- Joined
- Dec 17, 2020
- Sythe Gold
- 53,913
- Messages
- 233,006
Suggestion basis: https://www.sythe.org/threads/4309427/resolved/
after reading this report and discussing it with multiple server owners, multiple concerns came to light.
these are best explained with a few examples:
1:
"Peter" buys himself a rank in gambling discord "Runedicingstakewager"
his rank costs 10b and gives him a 2B max bet.
"Peter" makes himself an alt account, "Retep" and "places" a 25B bet.
"Peter" "Scams" his alt, Retep.
according to the ruling, Server owner Runedicingstakewager is now liable for the 25B bet scam.
2:
"Peter" made himself a new account, he now joins "sythe services" as a worker.
he places a 100m deposit and gets to work.
RSfan007 decides to open a ticket, get's a service going.
he agrees to all terms of service, which clearly have a " please remove excess wealth" and a "workers have a 100m deposit" warning.
he is specifically informed about this in the ticket, before placing the order.
unfortunately, RSfan007 forgot to move his tbow off of his account before handing Peter the account details for the service.
Peter decides to grab the Tbow and go
"Sythe services" is liable according to the above report.
3:
"Peter" yet again decides to make a new account.
Now he joins "Sythe services" as a ticket support / moderator.
He places a 1000$ deposit in order to get the position, as well as providing some documentation.
In his agreement, in the server and everywhere is clearly visible that he is not authorized to perform trades beyond a 500$ value.
he now brings "Retep" again back into the new server, "buying" 100B 07 off of his alt.
This gold doesn't have to exist, it can be easily placed on a screenshot since "Peter" will just "loudly" disappear, "confirming" the scam
again "sythe services" is liable for the entire "100B" which doesn't even have to have existed in the first place.
Coming to the suggesting part of this thread:
Something needs to be put in place, that protects server owners from, in any shape or form.
1: gross customer negligence
2: severe bad intentions of staff members
Happy to hear other providers view and especially also the view of the staff team why the ruling was made as is, I can't imagine the above scenario's not being considered.
after reading this report and discussing it with multiple server owners, multiple concerns came to light.
these are best explained with a few examples:
1:
"Peter" buys himself a rank in gambling discord "Runedicingstakewager"
his rank costs 10b and gives him a 2B max bet.
"Peter" makes himself an alt account, "Retep" and "places" a 25B bet.
"Peter" "Scams" his alt, Retep.
according to the ruling, Server owner Runedicingstakewager is now liable for the 25B bet scam.
2:
"Peter" made himself a new account, he now joins "sythe services" as a worker.
he places a 100m deposit and gets to work.
RSfan007 decides to open a ticket, get's a service going.
he agrees to all terms of service, which clearly have a " please remove excess wealth" and a "workers have a 100m deposit" warning.
he is specifically informed about this in the ticket, before placing the order.
unfortunately, RSfan007 forgot to move his tbow off of his account before handing Peter the account details for the service.
Peter decides to grab the Tbow and go
"Sythe services" is liable according to the above report.
3:
"Peter" yet again decides to make a new account.
Now he joins "Sythe services" as a ticket support / moderator.
He places a 1000$ deposit in order to get the position, as well as providing some documentation.
In his agreement, in the server and everywhere is clearly visible that he is not authorized to perform trades beyond a 500$ value.
he now brings "Retep" again back into the new server, "buying" 100B 07 off of his alt.
This gold doesn't have to exist, it can be easily placed on a screenshot since "Peter" will just "loudly" disappear, "confirming" the scam
again "sythe services" is liable for the entire "100B" which doesn't even have to have existed in the first place.
Coming to the suggesting part of this thread:
Something needs to be put in place, that protects server owners from, in any shape or form.
1: gross customer negligence
2: severe bad intentions of staff members
Happy to hear other providers view and especially also the view of the staff team why the ruling was made as is, I can't imagine the above scenario's not being considered.


























