(DENIED)Ironman Service Refund Ruling (2)

This thread is a suggestion to change the current ironman refund ruling. Current ruling is that the service provider must pay x4 of the original bank value. This is not accurate representation of what is lost and my suggestion has two options which are:

-A quote on all the items lost on the account using the original service provider's prices and then mix it in with other provider's prices, where applicable. This must be paid to the customer in $ or 07 GP.

-Another option would be to offer the customer a new account that is already at a similar stage to the ironman that was cleaned by a new worker.


Concerns:

1. On sythe we attempt to rule primarily on chat logs, TOS agreements and any other valid proof that either side provides.

Irrelevant in this suggestion because this suggestion is what happens after all this is done. The final verdict would be the service provider is liable, then this ruling would come into place.

2. Getting a quote for every item lost on an account could / would be very time consuming.

You don't have to do this. The customer/service provider will be the ones that will provide this. You just have to state that you will be doing this going forward as the last reply on the thread.

3. What if the customer had a pet they had lost? Are we going to charge 400k per kill for 1/500,000 odds ?

Pets wouldn't count. A customer that has been cleaned on an endgame iron would realistically not care about what pets they had. Even if they did, this wouldn't be part of the rule change.

4. What if the customer had previously went through that same server to obtain that item and only paid for 10 kills? In the instance of your demonic gorilla idea, if I bought a zenyte shard and Exx got it within 10kills which would be 4mil, then Exx could counter argue and mention that he got it within 10 kills, so that only 4mil should be refunded.

Same goes for the other way round. What if I bought 1500 corrupted gauntlet and got blade after that? The quote would be based on the average KC needed to get the item back. I.e. 400 corrupted gauntlets for blade/bowfa, 800 if both.


5. It's also extremely hard to say who stole what, as others have mentioned on this thread customers have faked their accounts being hijacked, scammed and whatnot in attempts to get more money.

Irrelevant in this suggestion because this suggestion is what happens after all this is done. The final verdict would be the service provider is liable, then this ruling would come into place.

6. If you are able to come up with an amazing suggestion, who is to say that a customer and worker won't come together to befriend the server owner in attempt to get a huge refund when a specific TOS that dictates a refund comes into place if the bank is cleaned during service? This already happens on a lower level when lower tier wor, I couldn't imagine what would happen if a specific rule came into place.

Irrelevant in this suggestion because this suggestion is what happens after all this is done. The final verdict would be the service provider is liable, then this ruling would come into place.

7. At the end of the day anyone can adjust and create a tos that caters to what they desire, while also having a MM holding funds if they don't trust one another.

Irrelevant in this suggestion because this suggestion is what happens after all this is done. The final verdict would be the service provider is liable, then this ruling would come into place.


This is by far the best way to solve a refund on an ironman account. Slapping a multiplier does not work. The customer could have spent 10k$+ and only gotten 2k$ in return.

The options of this ruling would be; final quote on everything lost on drop rates (paid in cash or 07) (as explained above) proposal of an account that is at a similar stage, rebuilding of account personally as a service provider.

 

This would be a completely different suggestion on how to combat people who clean their own irons for profit. My suggestion is based on what happens AFTER the final verdict where the service provider is liable. I agree with what you say, though it has nothing to do with my suggestion.

I have edited the main thread with the actual suggestion, sorry about that.