mypvm.shop dispute

Link to/reason for TWC/DNT/Ban: MyPVM Plugin Exposed/Violations
Link to your vouches: Sythe / Trustpilot / Google
Link to previous disputes: N/A

Detailed description of the events that took place and why you disagree with the decision:

Following the outcome and recommendations made on this thread, this post aims to disprove and dispute certain aspects of the ruling.

The connection between MyPvM and Mcneill - Steroids Client owner
(Note: I was the one who reported him, this can be checked by a quick IP comparison.)

• Aside from sharing the same name, we are not connected to Mcneill. MyPvM does not employ Mcneill. Yes, the name of one of our internal tools is the same as his client. This internal tool was never meant to be in the public domain, and we simply chose a name out of simplicity's sake.
• To prove this, please refer to the screenshots shown in Pikachu's first post, specifically this screenshot.
• Workers have to authenticate against their own Discord account to get access to this tool. You will notice there is a redirect to Steroid Client. This domain is under the control of our developer. To prove this, we've added a page at the following url - https://steroid.cyou/sythednt/ containing an affidavit. Let us know if you need more proof about website being controlled by us. We've also redirected the url Redirecting... to our own website.
• In light of the above, the claim that “They knowingly used a client on customers who reported in the past for leaking RSNs” is incorrect.
• Also, claiming that simply increasing a customer's risk by using certain tools makes your software malicious is misleading. For example, it is common knowledge in the OSRS black market that using proxies or VPNs increases the risk of false bans, yet these tools are still tolerated.

Claims that we use bots/macros

• RuneLite is a Jagex approved 3rd party client. Therefore, any plugins that are approved by RuneLite do not break any rules. In this post – MyPVM Plugin Exposed/Violations, we provided evidence that concerns regarding how we handle certain game elements. This evidence links directly to the RuneLite official plugin repository, as well as RuneLite's approved community hub plugins. Our implementation uses features already audited by RuneLite's developers.

Claims that we don't use an updated version of RuneLite

• We wrote our onboarding document years ago. We've had no reasons to update it.

In this screenshot, you will see that:

1. Our plugin is loaded in the right sidebar.
2. We are running RuneLite 1.10.49 – https://github.com/runelite/runelite/releases/tag/runelite-parent-1.10.49, released Jan 29, 2025.

TOS/Section of site not being updated correctly

• In this post – https://www.sythe.org/posts/86141069/, it was only asked that we update our terms of service. We present our terms of service to all clients when they create an order.
• In this post – https://www.sythe.org/posts/86396062/, the evidence provided is not our terms of service.
• Our terms of service are located here – MyPvM Shop - Proven Safest Oldschool Runescape Marketplace.

The quoted post linked to a blog post. To even get to this blog post, you would have to either:

1. Click through multiple modals on our Discord server.
2. Click on Blog in the footer of our website, then find Security Plugin - Pros and Cons.

• We write blogs to help improve our SEO. Customers are not forced to see our blog when making a purchase, unlike our Terms of Service. Furthermore, our blog post was not mentioned in the original ruling, so we did forget about it.

We have also updated our terms of service and blog – MyPvM Shop - Proven Safest Oldschool Runescape Marketplace:

Contempt of Court

• We know Sythe moderators are volunteers, meaning they put their free time and energy in these reports. Regardless of us disagreeing with @Pikachu, we should not take it out on him, and we're sorry for that.
• We've had to deal with back-to-back frivolous reports against us where we argue that no scam actually occurred. I'm sure you can tell as well that one of the reports involved an individual with too much time on their hands. And I'm also sure you can agree that neither of us thinks this is a good use of our time.
• At the time, said individual was not banned and still actively responding to our reports. None of his later posts actually had any merit and were all just baseless accusations. We obviously didn't want to look bad, so we continued to spend time responding. In hindsight, this was stupid of us.
• While we understand why @Pikachu locked the thread, we were frustrated that our later concerns were ignored. This means that we would've had to create another thread where that troll would reappear. This, alongside the fact that certain aspects of the conclusion were incorrect, lead us to the... "contempt" situation.

Obviously, at this point, this is just a rationalization of our emotions. In the future, we will remain strictly professional to ensure that incidents like this do not happen again.

Once again, sorry about that. No hard feelings, we hope.