[approved] Updating guidelines + more transparency around TOS

Describe the problem:

• Make terms of services rules more clear and transparent to the community and move away from case by case to more standardized system.
• Update the current guide to the Terms of Service thread: A Guide to Terms of Service (ToS) to include policies around Terms of Service and to give more transparency.

for example: Deposits aren't meant to be used for profit.

What current rule(s) tackle this problem:
More transparency for the community / fewer questions regarding Sythe's policy on Terms of Service.
Allows users to create stronger Terms of Service that they can fully trust will meet Sythe's standards.
Prevents possible inconsistency in ruling for Sythe staff, as this will be a reference point for both them and the community to follow.
Most likely makes less report for staff to handle as ruling on report would be very clear.

Explain the change:

• Change the system rules around terms of service to be more standardized rather then a case by case basis and to be clear and transparent.

• Update the sticky with items such as: Deposits are intended solely as a means to offset potential monetary damages or losses caused by a breach of agreement or misconduct. They must not be used for profit or retained unfairly. For example, service providers cannot use their ToS to justify keeping a worker's deposit unless monetary damages can be proven and are directly linked to the breach of agreement.

and any other possible details which are necessary for constructing strong terms of service.

Explain why this change will fix the problem: It gives the community a clear idea of what they should do and helps staff resolve problems more effectively.

Side effects: N/A

 

Some transparency in the 'shall we overrule' is well overdue in my opinion

 

[President]

If your goal is to reduce questions and enhance clarity, the most straightforward solution is contract freedom. This is preferable to a system that consists of prohibited terms and exceptions to exceptions derived from obscure two-year-old rulings known to perhaps three people worldwide

Edit: The current ruling, without/before a rule change, seems a bit unfair to PvM given the existing precedent (see below). They should be able to rely on the framework of established rules and precedent, rather than having to pay the price for unpredictable shifts in interpretation.

In the following rulings it was determined that the specific provision to hold deposits is valid (I think; didn't read in detail):

Worker issue
Peanut420_69 Declines decrease of deposit while his ToS has no mention of it
Dbuffed not returning worker deposit

A fairer ruling might have been something along the lines of: "Based on precedent X, we rule in your favor, but we will discuss a potential rule change moving forward"

 

In my opinion tos overruled should not be a thing what so ever

the most straightforward solution is contract freedom.

100% agree
Workers are fully entitled to negotiate terms / say no & look elsewhere when unhappy.
Direct quote from the ToS guidelines:

• Sythe is a marketplace. As such, users can negotiate on ToS just as they can negotiate on prices and other aspects of agreements.

If they don't understand the terms & have been explicitly asked to confirmed this and still say they agree.
It can't be pushed on the "employing" party


Assuming the my pvm report triggered this,
My 2 cents are: there's more than just "material" damage, also reputation damages should be taken into account, these cost a lot more than a 50$ account whereas not directly
You notice it over time

 

In my opinion tos overruled should not be a thing what so ever

100% agree
Workers are fully entitled to negotiate terms / say no & look elsewhere when unhappy.
Direct quote from the ToS guidelines:

If they don't understand the terms & have been explicitly asked to confirmed this and still say they agree.
It can't be pushed on the "employing" party


Assuming the my pvm report triggered this,
My 2 cents are: there's more than just "material" damage, also reputation damages should be taken into account, these cost a lot more than a 50$ account whereas not directly
You notice it over time

How would you calculate this reputation damage?

 

It's not something you can put a number on.

Looking at the mentioned mypvm report, I'd justify it as reasonable rep dmg, which harms business in the short - medium term

 

It's not something you can put a number on.

Looking at the mentioned mypvm report, I'd justify it as reasonable rep dmg, which harms business in the short - medium term

So if Staff cannot put a number on it how would we calculate reputation damage?

I'd also argue that reports that continue to be kept open on the business's side or replies that aren't professional also impact this reputation as well. How would staff distinguish between the worker impacting the reputation vs the others?

 

Id say as soon as a NDA like agreement is in place in the agreed upon ToS.
The worker violates it whenever posting a report.

 

[President]

Id say as soon as a NDA like agreement is in place in the agreed upon ToS.
The worker violates it whenever posting a report.

So if Staff cannot put a number on it how would we calculate reputation damage?

I'd also argue that reports that continue to be kept open on the business's side or replies that aren't professional also impact this reputation as well. How would staff distinguish between the worker impacting the reputation vs the others?

I'd say this is a bit off-topic, but anyhow:

When it comes to addressing claims of reputational damage, we should definitely adopt a restrained approach. It should only be considered in cases where the harm is highly specific and concrete, such as when sponsors withdraw due to reputational harm, and this can be substantiated with evidence.

Furthermore, in this case as well, I would let the ToS guide decisions

 

[President]

I'd like to add that the rules regarding account recovery should probably also be revised in light of some recent changes:

• It's no longer possible to create legacy accounts. The current recovery rules on Sythe were designed for a situation where it was still possible to create legacy accounts from your own IP, in combination with the recovery system applicable at the time.
• The legacy accounts in circulation are often accounts that were purchased in bulk. As a result, fewer and fewer people selling (legacy) accounts are the original owners (in the sense that they created the accounts from their own IP).
• There's now a new system involving Jagex accounts. The question is whether the Sythe rules are aligned with this new system.

This further supports the argument to transition to freedom of contract. It would also be more practical for the arbitration team, as their role would be limited to interpreting contracts. Additionally, there would be no need to constantly adapt to changes in Jagex's (recovery) system.

 

[GhostsShop]

100% In agreement for this. Recently had a case where the user had the following done to his account AFTER I sold it to him.

3rd Party Services
2 Email Changes
Password Change
2FA Added
And he turned it to a Jagex Account

However Scythe staff still expected me to recover the account 3 months later, even when I do not retain creation details to the nature of rotating proxies, nor would they help, with Jagex Accounts.
My TOS even stated -

1. We are unable to perform recoveries or unlocks as you are provided sole access to the account and registered email upon sale.
   
   And I was still expected to give 2 years, with the addition of Jagex accounts, this needs to be looked at and changed.

 

[Bordercollie127]

However Scythe staff still expected me to recover the account 3 months later, even when I do not retain creation details to the nature of rotating proxies, nor would they help, with Jagex Accounts.
My TOS even stated -

1. We are unable to perform recoveries or unlocks as you are provided sole access to the account and registered email upon sale.
   
   And I was still expected to give 2 years, with the addition of Jagex accounts, this needs to be looked at and changed.

I suggest you read over the "Sythe rules" before trying to conduct actual business because you clearly can't read for shit.

If you want to conduct business through Sythe you must at minimum follow their rules. aka MUST offer a minimum of 1 month assistance and since you claim NO assistance at all after a sale you fall into the "im a piece of shit loser who tries to take advantage of bullshit TOS i make for myself.

Zulu clearly tells you and makes it clear as day as it then DEFAULTS to 2 years if your dumbass doesn't have proper TOS. If you aren't happy with how Sythe has their rules... Don't advertise or conduct business on their site?

Therefore your argument on this topic is completely fucking stupid, again read the rules.

Linking it for you since we both know you'll come back with "Cant find it"

Changes and clarifications to the account market

(its even highlighted in RED for you)

 

[GhostsShop]

No idea why you are so upset over this, not that big of a deal man, scythe just needs to update their TOS as it is obviously outdated for current OSRS standards of jagex accounts. Tut sellers selling in bulk with rotating proxies will have 0 ability to recover accounts for 1 month, which is safer for both buyers and sellers.

Also linking a post from 2019 makes my point even clearer, and also I'm not sure if you are reading this thread but the whole point is to have them fix their outdated TOS. Just a heads up, I will not reply to anymore comments from you, just a quick look at some stuff you've posted and you seem to be very hostile for no apparent reason, have a good day!

Also the buyer who came around in this recent case was not even from scythe, and I stopped advertising here a long time ago

 

If your goal is to reduce questions and enhance clarity, the most straightforward solution is contract freedom. This is preferable to a system that consists of prohibited terms and exceptions to exceptions derived from obscure two-year-old rulings known to perhaps three people worldwide

Have to agree here, if both the company & the customers are aware of the specific terms and agree to being bound by them I don't see why they shouldn't be enforceable afterwards. It's not like customers are forced into those terms, they can just not order/negotiate the terms if the company is willing to do so.

 

[Okamikun]

Describe the problem:

• Make terms of services rules more clear and transparent to the community and move away from case by case to more standardized system.
• Update the current guide to the Terms of Service thread: A Guide to Terms of Service (ToS) to include policies around Terms of Service and to give more transparency.

for example: Deposits aren't meant to be used for profit.

What current rule(s) tackle this problem:
More transparency for the community / fewer questions regarding Sythe's policy on Terms of Service.
Allows users to create stronger Terms of Service that they can fully trust will meet Sythe's standards.
Prevents possible inconsistency in ruling for Sythe staff, as this will be a reference point for both them and the community to follow.
Most likely makes less report for staff to handle as ruling on report would be very clear.

Explain the change:

• Change the system rules around terms of service to be more standardized rather then a case by case basis and to be clear and transparent.

• Update the sticky with items such as: Deposits are intended solely as a means to offset potential monetary damages or losses caused by a breach of agreement or misconduct. They must not be used for profit or retained unfairly. For example, service providers cannot use their ToS to justify keeping a worker's deposit unless monetary damages can be proven and are directly linked to the breach of agreement.

and any other possible details which are necessary for constructing strong terms of service.

Explain why this change will fix the problem: It gives the community a clear idea of what they should do and helps staff resolve problems more effectively.

Side effects: N/A

In my dealings with Sythe i have been on both sides of this rulings seemed to be pulled from precedent ruling based on Sythe's T.O.S and rulings based on our own T.O.S. Based on these experiences I can say the following.

Sythe has been a great help in showing areas in which our T.O.S has shown a lack of information resulting in a unfavorable outcome for the report but an improvement in the way our T.O.S is written. in these cases I do not disagree with sythe's ruling even if it was unexpected.

Sythe has nullified our T.O.S as it doesn't align with Sythe's T.O.S. in some of these cases I was unaware of Sythe's T.O.S, but in others Sythe's T.O.S was just outdated based on the current state of the game. I believe it's unfair In these cases where the T.O.S was agreed to and understood by both parties, but is still overruled.

In my opinion Sythe is here to assist in disputes for both sides and does their job to that end very well. what needs to change is that Sythes T.O.S and precedent should only be used to rule over issues that have no T.O.S or incases where a T.O.S is not made known to the parties involved and agreed to. it should also be used where a T.O.S doesn't cover the specific report reason.

 

Sythe has been a great help in showing areas in which our T.O.S has shown a lack of information resulting in a unfavorable outcome for the report but an improvement in the way our T.O.S is written. in these cases I do not disagree with sythe's ruling even if it was unexpected.

Very much agree to take Sythe ToS in cases where there is no specified agreement in place

Sythe has nullified our T.O.S as it doesn't align with Sythe's T.O.S. in some of these cases I was unaware of Sythe's T.O.S, but in others Sythe's T.O.S was just outdated based on the current state of the game. I believe it's unfair In these cases where the T.O.S was agreed to and understood by both parties, but is still overruled.

indeed
Vote for freedom of market!
let's make Sythe "Great again"

 

A good revamp is probably overdue. Just don't want to see workers getting screwed over by big providers with a lot of pull in the community.

 

Deposits aren't meant to be used for profit.

This has been approved, but we will only be adding precedent above. But if people want more added, they can make a suggestion.