[DENIED]Clarify server owner liability

[Okamikun]

Again this is not about this report clearly what we did was not enough we would like to know what is enough.

 

There appears to be a running theme with this happening with said discord, Primal for example, don't appear to have the same issue?

This post is here to prevent things from happening in the future.

We have had plenty of cases where customers suddenly had way more wealth than initially indicated.
but our workers are respected, paid well and know they can reach out if they need anything.
As such they don't habe a reason to scam.

 

In this ticket like Pikachu said Peanut is ultimately responsible for his worker the guidelines says that Peanut needs to be pinged for trades over a certain threshold his worker did not ping him nor did he wait for him to do the trade Peanut is liable for that sorry but not sorry. Now what Peanut needs to do is add ticket values to his system to where if a customer opens a ticket to bet or something like that a certain amount it only adds him to the ticket and he would need to add and certain host and monitor the ticket that way so he is never unaware of what's being processed. Host would need to be added to the ticket based on the value they can trade. So now Peanut is never unaware of a ticket opened higher than the value of a hosts bet if I'm understanding this gambling thing correctly. I'm no expert so correct me if i'm wrong.

A customer with a 25b bet shouldn't even be able to open a ticket with a host with a max 2b bet imo. So that leads me to believe the servers structure is off a bit which is opening him up to a shit load of damages customers as well.

Now tell me, how would you prevent a user from opening the wrong ticket?


Also, why add someone to a ticket if you're already there to handle it yourself?
The idea of "staff" is to increase productivity & capacity. Not to do everything yourself and decoratively move staff into tickets

 

Now tell me, how would you prevent a user from opening the wrong ticket?

Be creative Sythe has some skilled bot creators and most of the gambling bots are custom built how hard would it be to add;

- /add Customer Max Bet 2B
- /add Host Max Bet 2.5B

Customer Opens Ticket Max Bet 2B.
> Peanut or Admin Add's Host to Said Ticket

Peanut or Admin /Max Bet 2B set in Ticket
- Implement bot command (Max Bet 2B) > Keywords 3B, 5B, 5B if customer or host use any key word over 2B lets say customer says "Bet 4B" bot auto mutes customer and or host or removes them from ticket until an admin adds them back or mutes them until an admin unmutes them which in reality freezes the ticket until an admin checks the ticket.

I don't even host or know much about gambling but if I did have a discord this would FOR SURE be a implementation to my bot.

If you can only bet or host a 2B bet or something like that you shouldn't even be able to say a higher number in the ticket without me being notified or without it freezing the whole ticket until I can oversee whatever is being discussed.

These are things that should be thought of when building the STRUCTURE to prevent things like scamming from happening so again its the system that the owner has in place that opens him or the customer up to damages.

Im pretty sure some bot creator can find a way to add keywords to specific tickets big time service providers can afford it im sure better than paying back 25b or more scams.

What seems to be the issue with gambling discord is being reactive and not proactive in regards to the specific ticket linked.

 

https://www.sythe.org/threads/denied-hold-service-providers-accountable/page-2

Just referencing this here too, where the opposite was essentially the standard until recently.

 

[Bert]

I know the argument was lost once ducks were brought up...

 

1) Don't hire people who have any possible motivation to fuck you over
2) If you're big enough to file taxes on your income, hire them as contractors or employees and document it properly.

 

Don't hire people who have any possible motivation to fuck you over

Now assume
You just started at a new server
Don't have a reputation
Place down a 1000$ deposit

Get a chance to run away with 10k$ on your first day.
Because a customer chose to ignore your trade limit.


I bet you'd have a hard time finding 5 people on sythe that would not just run with the 10k.
I'm talking about "new" people, not established traders.

 

Now assume
You just started at a new server
Don't have a reputation
Place down a 1000$ deposit

Get a chance to run away with 10k$ on your first day.
Because a customer chose to ignore your trade limit.


I bet you'd have a hard time finding 5 people on sythe that would not just run with the 10k.
I'm talking about "new" people, not established traders.

If you're taking massive deposits then you're making plenty of money and should be capable hiring people the legal way instead, where if they did run off with $5,000+ you'd be filing a police report with their documents.

 

If you're taking massive deposits then you're making plenty of money and should be capable hiring people the legal way instead, where if they did run off with $5,000+ you'd be filing a police report with their documents.

Plenty of coutries where this wouldn't do shit & moneys gone forever/takes years to come back to you.

Ever tried to explain this business concept to an outside party?

 

Plenty of coutries where this wouldn't do shit & moneys gone forever/takes years to come back to you.

Ever tried to explain this business concept to an outside party?

Okay, so don't hire people in those countries? Not a difficult concept to follow.

1) Not sure why unregulated gambling taking place off-site would ever be the responsibility of Sythe to regulate?

2) "Sythe services" are allowing Peter to be the first person to handle the customer account, which is already asking for problems. Plenty of service providers will screen accounts to protect both the customer & the worker in the case an issue is raised on either side and it works very effectively. I wouldn't mind seeing this account screening being raised as a requirement for everyone.

3) Peter in this case stole $15,000-$20,000 of digital assets. You file a police report and raise the fact that they are likely selling it & thus receiving traceable untaxed income. Their government tears them to shit. At this point its a legal case and whether the service owner gets the money back or not is irrelevant.

 

2) "Sythe services" are allowing Peter to be the first person to handle the customer account, which is already asking for problems. Plenty of service providers will screen accounts to protect both the customer & the worker in the case an issue is raised on either side and it works very effectively. I wouldn't mind seeing this account screening being raised as a requirement for everyone.

This would increase customer risk.
More ip changes - account locks / potential bans

More people with account access, meaning the "who did it?" Question in case of missing items becomes even harder to answer.

Central point of account access - immense amount of value access at the "screening" person, this can be circumnavigated again by adding extra password changes, circling back to the ip change risks.

 

This would increase customer risk.
More ip changes - account locks / potential bans

More people with account access, meaning the "who did it?" Question in case of missing items becomes even harder to answer.

Central point of account access - immense amount of value access at the "screening" person, this can be circumnavigated again by adding extra password changes, circling back to the ip change risks.

You can screen an account in prep for services via Discord screenshare though?

 

I'm not going to comment on the ins and outs of this suggestion since I saw some information that is false information,

https://www.sythe.org/threads/4309427/resolved/

In the original report, this would have been ruled this way either way if this rule was in place as you have a customer agree to terms of service that they are liable if they trade the worker beyond the amount. Most people do via a message when you create the ticket, or they ask you in the ticket (I do both for trades where the terms of service matter more) but the message that the user displayed was once the ticket was opened so the client didn't agree too so it would have been voided regardless. Let's not go into the other reasons such as that it didn't state the client was responsible or anything as such, it just stated the worker deposit amounts. When you create terms of service, you have to assume the buyer is a baby and explain everything in detail, due to lack of correct wording or laziness the the terms of service/agreement weren't in place here. This was the original ground I was going to have the user repay on but later after a discussion with staff found out it didn't matter regardless as you can't have a maximum value on the responsibility of the worker.

We have an exception for this rule for gambling clans (example, I only scanned this report so might not be a perfect example), I assume this was put in place in 2010 or when dicing clans were massive in osrs due to heavy influence they had on staff team back then or the fact this is how their system worked back then which massively popularized under that system.

 

[Okamikun]

I'm not going to comment on the ins and outs of this suggestion since I saw some information that is false information,

https://www.sythe.org/threads/4309427/resolved/

In the original report, this would have been ruled this way either way if this rule was in place as you have a customer agree to terms of service that they are liable if they trade the worker beyond the amount. Most people do via a message when you create the ticket, or they ask you in the ticket (I do both for trades where the terms of service matter more) but the message that the user displayed was once the ticket was opened so the client didn't agree too so it would have been voided regardless. Let's not go into the other reasons such as that it didn't state the client was responsible or anything as such, it just stated the worker deposit amounts. When you create terms of service, you have to assume the buyer is a baby and explain everything in detail, due to lack of correct wording or laziness the the terms of service/agreement weren't in place here. This was the original ground I was going to have the user repay on but later after a discussion with staff found out it didn't matter regardless as you can't have a maximum value on the responsibility of the worker.

We have an exception for this rule for gambling clans (example, I only scanned this report so might not be a perfect example), I assume this was put in place in 2010 or when dicing clans were massive in osrs due to heavy influence they had on staff team back then or the fact this is how their system worked back then which massively popularized under that system.

To be fair after seeing your verdict I couldn't disagree with it. yes I was upset that we were paying for customers error but we didn't inform them to the best of our abilitys. That being said this discussion is about the possibility it opens. Had 8 new people try to get hired as managers “in a looking to handle some big tickets” as one said. since this post came through lol. So now we have people trying to scam us as stated above in other examples.

 

We have an exception for this rule for gambling clans (example, I only scanned this report so might not be a perfect example), I assume this was put in place in 2010 or when dicing clans were massive in osrs due to heavy influence they had on staff team back then or the fact this is how their system worked back then which massively popularized under that system

Why make an exception for gambling clans?
Don't they need to check who they hire?

 

[WFAF]

Why make an exception for gambling clans?
Don't they need to check who they hire?

I assume this was put in place in 2010 or when dicing clans were massive in osrs due to heavy influence they had on staff team.

 

[Okamikun]

So like the mob XD now we need service discord influence

 

[Bubly]

The issue really is, as outlined in the OP, that a bad actor could fake a scam with a partner or an alt account and the server owner would be liable for it.

From the customer perspective, a liability limit isn't consumer oriented at all.

I think that if you're running a platform for people to trade on, a liability limit makes sense, but when they are your "employees", it's not totally unreasonable to say that you are responsible for their actions, and that is the inherent risk of running a business, and why you need to properly vet the people you are hiring.

 

I think that if you're running a platform for people to trade on, a liability limit makes sense

That would probably be an open trading platform, which is something that can't be advertised on Sythe anyway. We also won't really interfere with those either.