Ironman Service Refund Ruling

[gold4rsps]

Recently, as we all heard, [redacted - accusation of scamming without proof - BB] 1b on an end game account. In the end, Mafioso was held liable, but was told to pay 5.4b 07 - 4x the bank value. This ruling doesn't even make any sense and just seems like a random number that is to be multiplied by the bank value. This also has a big effect on mid game ironmen where if they were to get scammed by a worker, 50m*4 would definitely not be enough to compensate the time and effort to get to that stage. Same goes for an end game ironman.

As Sythe said in this thread: Mafioso's workers cleaned 1b+ off an end game 2233 ironman..., the logical solution would be to acquire everything back, an alternate account at a similar stage or the value in IRL cash or 07 GP. This shouldn't be calculated by multiplying the account by 4 but rather by using the same service provider's service costs to rebuild the account. For e.g user has lost 4 zenytes to a rogue worker - the provider in this case must acquire the 4 zenytes by paying new workers to do the content, offer an alternate account that is around the same stage or use the service provider's prices and pay the average cost it would take to acquire the items back. In this case a demonic gorilla kill could be 400,000 07 GP per kill. The drop rate of a zenyte is 1/300. 300*4 = 1200 kills. This would result in 480M 07 GP being paid to the customer.

Additionally, it is not fair for other service providers that choose to rebuild the account. If I ran a service and had a worker scam, I could just choose the x4 ruling to pay off and be done with it whilst the customer is still at a considerable loss.

I hope this ruling is changed as it literally makes no sense.

 

Customers are free to create a TOS, they are not forced to agree with a service providers TOS. If they don't like the TOS provided they can simply decline and find someone else to complete the job. The ruling of x4 isn't something that we just make up, it's a number that's majority of the staff believe is fair. These numbers are normally made up by comparing service providers prices for 'x' amount of kills as you've mentioned. So if a service provider charged 50k per a demonic gorilla, and the drop rate was 1200 kills we would take that avg and come up with a fair number. This also isn't something that we can make a common ruling for, as every instance such as this is unique. If you have any questions just DM me on discord

 

[gold4rsps]

Customers are free to create a TOS, they are not forced to agree with a service providers TOS. If they don't like the TOS provided they can simply decline and find someone else to complete the job.

Fair point but but literally every customer is not going to think they gonna get hacked. This means a service provider could not have that in his TOS to refund hacked ironmen resulting in him getting a reliable worker (close friend) to hack an end-game ironman every year or so for 1-2b+ and then just redirect to the fact they don't have a TOS. This is a loophole.

The ruling of x4 isn't something that we just make up, it's a number that's majority of the staff believe is fair. These numbers are normally made up by comparing service providers prices for 'x' amount of kills as you've mentioned. So if a service provider charged 50k per a demonic gorilla, and the drop rate was 1200 kills we would take that avg and come up with a fair number. This also isn't something that we can make a common ruling for, as every instance such as this is unique. If you have any questions just DM me on discord

The reason why this ruling is poor is because of how much more the ironman has actually lost. Let's take Spencer for example. Everything in his picture of what he lost probably equates to 15-20b in services whereas he got 5.4b 07 in return. This is nothing compared to how much he actually lost. Another example, my ironman. Currently the bank value is around 220m. I could order a service, get cleaned and the service provider has to pay 880m. This is nothing compared to what I actually lost, even on average kc of bosses. Furthermore, the entire OSRS economy is crashing so this further makes this rule poor.

 

[Russian_killer1337]

it feels like sythe staff just decided to whip out a number out of their ass for the ruling. I found it pretty weird how they dont just compare the value in service costs instead of just making it 3x or 4x of the value that was lost. That's so poor and stupid. It just shows me that the majority are not compatible when it comes to properly replacing and refunding people on value lost. If you have no idea, then wait for the people that have an idea to leave their feedback or comment or simply get yourself educated with the topic as services will and have been only rising in popularity.

 

[gold4rsps]

it feels like sythe staff just decided to whip out a number out of their ass for the ruling. I found it pretty weird how they dont just compare the value in service costs instead of just making it 3x or 4x of the value that was lost. That's so poor and stupid. It just shows me that the majority are not compatible when it comes to properly replacing and refunding people on value lost. If you have no idea, then wait for the people that have an idea to leave their feedback or comment or simply get yourself educated with the topic as services will and have been only rising in popularity.

I agree. If they can choose to rebuild the account, why can't you just make the price given to customer same as what would cost to rebuild it, if the customer does not want to use the same service provider again? It's not like the staff themselves have to find an exact quote, they can literally ask the customer or service provider to provide one where both parties mutually agree. By mutually agree, I mean the quote per kill etc. The items lost should be quoted, assuming there is proof. As we saw in Spencer's case, Mafioso only chose to refund his items partially. If they completely refused to refund any more, the service provider would be banned.

 

I'm a bit out of the loop on the scenario but he was granted BTC worth of 5.4B gold but the amount he received isn't 5.4B gold worth

XD

 

[President]

[Denied] Actual Ironman Wealth Valuation

I like how we're acting like this discussion never happened

 

[gold4rsps]

[Denied] Actual Ironman Wealth Valuation

I like how we're acting like this discussion never happened

To be honest, there were some good points made but it just went off track in my opinion.

My solution will only be carried out once the final verdict has been said I.e service provider is at fault. From then, the quote of all the items lost will be calculated. If there is no bank picture/video prior, then the main items will be acquired e.g blowpipe. To get an accurate figure on these items we can use the collection log - those who got some items prior to collection log, bad luck really cuz nothing can prove that they had more than one of an item. Placeholders can also be used.

It’s just this 4x ruling makes no logical sense, especially with such a volatile prices of items ingame. The only logical solution is to provide a quote based on what was lost using the same service provider and maybe a mix of some others together to gain a final quote which is then paid in cash, if preferred.

 

To be honest, there were some good points made but it just went off track in my opinion.

My solution will only be carried out once the final verdict has been said I.e service provider is at fault. From then, the quote of all the items lost will be calculated. If there is no bank picture/video prior, then the main items will be acquired e.g blowpipe. To get an accurate figure on these items we can use the collection log - those who got some items prior to collection log, bad luck really cuz nothing can prove that they had more than one of an item. Placeholders can also be used.

It’s just this 4x ruling makes no logical sense, especially with such a volatile prices of items ingame. The only logical solution is to provide a quote based on what was lost using the same service provider and maybe a mix of some others together to gain a final quote which is then paid in cash, if preferred.

honestly not sure why the ruling makes no logical sense to you. Did you even read what Pirate wrote? The ruling did not go by the value in gp of the items in the game, but the amount of time it takes to get those items. It's not like he could just buy those items back, if he were to use another service provider to get those items back, it would cost thousands. Maybe read what Pirate wrote again. I'm sure it'll make sense after a few reads.

 

[gold4rsps]

honestly not sure why the ruling makes no logical sense to you. Did you even read what Pirate wrote? The ruling did not go by the value in gp of the items in the game, but the amount of time it takes to get those items. It's not like he could just buy those items back, if he were to use another service provider to get those items back, it would cost thousands. Maybe read what Pirate wrote again. I'm sure it'll make sense after a few reads.

Not sure if you read, but I explained why it doesn’t make sense. The entire OSRS economy is volatile, the services market isn’t. What he said about comparing with other service providers doesn’t even make sense. The x4 ruling will have to be multiplied by another 4x on top of that, depending on scenario for it to even be fair. The person who scammed is a service provider. To gain an accurate refund would be via a quote to get the items back, hence why some service providers rebuild the account. That’s my point. HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUY THEM ITEMS BACK BECAUSE HE LOST IT IN THE FIRST PLACE TO A ROGUE WORKER, WHICH IS THE SERVICE PROVIDERS FAULT. If you can’t afford to correct a mistake, why bother taking the job? You can reject it you know.

 

Not sure if you read, but I explained why it doesn’t make sense. The entire OSRS economy is volatile, the services market isn’t. What he said about comparing with other service providers doesn’t even make sense. The x4 ruling will have to be multiplied by another 4x on top of that, depending on scenario for it to even be fair. The person who scammed is a service provider. To gain an accurate refund would be via a quote to get the items back, hence why some service providers rebuild the account. That’s my point. HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUY THEM ITEMS BACK BECAUSE HE LOST IT IN THE FIRST PLACE TO A ROGUE WORKER, WHICH IS THE SERVICE PROVIDERS FAULT. If you can’t afford to correct a mistake, why bother taking the job? You can reject it you know.

You're making me lose brain cells. The volatility of the OSRS economy has nothing to do with the ruling. I'm sure they took the prices of the items the day they were wiped from the account. Those are the prices you go by. What they said about comparing to other service providers ABSOLUTELY does make sense. Every service provider has different pricing they go by. Same with insurance. Would you buy insurance without shopping for the best price? C'mon dude. and here at the end you literally contradict yourself. You're upset about the ruling, but then say that the service provider should be able to pay back the items lost or they shouldn't take the job...?

You're confusing yourself dude. lol

 

[gold4rsps]

You're making me lose brain cells. The volatility of the OSRS economy has nothing to do with the ruling.

Ok yeah, my bad. The price of 07 GP correlates with the 07 economy so that point is irrelevant. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, the x4 ruling absolutely makes no sense. There's an option out there, much more reliable and more accurate that can be used, so why not use it? X4 ruling does not actually equal the ironman's actual wealth. Again, let me explain why. Spencer's gained 5.4b 07 ~2.2k$ in return for the clean of his account. The actual wealth required to gain all his items back is in the range of 15-20b. The difference between what he got vs what he should get is large. There's nothing you can say to defend this rule - it's just a random number slapped on. I explained this to Pirate on Discord and he had nothing to say after either.

You're upset about the ruling, but then say that the service provider should be able to pay back the items lost or they shouldn't take the job...?

What? It's common sense if you can't afford to pay up in case things go wrong that the job isn't for you.

 

Ok yeah, my bad. The price of 07 GP correlates with the 07 economy so that point is irrelevant. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, the x4 ruling absolutely makes no sense. There's an option out there, much more reliable and more accurate that can be used, so why not use it? X4 ruling does not actually equal the ironman's actual wealth. Again, let me explain why. Spencer's gained 5.4b 07 ~2.2k$ in return for the clean of his account. The actual wealth required to gain all his items back is in the range of 15-20b. The difference between what he got vs what he should get is large. There's nothing you can say to defend this rule - it's just a random number slapped on. I explained this to Pirate on Discord, and he had nothing to say after either.



What? It's common sense if you can't afford to pay up in case things go wrong that the job isn't for you.

Have you heard about self-scams? So many ironmans clean themselves when they quit. Imagine they're using services for that, and
extort 4x the value of their bank

 

Have you heard about self-scams? So many ironmans clean themselves when they quit. Imagine they're using services for that, and
extort 4x the value of their bank

Once again, it's up to the SERVICE PROVIDER to make the decision whether or not to take a high profile account with those risks.

 

Once again, it's up to the SERVICE PROVIDER to make the decision whether or not to take a high profile account with those risks.

We can say the same about the client choosing to buy services.

It's a bit the same as when your clients buy your GP, will you refund them if they get banned by RWT for example? They chose to take the risk.

 

We can say the same about the client choosing to buy services.

It's a bit the same as when your clients buy your GP, will you refund them if they get banned by RWT for example? They chose to take the risk.

and that's completely fair. Put it in your TOS tho

 

[gold4rsps]

We can say the same about the client choosing to buy services.

It's a bit the same as when your clients buy your GP, will you refund them if they get banned by RWT for example? They chose to take the risk.

What Timecrunch said.

Besides, this entire post isn't about TOS etc. It's about Sythe's specific rule on how they choose to refund the person who got scammed (x4 ruling), which I believe is very unfair.

 

[gold4rsps]

Have you heard about self-scams? So many ironmans clean themselves when they quit. Imagine they're using services for that, and
extort 4x the value of their bank

"My solution will only be carried out once the final verdict has been said I.e service provider is at fault. From then, the quote of all the items lost will be calculated. If there is no bank picture/video prior, then the main items will be acquired e.g blowpipe. To get an accurate figure on these items we can use the collection log - those who got some items prior to collection log, bad luck really cuz nothing can prove that they had more than one of an item. Placeholders can also be used."

 

Tbh? Just do your homework and read through service TOS.
For example, if an ironman account has 4b we in PvM Services will make sure our boosters have at least 4b deposit for that own account. Now tell me, why would he steal anything, is the ironman GP expensier if he sells it? no.

So I can only see this being used in a malicious scam way tbh

 

[gold4rsps]

Tbh? Just do your homework and read through service TOS.
For example, if an ironman account has 4b we in PvM Services will make sure our boosters have at least 4b deposit for that own account. Now tell me, why would he steal anything, is the ironman GP expensier if he sells it? no.

So I can only see this being used in a malicious scam way tbh

Can we stop with this TOS bullshit? The thread is directed at Sythe's particular rule on this matter. My proposal is what should be carried out AFTER the case as been solved and the service provider is at fault. This is exactly what happened on the other thread.