T3]

Similar, but somewhat off-topic;

If a service provdier "Contracts" random users, banned users, users with DNT ect, THEY SHOULD BE HELD FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTIONS THAT HAPPEN TO ACCOUNT.

The example here would be:
If someone comes to me and wants to 8 quests done for 16m. If i then go out and search thru the Questing section of the forums and find a newcomer "Offering quests cheap/free!". I then proceed to OUTSOURCE the job to this random user WHO HAS NOT PAID DEPOSIT, PROVEN TRUST, ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY/LIABILITY at all, I SHOULD HAVE TO TELL THE USER BUYING THE SERVICE WHAT I AM DOING.

I should NOT be able to say "A worker will do it" (When this is legit just outsourced)
I should NOT be able to get off free when the SKETCHY AS FUCK NEWCOMER gets the account banned for macroing by claiming "It was me doing the service, not a 3rd party hehe"
I should NOT be able to put other users at risk for the sake of being lazy/making a fuck ton of money by getting people willing to do 8 quests for 2m when i'm being paid 16m to do them.

PEOPLE ARE PAYING YOU 16M TO DO 8 QUESTS BECAUSE YOU ARE A DONOR WITH VOUCHES + TRUST. IF PEOPLE WANTED CHEAP UNRELIABLE SKETCHY PEOPLE ON THEIR ACCOUNT, THEY'D OF PAID THEM 2M, NOT YOU 16M.

There's a big difference between a HIRED worker, with a deposit, trust, has proven himself before and A RANDOM NEWCOMER WHO'S DOING STUFF EXTREMELY CHEAP.

I have workers myself so i'm not saying the use of workers is stupid. I'm saying people who outsource their jobs to maximum profits while minimizing effort is retarded and should be reconsidered.

 

Hey guys, Have you guys ever thought about how this is going too be enforced? It's not logical because there's something called "Ban-Evading" and "Negligence." << those are excuses by the way.

 

[MrAndMrs]

Hey guys, Have you guys ever thought about how this is going too be enforced? It's not logical because there's something called "Ban-Evading" and "Negligence." << those are excuses by the way.

Did you even read the entire post? Read it, then read your comment and notice how it really doesn't make sense?

 

[RuneChips]

I believe that when people are hiring others, they should do some research about WHO they are hiring. I feel as if sythe members should be able to employ whoever they please, as long as they can cover the cost of any scams/anything that MAY happen.

 

[Ricky114EL1T3]

I believe that when people are hiring others, they should do some research about WHO they are hiring. I feel as if sythe members should be able to employ whoever they please, as long as they can cover the cost of any scams/anything that MAY happen.

Then i guess ban evasion should be removed from the rules, because if you can be banned and just work for another service, the ban basically means nothing. Might as well just make a new acc at that point?

 

[RuneChips]

Then i guess ban evasion should be removed from the rules, because if you can be banned and just work for another service, the ban basically means nothing. Might as well just make a new acc at that point?

How? Working for someone does not equal having your own account?

 

[Ricky114EL1T3]

How? Working for someone does not equal having your own account?

If you get banned for scamming on sythe, you CANNOT make a new acc/provide services ect. But, you can DM another provider and say hey can i work for you?

?????? is that not ban evasion ????????

You're banned and evading the ban by abusing a loophole lol

 

[RuneChips]

If you get banned for scamming on sythe, you CANNOT make a new acc/provide services ect. But, you can DM another provider and say hey can i work for you?

?????? is that not ban evasion ????????

You're banned and evading the ban by abusing a loophole lol

Not really, you're only offering services to another user of sythe, who is using you to provide services for his business. He should take the risk.

Anywho, if someone willingly employs someone that is a known scammer, then they're an idiot, and they should be responsible for their actions, which I believe is the case with the current rules.

 

[MrAndMrs]

I agree with @Ricky114EL1T3 on this one. If you're banned you are deemed unfit to trade with Sythe members - make it a requirement to tell your customer your worker is banned!

 

If a service provider hires someone who is banned on Sythe, it should be a requirement to let the person paying for the service know this beforehand. If the person receiving the service's account gets banned, the fact a banned Sythe member was on that account makes it tricky in terms of who is at fault; the service provider or not the service provider since in most of their ToS, they are not responsibie for bans. Since this might be awkward and scare away most everyone, maybe it should be a requirement to have it added in their ToS ?

Or a simple solution. Don't hire someone who is banned on Sythe. I'm sure you can find willing workers who want a chance at growing their reputation. My 2 cents anyways.

 

[MrAndMrs]

If a service provider hires someone who is banned on Sythe, it should be a requirement to let the person paying for the service know this beforehand. If the person receiving the service's account gets banned, the fact a banned Sythe member was on that account makes it tricky in terms of who is at fault; the service provider or not the service provider since in most of their ToS, they are not responsibie for bans. Since this might be awkward and scare away most everyone, maybe it should be a requirement to have it added in their ToS ?

Or a simple solution. Don't hire someone who is banned on Sythe. I'm sure you can find willing workers who want a chance at growing their reputation. My 2 cents anyways.

Absolutely. We have many active users who would work, also, if you consider hiring a banned user you should ask them to repay their debts prior to working for you.