[Approved] Have a stickied thread for "Non-valid" Terms of Service

Title.

There are so many disputes where a seller/buyer stand by their ToS that the customer agreed to, only for a mod to come back and say "your ToS is not valid, please refund."

A stickied thread of common/uncommon Terms that aren't valid under Sythe rules should be made for each section where ToS are common (account sales, services, etc). This could also be updated after a new dispute over ToS comes up.

 

Agreed, nobody wants to get surprised in the middle of a dispute when the ToS they are standing by is not valid in the eyes of Sythe.

 

I mean if you look at a term and say 'Hmmm..... This is predatory in a way that basically absolves me of all responsibility to my customer' then I'd say that's a pretty shitty term. I don't think there needs to be a list of "Do's and Don'ts", because there is always edge cases. I think if you want something then a defined test for predatory terms or responsibility absolution is what you want. To that end though I think its common sense.

 

No Support.


ToS are supposed to be agreements between two parties that create a fair transaction or agreement, but the truth is that service providers, just like companies in real life use ToS to remove as much liability and responsibility from themselves. It is the job of sythe moderators to interpret which ToS terms are/ are not acceptable, on a case-by-case basis given there is often no precedent set, and to then enforce their determinations.

I think creating a list of terms that are not allowed or not enforceable due to scythes own rules and ToS will just create a loophole for providers to say 'well x term wasn't on the list of un-allowed terms and is therefore okay' when the fact of the matter is that new disputes over terms pop up all the the time because providers continuously find new ways to attempt to avoid liability.

Providers should not provide ToS; They should be created together by both the customer and the provider for each transaction so they both have say in an agreement that protects a compromise of both of their interests as much as possible. If you have to question whether or not a term should be allowed you probably shouldn't have it.

and to reply to president, I think if we didn't regulate terms at all, then every provider would just have terms like: 1. nothing is our fault, even if one of our workers drops your ironman bank and scams you it's just too bad that's not in our control so sorry

and there would be no market for choosing providers with the best terms because all the providers would have shit terms because if everyone does it, all the customers still need services completed.

 

No Support as its way too much work for such a large and complicated market. Simple reason being so conmen cant 'legally' con blur-ass buyers into accepting overly convoluted crap that had loads of bs hidden between the lines that sometimes only an experienced trader could detect and call out. Its a free market yes. Only if you play fair.

The better suggestion is honestly to just get sellers to get their TOS's approved by the mod team and thats it already.

Simple and same reason Pain got his shitty site and profile on here banned when he tried to fk buyers over with his imaginary account insurance (that if you read VERY closely actually showed you could almost NEVER get a refund) and his BS gold delivery TOS till admins called him out on it.

If you're that worried about mods rejecting your TOS in a dispute, then from the START you should've approached mods and documented their approval of your TOS BEFORE starting business, no? Thats a more than fair chance to win any TOS dispute imo.

 

Glad to hear something is in progress. That pretty much will cover what im suggesting

 

I would hope though, that users agreeing twice to the terms is enough grounds for plausible acceptance and understanding of what an individual is getting themselves into

The first time, by clicking a reaction to even join the discord (with all of the TOS, written clearly).

The second time, when an individual ticket is created, they again, must react to an embedded message acknowledging they have read the linked TOS; otherwise they will not be able to talk in the ticket.

Lastly- I appreciate something is being done about this!