Sythe Rule Changes/Rule Clarifications

How long do we have till these rules take affect, more specifically the vouch one, been meaning to quote all my vouches onto my vouch thread for quite some time but it's gonna take me a while.

 

Good shit, must’ve been a big job to come up with these rules.

 

Rule 1's fine - It is annoying the RAS posters.

Rule 2 I'd normally be heavily against but vouches don't mean shit all anymore - I don't think I've been asked for a vouch thread in well over a year so their pretty much irrelevant - Don't think I've claimed a vouch count in a thread title in ages either so rule 2 is fine it's just effecting a non existent problem from what I can see. Maybe 1-2 years ago when this was actually rampant this would of been used. Seems a little late in terms of timing.

I don't understand what staff are trying to say regarding rule #3 first you state this:

"Disclosure of Others' Personal Information: Posting information such as private emails/MSNs, private Skype accounts, Facebook accounts, addresses, phone numbers, private photos, etc. of someone other than yourself without explicit consent of that person will result in up to a 1 month ban regardless of whether or not the information is publicly available. If a picture was posted by its owner on Discord or Sythe, this rule still applies."

But than you say this:


Offenses of the rule above will be punished under harassment as follows:

• 1st offense: 1 week ban
• 2nd offense: 1 month ban
• 3rd offense: 3 month ban

So which is it? An UP TO month ban or a week or 1 month only if its the second offence or what? Rule is just written in a confusing way. First it says a violation is "Up to 1 month" than it says the set punishments for each individual offence.

Personally doesn't make any sense as to what the punishment actually is and I suggest clarification & rewriting unless I'm just missing something.

I'm also against punishment for any form of personal information being shared so there's that but that's just my stance.

Rule 4 - Yes very good. Many business's and service providers have been screwed by their buyers and this is of course a seller friendly policy provided it's not heavily abused by an individual over and over. So this is good.

Rule 5 - Probaly the biggest rule change on this list - For once sellers and buyers can actually protect themselves with their TOS - This has been a decade in the making and will be interesting to see how it plays out. I personally am a fan of sellers being able to fully protect themselves from recovery damages and whatnot provided the buyer expressly agrees now and the seller has proof of this.

Only nitpicking thing I have about this;

○ An explicit refund and returns policy must be defined by the seller and agreed upon by the buyer (in writing) before a sale occurs. This is extremely important as it protects both Buyer and Seller.

It specifically says "IN WRITING" here but in our case administration stated that the buyer being required to checkmark they agree to our terms would be considered acceptable. I don't know if that checkmark is "IN WRITING" but I assume that the point of this is just to establish the buyer agreed to the terms whether its checkmarking a box on a website or saying "I agree" after terms or listed or w/e. I'm just nitpicking really.


Rule #6 - Stolen goods is an issue and I feel staff have failed in terms of any real clarification or guidelines as to what defines stolen goods. Is someone offering to buy stolen accounts considered perm bannable if the trade doesn't actually go through? Is it a twc? Why is it perm bannable versus a DNT? What if you sell stolen goods and the buyer proves they were stolen and the buyer takes monetary damages somehow? Etc. You can see my train of thinking. There's 20 different questions you could ask and staff didn't provide any clarification to any of them. Staying so vague is why we have quandary's as to why China jacky and luck are unbanned but poor @Chicks has sat banned for 2 months.
I can accept a vague rule, I can accept punishing for stolen goods, It seems stupid to accept a rule that literally has no guidelines or definitions beyond "Don't do it" or how the situations would be handled. Seems like a trainwreck waiting to happen.

Overall a mixed bag of changes. Rule #1, #2, #4 and #5 are solid(beyond a bit of wording on #5).

Rule #3 I feel is poorly written and I dislike.

Rule #6 has literally no information and is just a reminder about what we already knew.

I guess that puts the tally at 4-2 which for me puts this as "Overall decent changes with a couple of negatives".

Not bad.

 

@Luck

 

That was and is still not allowed.

He has read and agreed with them.

 

Really glad to finally see Suggestion #2 come true.
Also very open to all the other suggestions.
Good job to team Sythe!

 

Some sweet changes. Particularly nice to see the account services/sales rules being put into place. Thanks staff, top work!

 

I always thought #2 had been a rule for ages, just like all mmo market forums you can only list the feedback from that forum

 

I would of liked a rule to make people use the vouches threads instead of spamming normal threads to get them bumped , especially the gold selling section suffers from this , when you go there it doesnt look good and feels like a spam war to try to stay at the top.

Rule #2 is a step in the right direction , all the other rules are a nice addition.

 

These are updates? I just figured the majority of this was common sense? I've always told users when and where the account came from and I've always been responsible if something happens. Thanks for the heads up and thanks for holding the rest of these scumbags to a higher lvl. GL trading lads and remember its a free market dont get cucked.

 

Yes. Past sales cannot be effected by new ToS.

We can give a week or so grace period for people to get their threads in order.

 

No I meant like, the ToS was already in place but before this rule even with said ToS if an account was recovered you were to either recover or refund.

With this rule, we are able to sell accounts we are not the original owner of if the buyer agrees that we are not held liable should the account get recovered.

In my case, I always told my customers this (as I've sold 2 or 3 accounts that are not mine) and they always agreed. In case of a dispute after this new rule, would I still need to recover/refund or can this rule be applied?

 

Good changes and nice to read, we've been put off entering the account market officially for a while. Good to see @Divine so glad, makes us want to start exploring this section more seriously.

Also welcome clarification on services section.

 

What happens in situations where the Seller finds out from the Buyer after the transaction has been completed and some time has elapsed? How can the Seller be held liable if they simply didn't know? Can't someone be targetted like this, or perhaps, blackmailed later?

If Facebook includes a clause in their TOS that they are allowed to, for an extreme example, kill anyone at their will if they agree to the TOS, this will never be held up in court. I know, Sythe is not the court of law here- we are simply trying to enforce an agreed upon contract between two parties, but if the TOS is not good faith in nature, how is this fair? Good faith (law) - Wikipedia

Likewise, this ruling gives free reign to service providers to bot and include non-common sense, non good-faith terminologies to protect their stated "110% hand done only services." But the TOS will then state "not responsible for any bans before, during, or after the service, even on accounts fresh off of tutorial island on dedicated residential proxies, too bad CYA"

There are actually users in this thread who I have dealt with, who have posted, who will present "evidence" they have to avoid any "trends" or "circumstantial" evidence bans.

They know who they are, and I firmly believe simple screenshots of level-ups on "osbuddy" or any other client should not count as favorable evidence towards the sellers side. There are many botting services which will allow someone to bot, use the functionality of level capture, and make it appear as if it was legitamate.

After having purchased 1.5k+ USD in services, I have come to know who to avoid, and who to order from, even more so now with these rulings. At least, I have personally figured out that when I buy a product, I will receive it without hassle, after many trials and errors. Only issue is, newer users to Sythe, or even older users of Sythe simply may not know.

I hope we can protect consumers in a better manner.

------

Quick note- I am not arguing for removal of these rules. I'm just presenting scenarios which will inevitably arise, and am wondering how they will be dealt with ahead of time. This is good knowledge to have as a consumer and a provider.

Thank you.

 

I think this is all very good to see. I am glad about every single one of these things. Thanks alot you guys

 

I... as many years as I wanted the TOS thing to become a thing - I believe a TOS should be held to some restrictions or jurisdictions from moderators. A TOS should protect a seller, but in some cases it may actually support a scammer.

 

Yes - we would like to start enforcing ToS agreements even from previous sales SO LONG AS they meet standards of understanding & agreement from both parties. If some unusual circumstance exists, obviously we may deviate from our new policy for the specific case should there be one on the basis that the agreement is deemed egregious or predatory in any way (this goes for new sales as well as questioned below).

We would not hold users liable for things they were not aware of - this is moreso for those who know about the circumstances of which gold has been acquired. (Such as those who reported themselves - they knew they bought hacked gold and ultimately decided to come forward. Had these users not known, but they were reported, we would have needed some sort of proof that they knew of said circumstance.) That's the only way we can approach reports regarding this policy - pretty much the same as any report: prove to us what we don't know.

This is what came up when discussing something as extreme as your example (and whatever the related version(s) is to reports here on Sythe):

The clarification we want to make is that the staff team retains discretion to overrule a ToS in rare circumstances when it is deemed excessively unfair or predatory but otherwise we will be enforcing the use of ToS.

 

awesome! Been doing this anyway now for a while, I quote all my vouches, on my vouch page

 

I like the clarification on account payment schedules and now I feel a lot safer to engage in buying an account with written payment terms!