[DENIED] Employee ruling.

[Ricky114EL1T3]

Not really, you're only offering services to another user of sythe, who is using you to provide services for his business. He should take the risk.

Anywho, if someone willingly employs someone that is a known scammer, then they're an idiot, and they should be responsible for their actions, which I believe is the case with the current rules.

My only problem with this is what if the "banned user" was banned for getting accounts banned for botting. You decide to give him a chance because he said "Man it was one of my workers, he fucked me over, he botted accs not me, i still wana work and make money, ill even pay a 50m deposit i wont scam anyone bro!"

Nice, now lets say i come along and request you get 50-72 runecrafting on my 1900 total main with quest cape + 7 pets + my rs3 acc that has a comp cape. I don't mind trusting you because you have 300+ vouches, you're a 500$ donor and you're super respected thruout the community. You aren't required to tell me a user who was banned for botting is doing the service, so you dont. You just say "a worker of mine will do it, im responsible" whatever the fuck. So i say alright sure, go ahead and begin. In this scenario, your "banned sythe user" worker bots my acc, jagex catches it and my main acc with all those accomplishments is gone. Sure, you have a 50m deposit so you can pay me back for the 13m bank lost, but why the fuck do i have to risk my main acc to an absolute spastic when if i had the choice to begin with i wouldn't of taken the risk?

How can the service provider be held responsible here? Is he to make me a new account identical to the one he costed me? No. the staff in charge of case would TWC him for 30 days, make him refund my bank value at the time, and life goes on for him while im left fucked.

THE CUSTOMER SHOULD BE THE ONE DECIDING IF HE WANTS TO TAKE THE RISK, NOT THE SERVICE PROVIDER WHO HIRES SHADY RETARDS.

 

[Bolt]

My only problem with this is what if the "banned user" was banned for getting accounts banned for botting. You decide to give him a chance because he said "Man it was one of my workers, he fucked me over, he botted accs not me, i still wana work and make money, ill even pay a 50m deposit i wont scam anyone bro!"

Nice, now lets say i come along and request you get 50-72 runecrafting on my 1900 total main with quest cape + 7 pets + my rs3 acc that has a comp cape. I don't mind trusting you because you have 300+ vouches, you're a 500$ donor and you're super respected thruout the community. You aren't required to tell me a user who was banned for botting is doing the service, so you dont. You just say "a worker of mine will do it, im responsible" whatever the fuck. So i say alright sure, go ahead and begin. In this scenario, your "banned sythe user" worker bots my acc, jagex catches it and my main acc with all those accomplishments is gone. Sure, you have a 50m deposit so you can pay me back for the 13m bank lost, but why the fuck do i have to risk my main acc to an absolute spastic when if i had the choice to begin with i wouldn't of taken the risk?

How can the service provider be held responsible here? Is he to make me a new account identical to the one he costed me? No. the staff in charge of case would TWC him for 30 days, make him refund my bank value at the time, and life goes on for him while im left fucked.

THE CUSTOMER SHOULD BE THE ONE DECIDING IF HE WANTS TO TAKE THE RISK, NOT THE SERVICE PROVIDER WHO HIRES SHADY RETARDS.

I don't agree with this. When you order any items, or goods, or services, you expect to receive exactly what you paid for.

Anything that goes wrong should be liability on the person who hired the shady retards for his servicing company.

What's stopping me from becoming a "trusted" $1,000 donor, opening up a "Hand mand services ONLY" company and then hiring spastics who will bot on the counts? With the consequences so little, anyone can do this.

Any service owner should be fully responsible for his or her own staff.

Or, they should be required to list the profiles of exactly who will be working on your account on their page. Information is key before we make a decision. If we don't know who is servicing our accounts, how can we make an informed decision?

 

[MrAndMrs]

Any service owner should be fully responsible for his or her own staff.

Or, they should be required to list the profiles of exactly who will be working on your account on their page. Information is key before we make a decision. If we don't know who is servicing our accounts, how can we make an informed decision?

Editing this into the top post.

 

[MrAndMrs]

I'd really value some feedback from @Wortel @Sythe @video @Champ @King

 

[MrAndMrs]

Another good example is calling a taxi.

We all have our favourite taxi firm, actually in my case I ask for a specific driver every time on uber because he's the bomb and goes the extra mile.

We have the right to freely look and possibly choose who does our services. I would choose @Ricky114EL1T3 for example, the issue comes when ricky then commissions that work out to a banned Sythe user who screws me over. Shouldn't be allowed.

 

It's hard to prevent something that wouldn't really be an issue until it's already too late.

I agree there's a difference between knowingly hiring a ban evader, and unknowingly hiring a ban evader.
But either way, there's a whole array of grey areas with bans and reasonings.

I'd certainly advise owner's of businesses and services to not hire known ban evaders, but to enforce that you can't do something because someone else didn't trust them is possibly too far.
Not every sythe user is banned for scamming or stealing. And not every banned user is banned for something that was fully their own fault.

 

[MrAndMrs]

It's hard to prevent something that wouldn't really be an issue until it's already too late.

I agree there's a difference between knowingly hiring a ban evader, and unknowingly hiring a ban evader.
But either way, there's a whole array of grey areas with bans and reasonings.

I'd certainly advise owner's of businesses and services to not hire known ban evaders, but to enforce that you can't do something because someone else didn't trust them is possibly too far.
Not every sythe user is banned for scamming or stealing. And not every banned user is banned for something that was fully their own fault.

By having the ruling, you as a service provider and employer will know YOU personally will be punished if you are found to have employed a known scammer. If your employee scams and that person was a known Sythe scammer then you will be punished.

It should be mandatory for you to list your staff members and for them to have their own Sythe accounts. If you're capable of working via Sythe then you're capable of having an account with us. Their should be no grey areas in this,

 

[RuneChips]

By having the ruling, you as a service provider and employer will know YOU personally will be punished if you are found to have employed a known scammer. If your employee scams and that person was a known Sythe scammer then you will be punished.

It should be mandatory for you to list your staff members and for them to have their own Sythe accounts. If you're capable of working via Sythe then you're capable of having an account with us. Their should be no grey areas in this,

I do NOT agree with this statement at all, why should workers HAVE to have sythe accounts? They work through X person. You guys are all over complicating something that has NO reason to be complicated.

 

[MrAndMrs]

I do NOT agree with this statement at all, why should workers HAVE to have sythe accounts? They work through X person. You guys are all over complicating something that has NO reason to be complicated.

Please provide me with 1 good reason that every worker who is commissioned work from Sythe, shouldn't have a Sythe account? Other than the fact they're banned.

 

[RuneChips]

Please provide me with 1 good reason that every worker who is commissioned work from Sythe, shouldn't have a Sythe account? Other than the fact they're banned.

Because there is no reason to? Why would they need to go through extra work when all they want is paying jobs? It's illogical, you guys are really making a big deal of nothing.

IF a sythe user is stupid enough to knowingly hire a scammer, then the guy they hired scams, the USER WHO HIRED HIM IS LIABLE FOR HIS LOSSES!

If a sythe user wants to employ someone, they should be able to, as I've read multiple times that this is a 'free market', and people are constantly trying to put restrictions on it. Now tell me a good reason WHY workers who are not scammers, have no interest in sythe and all the work that comes with it should be forced to register an account here.

 

[MrAndMrs]

Because there is no reason to? Why would they need to go through extra work when all they want is paying jobs? It's illogical, you guys are really making a big deal of nothing.

IF a sythe user is stupid enough to knowingly hire a scammer, then the guy they hired scams, the USER WHO HIRED HIM IS LIABLE FOR HIS LOSSES!

If a sythe user wants to employ someone, they should be able to, as I've read multiple times that this is a 'free market', and people are constantly trying to put restrictions on it. Now tell me a good reason WHY workers who are not scammers, have no interest in sythe and all the work that comes with it should be forced to register an account here.

A free market, with a duty to protect where possible.

We're not asking workers to have extra work, just a basic sythe account. This can be used to run relavent ban evader checks, the customer has a right to know who is working on their account. This should be mandatory practice.

If a worker refuses to do so then they clearly have something to hide. The workers rules would apply, and i know for a fact @Bogla @Arcus Isidar workers have active sythes whilst working.

A big deal out of nothing? I think you're making a big deal out of a simple task that would make consumers more likely to use Sythe.

 

[RuneChips]

A free market, with a duty to protect where possible.

We're not asking workers to have extra work, just a basic sythe account. This can be used to run relavent ban evader checks, the customer has a right to know who is working on their account. This should be mandatory practice.

If a worker refuses to do so then they clearly have something to hide. The workers rules would apply, and i know for a fact @Bogla @Arcus Isidar workers have active sythes whilst working.

A big deal out of nothing? I think you're making a big deal out of a simple task that would make consumers more likely to use Sythe.

Not really, some people don't want to have their workers having sythe, and there should be no reason to.

 

[Ricky114EL1T3]

Because there is no reason to? Why would they need to go through extra work when all they want is paying jobs? It's illogical, you guys are really making a big deal of nothing.

IF a sythe user is stupid enough to knowingly hire a scammer, then the guy they hired scams, the USER WHO HIRED HIM IS LIABLE FOR HIS LOSSES!

If a sythe user wants to employ someone, they should be able to, as I've read multiple times that this is a 'free market', and people are constantly trying to put restrictions on it. Now tell me a good reason WHY workers who are not scammers, have no interest in sythe and all the work that comes with it should be forced to register an account here.

What you and other users replying to this aren't understanding is this: SCAMMING IS NOT THE ONLY REASON PEOPLE GET BANNED ON SYTHE. THE ARGUMENT ISN'T "DON'T HIRE SCAMMERS" THE ARGUMENT IS "DON'T HIRE BANNED USERS"

Sure, as a service provider you can require your workers to place a 50m deposit to cover items they scam. BUT WHAT IF YOUR WORKER GETS MY 10+ YEAR OLD ACC BANNED FOR BOTTING BECAUSE HE'S A SCUMBAG WITH NO INTENTION OF BEING IN THE BUSINESS FOR THE LONGTERM, BUT IS JUST LOOKING FOR A QUICK CASHOUT. What will you do for me as the service provider? You're going to replace my 10+ year old account right? If you're going to argue the point, argue this point. Stop beating the same irrelevant point over the head.

 

[MrAndMrs]

Not really, some people don't want to have their workers having sythe, and there should be no reason to.

For the 20th time, the reason should be for the protection of users on sythe. We all understand it's a free market. You as a supplier are removing the "FREE" from Free Market when you make an ill-informed decision on the customers behalf. I.E commissioning work to known scammers.

 

[RuneChips]

What you and other users replying to this aren't understanding is this: SCAMMING IS NOT THE ONLY REASON PEOPLE GET BANNED ON SYTHE. THE ARGUMENT ISN'T "DON'T HIRE SCAMMERS" THE ARGUMENT IS "DON'T HIRE BANNED USERS"

Sure, as a service provider you can require your workers to place a 50m deposit to cover items they scam. BUT WHAT IF YOUR WORKER GETS MY 10+ YEAR OLD ACC BANNED FOR BOTTING BECAUSE HE'S A SCUMBAG WITH NO INTENTION OF BEING IN THE BUSINESS FOR THE LONGTERM, BUT IS JUST LOOKING FOR A QUICK CASHOUT. What will you do for me as the service provider? You're going to replace my 10+ year old account right? If you're going to argue the point, argue this point. Stop beating the same irrelevant point over the head.

With these current rules, YES! The service provider would have to refund the value of your account!

 

[Ricky114EL1T3]

With these current rules, YES! The service provider would have to refund the value of your account!

Obviously, what i'm asking you/anyone is how do you value the account? Who determines the value? This is where grey areas come into play and shit gets messy.

Also, from reports i've seen, when accounts get banned for botting/rwt ECT, the service provider is to refund bank value, not account value. If my main account COULD sell for 600m, but i only had 13m in bank, service provider would refund me for the junk in my bank and say "Sorry for your loss".

This entire thread/argument is MORE about just make people tell people that the guy working on your account has been banned on sythe, link the report thread/threads that got him banned, ect. GIVE THE FUCKING CUSTOMER THE CHOICE TO TAKE THE RISK ON THEIR ACCOUNT.

I hate your argument of "The service provider should take the risk, not the customer". Do you seriously care that little about the people behind the accounts you accept to take on as a service? Do you really only care about maximum profits and not about the integrity of your service/your reputation? Sure, hiring the scumbag banned fuck will save you 10m, but you really value that 10m more than the safety of your customers account? Disgusting.

 

[RuneChips]

Obviously, what i'm asking you/anyone is how do you value the account? Who determines the value? This is where grey areas come into play and shit gets messy.

Also, from reports i've seen, when accounts get banned for botting/rwt ECT, the service provider is to refund bank value, not account value. If my main account COULD sell for 600m, but i only had 13m in bank, service provider would refund me for the junk in my bank and say "Sorry for your loss".

This entire thread/argument is MORE about just make people tell people that the guy working on your account has been banned on sythe, link the report thread/threads that got him banned, ect. GIVE THE FUCKING CUSTOMER THE CHOICE TO TAKE THE RISK ON THEIR ACCOUNT.

I hate your argument of "The service provider should take the risk, not the customer". Do you seriously care that little about the people behind the accounts you accept to take on as a service? Do you really only care about maximum profits and not about the integrity of your service/your reputation? Sure, hiring the scumbag banned fuck will save you 10m, but you really value that 10m more than the safety of your customers account? Disgusting.

Then the problem that is present is not with the service providers, but with the process of placing valuations on accounts, wouldn't you say? If an account could sell for 600m, then it's only logical to have the service provider pay that amount.

 

[Ricky114EL1T3]

Then the problem that is present is not with the service providers, but with the process of placing valuations on accounts, wouldn't you say? If an account could sell for 600m, then it's only logical to have the service provider pay that amount.

Yeah, ignore the rest of my post and cop out.

Logic means little to nothing in the report a scammer section. You're either ignoring the point on purpose or just missing it.

THERES NO WAY TO PROVE ACCOUNT VALUE, ONLY VALUE OF ITEMS LEFT ON ACCOUNT.

If i think my account is worth 600m, but you think my acc is worth 20m, What do you think is going to happen? You think the staff in charge "Will determine account value" and you'll be forced to refund? Please do me a favor, go into the report a scammer archives and look for banned accounts and lmk how many of them were refunded FULL VALUE OF THEIR ACCOUNT.

 

[RuneChips]

Yeah, ignore the rest of my post and cop out.

Logic means little to nothing in the report a scammer section. You're either ignoring the point on purpose or just missing it.

THERES NO WAY TO PROVE ACCOUNT VALUE, ONLY VALUE OF ITEMS LEFT ON ACCOUNT.

If i think my account is worth 600m, but you think my acc is worth 20m, What do you think is going to happen? You think the staff in charge "Will determine account value" and you'll be forced to refund? Please do me a favor, go into the report a scammer archives and look for banned accounts and lmk how many of them were refunded FULL VALUE OF THEIR ACCOUNT.

The reason for this is that people often over estimate the value of their accounts

 

[video]

You can hire whoever you want but you're fully responsible for their actions when they are working for you. Requiring disclosure of certain or any employees is unnecessary and difficult to enforce.

You are welcome to ask any business if their worker is banned on sythe and if they lie to you they can be punished