Further explaining or updated stickies on worker hiring tos

So first of all my title is probably butchering the whole thread and where I have been wanting to go with it, but I literally cant think of the right topic name so I just put it to what comes in mind so apologies for that

- Now then, shall we get on with what I am looking to have looked at. I think it goes without saying a lot of us are service providers and as such we want to protect ourselves, our clients, our userbase in any way we can and as such we have hiring terms that workers upon wanting to work for you have to agree to

So as can be found here dbuffed cashing easy money from 3rd world country gl a person who wanted to work for me, and clearly agreed to my tos has decided to make a giant fuss after I spent 45 minutes running over my hiring terms which he agreed to and failed to obey by, keeping in mind with this being said that if we as service providers broke the terms ourselves we would just as easily be punished as scammers

This morning I had @Zora reach out to me about more information regarding the matter, and the only thing that can further be presented other than "him being a worker but that doesn't mean he is a worker" is me having the transcripts from the said other server(s) that the person is ranked as a worker in

- What I am failing to to understand and rightfully so, how am I meant to get this information? People have commented "you could ask a employee".. If I was to ASK said employee/manager let's say as well, they would I can imagine be demoted for leaking customer details/information regarding tickets etc which as far as i'm aware is against the rules when hiring along side forum rules here as well

Now I have a few points to make -

so with this being said, yes he mentioned he applied at other places. I said he would have to ignore/decline it (see the difference in wording) as and I quote part 5 of my own hiring terms - - You agree that you will not work on any private orders/other services.

If this was the case, and he agreed to my terms what more is there to it? If he agreed to my terms, and yet has gone above and beyond to go get hired elsewhere despite knowing he shouldn't have (he has also like other people I can imagine would, had explained to him that he isn't able to work elsewhere)

- So the question may come out about "oh but Dbuffed you allowed him to work for eldardo", yes I do not work with that website or have any affiliations so I cant really say no don't use it, as it is like @Oracle said on discord a further income for said workers if they choose to use that as a revenue stream as well, which is a grey area when hiring unless you have it very specifically put that you CANNOT and WILL not go to these places as well (we in this example do not)



This is the point i'm trying to uphold with this suggestion. How are we meant to gain this further information without breaking some form of rules either discord or forum related? We simply cant do such things, or demand we have such information because of the private information that is involved so what was said here is essentially irrelevant on Zora's behalf in this. "Requiring sufficient proof needs to be more than a worker rank", no not really. The argument can be made with that, why would he become a worker elsewhere despite knowing the terms he agreed to just a couple of days prior in another server, if he wasn't looking to work there? Or why wouldn't he just go along and say he is no longer looking for work in these other servers as he has found somewhere.. Again things that are not for me to go looking for answers to as it's not my place or the other service providers who soon face this issue to go looking for either



Are you sure you want to go down that path? This was legit just taken a second ago



So this was something that happened last night, he was accepted from my server... 3 days ago? We just had to find time to sort his deposit etc, so in that time realistically he should have gone to other servers he looked to work for and said he no longer needs etc, not just play it off that he wasn't in fact doing that and didn't even know or whatever else

This brings me to another point, he has tried to make another thread regarding the same situation in the hiring section instead



When in fact, this isn't a scam like he has made out. This is me simply providing further context where I can with the information I have at hand, which seemingly people like you @Zora do not understand or care to actually listen to

-

So now ive done with the basic crap backstory, I feel that it's only fair we have something put into place with more information regarding stuff like this. If workers are able to manipulate your hiring terms and said staff like Zora wish to assist them for whatever petty reason then there should be clear rules of what we can and cannot have such as not being able to tell workers they have a terms of agreement with us because quite simply they don't matter in zoras eyes

This would also mean that we should no longer require to be held liable if workers scam quit and such as well, which let's be honest isn't going to happen. So there for, we need better rules and information regarding this matter, not just because of me but because of every other provider as well who will one day go through the same issue

 

So to add some more as I am going over the further information we have at hand



So you're saying this, and this is EXACTLY why the rules need to be changed/updated. You are saying you haven't told me to get this information, but yet you have? you have told me I have no information confirming more than him being ranked, "which isn't enough" in your words, but yet how else am I meant to get more information regarding his application(s), rank(s) and anything else he does?


-

Erm... A simple no would of been sufficient? What? You smoking crack?



Quite simply, you was told that I cannot gather that sort of information without being highly ranked in said discord server(s), because it's breach of information. So why would I have this on hand.. Why would ANY provider have this on hand?



yes, we know a TOS can be over ruled by staff but that's besides the point. "You prefer not over ruling", so what is there to over rule on my decision to not agree to returning something based on 2 of my tos being broken?

Imagine if this was you lmao, you're saying to me that I need to calm down etc but yet i'm perfectly calm. More or less just trying to make sense of what you're on about, because one it's a grey area which means this can be exploited by all workers and any service provider can be at the wrong hand of it.

While yes, you made the point he did apply/join multiple service providers in a short span, I also had to find this out myself which shouldn't be the case, I shouldn't have to go do the research to find out he is elsewhere or should any other service provider. Again @Oracle made a good point, and has been literally the only one who has made some neutral comments, that being people who are in said workers situation only care about money, and nothing more. So would you say it's safe to say that they don't actually read the hiring terms, they just throw their balls to the walls and agree to them?

If so again this is again clear manipulation/misuse of the section, because we have these terms in our contracts to protect us from bad things happening. What you have done on the other hand is slapped us in the face and said "It's fine guys, i'm a cool kid mod i can do as I want, even if it doesn't make sense"

Now @VirtGold has common sense, and I appreciate him taking his time to reply



THIS IS COMMON TRADE PRACTICE



What you are asking me to provide is something that no provider hiring in the near future is going to be able to provide when asked, this means you're able to wave your fingers around and screw us over because "you want to" as such, leaving us with being able to be screwed and manipulated by any and all workers. These rules need to be changed, because a lot like me it seems Virt understands where it goes if we have that sort of information on hand

 

I support this suggestion. We can't be held liable for acquiring transcripts from other service providers as myself, a service provider, would never leak any conversations whether they are private or not. Though, if it would be something like a scam admittance or something of the sorts, I'd deliver that information to the person it matters to.

If we were made required to provide such information, I can't imagine what the next step would be.

 

Is this a report or a suggestion?

Whats with the language and being childish? Keep it serious if you gonna make a suggestion.

On topic; The idea is decent but the way it's being communicated is terrible.

 

More or less strung together as a bit of jibberish lol, need caffeine before I can sit down and actually go over it fully

But the jist of it is pointing out the rules of which are being manipulated with full context to it, and if something isn't handled we know moving forward a lot more disputes will happen and some may end up in such ways like @DavidTheBig

 

Then take a minute, get ur caffeine and then write a suggestion if you want people to take you serious.

Cause when i read this... the suggestion is decent but when i'm finish reading all i remember is you outing Zora stupidly and asking if they smoke crack... Like really?

Tbf, wish it was taken down by staff and let you re-write it.

 

i'm half talking to Zora on discord atm, dealing with the personal issue we have, but yeah man I could write it all up again (if this was kept open for a duration so i can use the same points)

 

Honestly this is really hard to make sense out of. Tried to read the replies which further complicated things (needing caffeine before making sense, what kind of lame excuse is this?)

I second what Kanye said, I think you've posted this out of emotion and this case is a one-off.

 

caffeine helps the mind lol, remaking the thread

 

I have woken up a bit more and spoke to @Zora a bit more for those of you who wonder where the old thread has gone (yes thanks @Robiiiiin ) but to make it easier for people to manage and understand -


I feel that in such cases that lead to reports on users, regardless of the matter we ourselves have a sense of duty to not only keep the forums safe but ourselves as well. In recent cases, we have seen some stuff over ruled in place of people like @DavidTheBig which I am not saying was right or wrong, but in such situations with let's say account sales you do run a much bigger risk than us service providers

- Now, the main part I am picking at personally, although the other parts of the forums (accounts like above mentioned) could probably also be thrown into the mix as well.

dbuffed cashing easy money from 3rd world country gl - This thread if you read it, the worker at the time agreed to my terms of service on the 15'th of this month, (so last week) and was accepted on the 18'th, with this being said he also applied to work at another service or maybe even several services. With such people when you talk to them and they talk about their experiences/other places they apply etc, this same person mentioned Eldardo which I do not use so in my case it doesn't affect me in said stuff like my hiring terms where we like many have a cooldown period for you to receive your deposit back

It would seem that the user is using the excuse of "he didn't understand" or so on, and as you can see by the pictures in that thread alone, not to mention the countless others there are many different issues which can seemingly be one sided. By no means am I saying the guy isn't entitled to his deposit btw or anyone else in other disputes and such too. What I do feel is that maybe we need more information out there, if it be stickies or just a general overall added rule as well stating certain information is required, or could be used against you etc if X-happens

This is because I feel quite frankly people are able to manipulate the hiring terms, this does also include owners as well as we have seen with the more recent owner>worker reports where they have tried to hide behind their terms, which is also fine as it does happen. I just feel that if we don't have something in place, something solid that can say like right hey you agreed to this term and that term and you have now been terminated so it is what it is hopefully you learn from this bad mistake then we as providers have no coverage against any worker coming in, messing everything up and then going above and beyond to get hired elsewhere whilst also breaking your hiring terms because quite simply "they can" and it's fine if they make a scam report on you because of it

If there is clear proof said worker(s) have agreed to your hiring terms and you are upholding your part, and even in some cases being reasonable if let's say they are trying to and/or even asking to break them or for them to be broken on their behalf then you should be able to decline and just say enough is enough


- Thanks for reading, I hope this is a bit better

 

Personally, we have a long, locking just about everything off TOS for our workers.

i feel like these should apply, and a free discussion between worker and server owner should be held.
a clear "i have read and understood the terms of service" should be sufficient to uphold all agreemends made, i don't think Sythe as a platform should interfere in these discussions.

i personally feel this should apply to just about anything, and disallow Sythe to overrule TOS in general, but that's a whole different discussion.

 

Simple questions @Dbuffed to get some clarity on what you exactly want

1. What rule exists (or needs to exist)
2. What does it need to change to?
3. Why?