[Denied] Hold providers 100% accountable for employee mistakes,bans, and scams.

anything past the second strike makes no sense since pardon is a clean slate. since you need to pardon to remove a DNT

 

What if a a good and respected employee genuinly makes a mistake and missclicks something? Should employers, by this rule, not be able to exonerate liability and thus be held liable in all cases? Seems a bit unreasonable and unnecessary.

I like the way the system works right now.

 

I personally do not think there is currently an issue. Could you perhaps name an example where you find it unfair that the service provider hid behind his employees actions?

Can you name an example of this as well? Service providers are responsible for the actions of their workers. If a worker scams a user, the service provider will have to refund the user however much was scammed, regardless of how much the deposit was.
There is an exception of course when Terms of Service come in play. But that is a whole other discussion.

Now regarding your strike system.
Do I understand correctly that you'd find it fair for a service provider to receive a TWC when a worker makes a mistake? Even when they offer to issue a refund?
I.e. a worker gets an accidental defense level on a pure account. The service provider says they will refund whatever the mods come up with, yet will still receive a TWC?
If so I strongly disagree. Mistakes happen and a higher worker deposit could not have changed that situation.

From the second strike and further things get a bit messy. A DNT is a punishment that replaced the permanent ban, see Understanding the DNT (Do Not Trade) rank. A DNT can also only be removed when successfully pardoned, so a 6 month DNT at strike 3 would not work either.

Then there's yet another argument to be made regarding the scale of a service provider. The more orders a service provider does, the higher the chance something will go wrong with an order. So a bigger service provider will be more likely to receive a strike than a relatively small service provider.

And yet another argument to be made is that this is an open market where everyone chooses who they want to do business with. Of course proper terms of service should be agreed upon prior to a service, but assuming people do that: you get what you pay for. If I go looking for the cheapest price, I should know that it's more likely other aspects like quality and speed may not be as good as with other service providers.


I hope you can provide some links with examples I asked for in the beginning of this post. I thank you kindly for the suggestion but as it stands I can not support this.

 

In addition to what I already said (regulation through ToS) there is also a market aspect that regulates this matter properly:

There is a reason people vouch for services and providers are incentivized to build a reputation. There is a risk involved, but it is the customer to assess what trade-off to make. A more reputable provider may be less risk-prone, but more expensive.

In other words, if you keep hiring trashy workers, you will sooner or later get outcompeted and won't have much of a service to run.

Strict (or more specifically) vicarious liability is a a valid legal figure in some countries. Problem is that it can also be exonerated contractually (in a lot of legal frameworks) and generally is not applicable in freelancer relationships (usually requires a permanent employment).

I don't see this figure playing out on Sythe.org. it's already a big scarecrow in the real world.

 

Employers are allowed to report their employees if they are breaking rules or behaving maliciously.

Employers do hold liability for their employees while they are on shift, and often come to an agreement with the customer(s) surrounding damages before the report on their employee is made, which is something staff do check in on when these sorts of reports are made.