Guru
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2018
- Sythe Gold
- 1,484
- Messages
- 1,984
@Sythe im posting this in hopes that you can review the decision made, as we and many prominent members of the services communities strongly believe that this decision is extremely bad and sets horrible precedent where things that arent explicitly against the tos are allowed (see example below).
Good day,
I am one of the managers in the main Mafioso server. I’m making this post in response to @Andy decision to overturn the decision made on this report. Mafioso's workers cleaned 1b+ off an end game 2233 ironman...
A little context for the community, and by now @Spencercslv1 should have changed his password and pin. The password on the account was redactedand the pin was 2021. As per spencercslv1’s request there was 2 workers on the account, one of which had pin access and the other didn’t. before finding out the passwords our initial findings at mafioso after reviewing the logs showed that on the date when the account was cleaned, buchu (the worker with pin access) had not opened a new client, meaning it was unlikely that he was the one who took the items. After coming to this conclusion, we decided that the only possible culprit was eslam, who never had pin access, but because the pin was so guessable, we decided that he could have guessed the pin as he was active a few hours before spencer noticed the items were gone. At this point is when we offered compensation to @Spencercslv1 and we could not agree upon an amount that was owed, as he believed the has 0 responsibility in the matter despite his extremely weak pin. The next day after spencer urged sythe to resolve the matter, we became aware that the password was redacted. I cannot describe how weak this password is. Yellowhat admitted to doing services for spencer, and any other place that has ever done services could easily guess the password if he used a similar schema (ie. If he opened a job at chicks and the worker saw the pin was chicks1234, he could go around guessing the top 5-10 server names and easily get into the account). Given how weak both the password and the pin was we decided that the fault in this case was entirely on Spencercslv1. This is when we decided to rescind our pervious offer of repayment because at this point it could be quite literally anybody who has ever seen his login information could be responsible. Oh and his login has been leaked 4 times on haveibeenpwned.
@andys reversing the decision and telling us to pay 4x the bank value implies that spencer has 0 responsibility in the matter. Following this logic if my username was 1234 and my password was 1234, and I accidently leak the password all over the internet, then decide to order services at a competitor, they would take entire responsibility of what occurs on the account. This is an absolutely ludicrous president to set here. Yes our tos doesn’t say “your password cant be shit” but it also doesn’t say you cant go around pming your password to people, there is no tos in the world that covers all the dumb stupid shit people can do. I expect sythe to obey the common sense principle.. ie. If somebody’s tos doesn’t explicitly say “you are not allowed to charge back” am I allowed to charge back on them? Following andys logic its allowed because it isn’t explicitly in the tos.
Furthermore @Yellow_Hat_OSRS_Services directly threatened to dox me (and exx) and “break sythe rules”. Yellowhats friends also threatened to swat me and yellowhat implied that “bad things will happen” and that I wont be able to prove its him, implying that he was the one who will be doing the swatting, but under somebody elses name . Allowing him off with just a warning (private report) is dumb. Next time I dislike a sythe ruling I know what to do, start a strawman argument to enrage people, while claiming the report was private (the only private info on the thread was the password and the pin) . then go ahead and threaten to dox the other parties involved.
Screenshot - a27fcc13e3c0a8699177319b23ae19e9 - Gyazo
Screen capture - ef30e9ee1fff8e73c9ad5fa8f625f71e - Gyazo
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/786401912244404255/900635991176519750/image0.png
https://i.imgur.com/qJqZlaM.png
Good day,
I am one of the managers in the main Mafioso server. I’m making this post in response to @Andy decision to overturn the decision made on this report. Mafioso's workers cleaned 1b+ off an end game 2233 ironman...
A little context for the community, and by now @Spencercslv1 should have changed his password and pin. The password on the account was redactedand the pin was 2021. As per spencercslv1’s request there was 2 workers on the account, one of which had pin access and the other didn’t. before finding out the passwords our initial findings at mafioso after reviewing the logs showed that on the date when the account was cleaned, buchu (the worker with pin access) had not opened a new client, meaning it was unlikely that he was the one who took the items. After coming to this conclusion, we decided that the only possible culprit was eslam, who never had pin access, but because the pin was so guessable, we decided that he could have guessed the pin as he was active a few hours before spencer noticed the items were gone. At this point is when we offered compensation to @Spencercslv1 and we could not agree upon an amount that was owed, as he believed the has 0 responsibility in the matter despite his extremely weak pin. The next day after spencer urged sythe to resolve the matter, we became aware that the password was redacted. I cannot describe how weak this password is. Yellowhat admitted to doing services for spencer, and any other place that has ever done services could easily guess the password if he used a similar schema (ie. If he opened a job at chicks and the worker saw the pin was chicks1234, he could go around guessing the top 5-10 server names and easily get into the account). Given how weak both the password and the pin was we decided that the fault in this case was entirely on Spencercslv1. This is when we decided to rescind our pervious offer of repayment because at this point it could be quite literally anybody who has ever seen his login information could be responsible. Oh and his login has been leaked 4 times on haveibeenpwned.
@andys reversing the decision and telling us to pay 4x the bank value implies that spencer has 0 responsibility in the matter. Following this logic if my username was 1234 and my password was 1234, and I accidently leak the password all over the internet, then decide to order services at a competitor, they would take entire responsibility of what occurs on the account. This is an absolutely ludicrous president to set here. Yes our tos doesn’t say “your password cant be shit” but it also doesn’t say you cant go around pming your password to people, there is no tos in the world that covers all the dumb stupid shit people can do. I expect sythe to obey the common sense principle.. ie. If somebody’s tos doesn’t explicitly say “you are not allowed to charge back” am I allowed to charge back on them? Following andys logic its allowed because it isn’t explicitly in the tos.
Furthermore @Yellow_Hat_OSRS_Services directly threatened to dox me (and exx) and “break sythe rules”. Yellowhats friends also threatened to swat me and yellowhat implied that “bad things will happen” and that I wont be able to prove its him, implying that he was the one who will be doing the swatting, but under somebody elses name . Allowing him off with just a warning (private report) is dumb. Next time I dislike a sythe ruling I know what to do, start a strawman argument to enrage people, while claiming the report was private (the only private info on the thread was the password and the pin) . then go ahead and threaten to dox the other parties involved.
Screenshot - a27fcc13e3c0a8699177319b23ae19e9 - Gyazo
Screen capture - ef30e9ee1fff8e73c9ad5fa8f625f71e - Gyazo
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/786401912244404255/900635991176519750/image0.png
https://i.imgur.com/qJqZlaM.png
