Hello.
Sorry for the delay, but making more money with your depo in BTC is not the reason. We hold liquid assets in USDT and have no advantage of delaying an answer.
Foreword:
First, I want to sincerely apologize for my outburst. I recognize that my response was unprofessional and not reflective of how disagreements should be handled. While it’s natural to have differing perspectives, I failed to consider others’ viewpoints in the moment. Truthfully, I was feeling extremely frustrated with the situation (also because I hold more information than people outside of management), and the more I delved into it, the more annoying it became. Unfortunately, I let my emotions take over and ended up using the chat as a way to vent, which was inappropriate. So sorry to you, Pikachu—you were simply the one transporting the message and not ultimately the one deciding, as I understand these decisions were made collectively.
Furthermore, I want to apologize for taking long to respond and putting pressure from the community on Pikachu to handle it swiftly, but it took time as you will see now.
Case:
Your ruling sets a very bad precedent. This suggests that workers can attempt to scam customers by faking screenshots of work they've not done. And when they get caught, aside from getting fired, they are not punished any further. If they weren't caught, they would've benefitted while the customer would've unknowingly got scammed. They are essentially getting off scot-free - their actions merit no risk yet plenty of reward.
This should not be the case as we don't think elko's actions should go unpunished.
I was looking at the logs, and—big surprise!—Elko faked 2 out of 12 KCs. Who would have guessed? But please, check it yourself and form your own judgment. This part can be confusing, please reach out to me I have everything saved and I am happy to explain further/showcase. Most people here did not reach late game and therefore do not bring the understanding needed.
First case:
KC 3 equals KC 7.
KC 3
https://i.imgur.com/RIH5zvR.png
KC 7
https://i.imgur.com/gmD45CN.png
The rock formation doesn’t add up there are no rocks at that place.
https://i.imgur.com/mUttNPG.png
here is where he died:
https://i.imgur.com/CmvOmqA.png
He got the same points and time as well which is very unlikely.
The funny thing about it is that I also know that it has taken him 7 minutes to fake the screenshot and therefore he did not take proper time to edit.
The actual points were:
https://i.imgur.com/tUZEpGf.png posted on 2nd December 2024 at 19:07
https://i.imgur.com/veDZPY3.png and the job update was posted on 2nd December 2024 at 19:14
https://i.imgur.com/pmWgO6b.png
Second Case:
Why is there a black hole with rocks and crystals in the middle of the boss room? Also, you can see the “9” (colour + font mismatching) on the time completion being weird and that is because the true result comes from kc 6 (kc 11 = kc 6).
KC 11 posted:
https://i.imgur.com/J63RyLo.png
kc 6 with black hole and rocks:
https://i.imgur.com/bwy1Aqf.png
the death that occurred just 20 mins before (congratulations on world record speed cox cm):
https://i.imgur.com/YFddktj.png
The actual points:
https://i.imgur.com/sPwkZK8.png
Another fun fact: This time, it took him just about 1 minute to screw over the client—a remarkable 85% boost in efficiency from Elko. Truly an impressive achievement!
Time of the bot:
https://i.imgur.com/GuvKda8.png
Time where elko posted the screen:
https://i.imgur.com/Hgsjzs6.png
In short: Elko used the points screenshots from KC 3 to replace the KC 7 points and used KC 6 to replace KC 11 points.
Out of 12 KCs, we’ve got 2 fake ones. If that’s the case for just a single order, I shudder to think about the rest of the jobs over a span of two years. Let’s even give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s only 10% of the jobs instead of the actual 16.6%. With total earnings of $6,827.75 and 3,202.98m—which, at a poor exchange rate of $0.12/m, translates to $384.35—his total earnings come to just over $7,200. Even at 10%, that’s $720 in damage. While I’d love to dig through all 4,645 results where he’s mentioned, it’s simply not feasible.
https://i.imgur.com/8e1qNmj.png My point here is that this wasn’t an isolated incident; he did it multiple times, all while maintaining a facade to make himself look better.
So, the "ONLY ONE" mistake you keep mentioning wasn’t one or a mistake at all—it was deliberate. Stop playing the victim.
However, to ensure this isn’t a ONE-sided report, let’s shift our focus to this report for a moment:
<removed>
Proof will be shared if needed, as I prefer not to publicly name anyone. Also, there can be sensitive information like login details. I do not want to risk that. The delay in responding is partly due to waiting for others to provide their input. For now, please consider it a fact that there were DMs.
Quote Pikachu: "The deposit will need to be returned, these were never meant to be used as profit in Sythe rules for service provider there meant to be cover loss's, if there proof of other scams these can be taken from despoit and returned to the person who ordered the services (will need proof),
As for wallet which
@elko same thing applies."
Quotes from the report:
"All we need to quash this is to prove Eslam breached ToS within Mafioso Raids server, as any breach of ToS can result in the worker's deposit being confiscated. Every worker is presented with ToS, asked to read it carefully, and must agree to terms before we set up their worker log."
"There is enough to prove a breach of ToS has occurred, as well as, having warned him multiple times in the past about similar behaviour even though we're not required to as stated in our ToS, therefore, confiscating his deposit is absolutely within our rights and is justified."
"It is integral to the running of Mafioso Raids services that we do things with clear transparency and concise precision as there's always so much at stake. As such, we're very open about what our ToS entails and we encourage both workers and customers to get familiar with these terms. Our workers are highly valued and hold so much of our trust and mostly go about doing their work freely and undisturbed with little to no intervention on our part, and we will always have their backs. That being said, everything that goes on in the server is heavily monitored by staff, and we do not take lightly to persisting and continuous breaches in the ToS or any breaches that we consider irredeemable."
"With regards to DMing customers about services, this entails everything server-related. The only messages we condone to be sent to a customer's DMs are either 1. account details that are being sent to you by the customer and should therefore be sent to you only, and 2. the pre-typed message we have ready for workers in case any customer messages you regarding services he is getting done/has purchased/would like to purchase in the future."
"So, to clarify, if the customer asks for follow-ups, information on how the service is going, whether you're off/on, etc. this should all, inclusively, be addressed in the ticket and not in private. Having a message pre-typed for you in case a customer strikes up a conversation with regards to his ticket leaves you no excuse as to why you're still partaking in keeping your chats in DMs."
"At the end of the day, we are beyond willing to always do our best to ensure fair treatment to every worker/teacher in our discord. We don't let people in easily and we don't let people go easily, and it ultimately does more damage than good to have to let hard-working members of our team go, but, as previously mentioned, there is no "pressing your luck" with rule-breaking as customer account safety will always be our number one priority."
The outcome:
<removed>:
@Eslamm you broke a TOS that you agreed to. @Toxicity is not liable to pay you as your deposit is forfeited when the TOS is broken.
What was the damage dealt in that case that the ToS upheld as valid? The argument of "there was no financial damage" or "you do it for profit" doesn’t apply here. Regardless of whether the financial impact was $1, $10, or $1,000, our ToS are consistent and clear. The damage caused extends beyond just the financial aspect, making it important to address the issue fully. The financial damage in this exact report is 0. The client’s time was wasted, but he at least got what he asked for although very delayed. Our client did not receive what he ordered.
I used that case as an example and included it in our ToS because I anticipated situations like this might arise and elko agreed to it multiple times.
https://i.imgur.com/QHhk2mM.png
https://i.imgur.com/ncJIRuE.png
https://i.imgur.com/vjXeNCs.png
I added the second report as it will give us a reference for the future disputes.
Following the same reasoning and schema applied collectively in the Mafioso report—where it was ruled that breaking the ToS by sending private messages results in forfeiting the deposit—one should apply the same logic and decision-making process to this report and rule in our favor.
Additionally, there’s undeniable reputational harm, even if it’s difficult to quantify.
I want to reiterate that we did not instigate this situation. The only reason it has escalated is because Elko engaged in questionable behavior—not just once, but twice for this single job (so he lied on this part as well)—and openly admitted to it. He was fully aware of his actions (instead of 7 minutes it only took him 1 minute on the second fake), so it’s unfair to portray us as the bad actors when we are simply following the rules that were clearly outlined and agreed upon in advance. These terms are explicitly confirmed before every job, as shown here:
https://i.imgur.com/Qa24n1j.png.
I’d also like to address the claim that we are pursuing this for profit. That could not be further from the truth. We are more than willing to refund affected clients or even donate the funds—it’s not about the money; it’s about principles and upholding the standards we’ve set.
Our ToS are continuously updated based on cases reviewed by Sythe, ensuring consistency and clarity in interpretation. If you look back at previous reports, you’ll see that we’ve always complied with rulings, improved our processes as needed, and sought feedback from moderators to make things better. To those who’ve provided valuable guidance along the way—thank you, we truly appreciate it!
If there’s really "no damage" in this case, then shouldn’t we also be entitled to compensation for the time and effort spent by myself, our developers, and managers responding to this issue? Since Elko’s actions are at the root of this entire situation, it seems only fair to consider those costs as well.
It’s also worth emphasizing that without our rigorous documentation practices, this incident would have likely gone unnoticed. Most other service providers wouldn’t even have the evidence to bring such misconduct to light.
At the end of the day, this isn’t about financial gain—it’s about maintaining integrity and sticking to the principles we’ve built. As mentioned earlier, allowing this to slide sets a troubling precedent and creates an opening for even more dishonest behavior in an already “dark place” that services can be. While I understand that handling reports with a clear financial impact is more straightforward, taking that approach alone overlooks the broader implications. Just because the financial damage isn’t as immediately apparent as in other cases doesn’t mean the issue is any less significant or deserving of proper attention.
Additionally, while I initially chose not to include the DM aspect, I felt compelled to bring it up after discovering that Elko not only faked 2 out of 12 KCs but also broke another ToS by DMing clients—amounting to a total of four ToS violations. Considering this, it would be incredibly unfair to let such repeated breaches slide, especially given the broader context outlined above.
Our lessons learned from this are clear: as a service provider, our next steps will focus on preventing similar issues in the future. While this happened to us, it’s only a matter of time before it happens elsewhere. It is guarantee that it will happen. To address this, we will implement live screenshot updates for customers at regular intervals with special events like deaths being sent immediately. This will not only enhance transparency but also make it significantly harder for screenshots to be falsified, ensuring a higher level of trust and accountability in our processes.
Lastly, I believe many other prominent service providers would agree that the core essence of any business is trust. For anyone managing more than a handful of workers—let alone over 100—it’s impossible to oversee every detail of every job. This is precisely why ToS exist: to establish clear guidelines and ensure accountability. Our ToS are no different from the standard practices seen across the market, and when those terms are broken, consequences must follow. Failing to enforce these rules risks destabilizing the entire system, undermining the trust and integrity that form the foundation of this industry.
To sum it up:
I firmly believe that the decision to refund Elko is flawed—not because the intent behind it is inherently wrong (deposit for losses, not for profit), but because it sets a damaging precedent with far-reaching consequences for the entire account services community. Our efforts have consistently focused on improving the integrity and trustworthiness of this space, but this ruling undermines those principles. By allowing multiple clear ToS violations to be excused, it not only risks enabling further dishonest behavior but also erodes the standards we’ve worked hard to uphold.
Best Regards and have a nice rest of your weekend,
Niki
) You can read more about our security plugin here: 
