[Approved] Have a stickied thread for "Non-valid" Terms of Service

Title.

There are so many disputes where a seller/buyer stand by their ToS that the customer agreed to, only for a mod to come back and say "your ToS is not valid, please refund."

A stickied thread of common/uncommon Terms that aren't valid under Sythe rules should be made for each section where ToS are common (account sales, services, etc). This could also be updated after a new dispute over ToS comes up.

 

I was waiting for someone to post this and considered posting it myself @Viking

In principle, I believe in a free market. Meaning that providers should be free to set their ToS and a dispute should limit itself to interpreting which side lived up to the agreed terms. I believe that this is effective and just because:
1. Customers are free to choose among competing providers. Meaning that providers should (in this ideal situation) not only be competing price-wise but also ToS-wise. Especially in today's market where the market is being flooded with providers, a customer always has the option to find a provider's ToS unattractive and side with another provider.
2. The reason why I believe that this is just is because the customer has to explicitly read and agree to the ToS. I believe it's not allowed for ToS to be automatically toggled. This is also a frequent legal limitation to agreements. So this should be one of the few reasonable limits to contracting-freedom on Sythe. However, most of us are grown adults and we should be capable of making decisions for ourselves after reading an offer and certain ToS. Especially since agreements don't involve supercomplex tax-clausules etc, there's not really an excuse - in my opinion - not to do this.

Having said that, I don't want to turn this thread into a "should we remove the limitations set by Sythe on ToS". That's a different discussion. But I think it's important to mention because so far Sythe has sided with limiting ToS to an extend. So in this case, I agree with your suggestion. I personally wouldn't appreciate getting surprised in a dispute having some of the provisions of my ToS deemed void. As a provider, if I know what is and what is not in accordance with Sythe rules I can implement that in my ToS.

Let's look at the following example: so far it's clear to me that with account-sales the seller has a certain recovery responsibility, but it's not always clear. Give for example the question of dying on a HCIM or overleveling on a pure. @Pirate mentioned that a provider cannot be allowed to exonerate himself from liability from that. On the other hand, it would be disproportionate to compensate for an entire account since usually the account in question still has value (see this dispute Clarify TOS/HCIM Death/Account Valuation Rules). The difficulty here is agreeing on how far the ToS may go. If the rule is "you may not exempt yourself from liability", is it then ideal for providers to look for the absolute minimum-threshold and say: "In case Y, providers must agree to pay back at least back X, where X is a small percentage/number"? Setting up limitations like this lead to some new problems like: 1. What are 'smart' limitations 2. To what extend are these rules sensitive for abuse? 3. Is it achievable to set an exhaustive set of rules like this that are consistent, et cetera.

Nevertheless, to me at least, contractual-certainty is more important than most (practical) contra-arguments so I support!

 

Agreed, nobody wants to get surprised in the middle of a dispute when the ToS they are standing by is not valid in the eyes of Sythe.

 

I mean if you look at a term and say 'Hmmm..... This is predatory in a way that basically absolves me of all responsibility to my customer' then I'd say that's a pretty shitty term. I don't think there needs to be a list of "Do's and Don'ts", because there is always edge cases. I think if you want something then a defined test for predatory terms or responsibility absolution is what you want. To that end though I think its common sense.

 

No Support.


ToS are supposed to be agreements between two parties that create a fair transaction or agreement, but the truth is that service providers, just like companies in real life use ToS to remove as much liability and responsibility from themselves. It is the job of sythe moderators to interpret which ToS terms are/ are not acceptable, on a case-by-case basis given there is often no precedent set, and to then enforce their determinations.

I think creating a list of terms that are not allowed or not enforceable due to scythes own rules and ToS will just create a loophole for providers to say 'well x term wasn't on the list of un-allowed terms and is therefore okay' when the fact of the matter is that new disputes over terms pop up all the the time because providers continuously find new ways to attempt to avoid liability.

Providers should not provide ToS; They should be created together by both the customer and the provider for each transaction so they both have say in an agreement that protects a compromise of both of their interests as much as possible. If you have to question whether or not a term should be allowed you probably shouldn't have it.

and to reply to president, I think if we didn't regulate terms at all, then every provider would just have terms like: 1. nothing is our fault, even if one of our workers drops your ironman bank and scams you it's just too bad that's not in our control so sorry

and there would be no market for choosing providers with the best terms because all the providers would have shit terms because if everyone does it, all the customers still need services completed.

 

No Support as its way too much work for such a large and complicated market. Simple reason being so conmen cant 'legally' con blur-ass buyers into accepting overly convoluted crap that had loads of bs hidden between the lines that sometimes only an experienced trader could detect and call out. Its a free market yes. Only if you play fair.

The better suggestion is honestly to just get sellers to get their TOS's approved by the mod team and thats it already.

Simple and same reason Pain got his shitty site and profile on here banned when he tried to fk buyers over with his imaginary account insurance (that if you read VERY closely actually showed you could almost NEVER get a refund) and his BS gold delivery TOS till admins called him out on it.

If you're that worried about mods rejecting your TOS in a dispute, then from the START you should've approached mods and documented their approval of your TOS BEFORE starting business, no? Thats a more than fair chance to win any TOS dispute imo.

 

@Viking Thanks for the suggestion. We've already been working on a sticky to help explain ToS that will be released to the public soon.

As part of this sticky, we will introduce guidelines for ToS and will mention a few terms that cannot be included in ToS (e.g. "contacting me means you agree to my terms!"). Hopefully that covers what you're suggesting, and that sticky can always grow if we find more inappropriate terms that people are trying to include.

 

Glad to hear something is in progress. That pretty much will cover what im suggesting

 

I would hope though, that users agreeing twice to the terms is enough grounds for plausible acceptance and understanding of what an individual is getting themselves into

The first time, by clicking a reaction to even join the discord (with all of the TOS, written clearly).

The second time, when an individual ticket is created, they again, must react to an embedded message acknowledging they have read the linked TOS; otherwise they will not be able to talk in the ticket.

Lastly- I appreciate something is being done about this!