[Denied] Rsps section drop trading rule.

Describe the problem:
The RSPS drop trading rule.

What current rule(s) address this problem:
In the RSPS section, the main trading method is either through an account with gold or via drop trading gold. In most cases, staff are forced to rely on the following rule:

Drop Trading: Staff will not get involved in any dispute that involves drop trading. There are multiple ways it could go wrong, and there's no reason to be drop trading to begin with. If users want to engage in riskier trades, they are free to do so, since Sythe is a free market. However, Sythe Staff members will not see this as a valid report if something were to go wrong.

The main issue is that most of the gold being transferred is outsourced, and traders aren't conducting the necessary checks due to the high ban rates on these servers compared to OSRS. It's clear that we need to overhaul the rules in this section, but finding a solution is challenging.

The main problem is that it's difficult for us to prove anything, and this section has always had traders with lower standards compared to others.

Explain the change:
This is a unique case where I don’t have a good solution and am more so looking for ideas from the community. A few potential ideas include:

• Assign responsibility to the person who suggests the trading method first.
• Assign responsibility to the party outsourcing the gold, as they are typically the main vendors in this section and are often not conducting full checks (we could allow the party to bypass this by recording the transaction, but the issue here is cheat engines).
• Keep our current stance of not getting involved at all.

I’m looking for ideas from the community and for the staff team to discuss. If you like any of the ideas above, please mention why.

Explain why this change will fix the problem:
N/A

Side-effects:
Hopefully a better solution than our current one.

Note:
If we do make a change to this section, it shouldn't extend to the OSRS section, as they aren't forced to use these subpar methods.

 

[Utopia]

The main issue is that most of the gold being transferred is outsourced

What do you mean the gold being traded on a private server is being outsourced? You mean dropshipping?

and traders aren't conducting the necessary checks due to the high ban rates on these servers compared to OSRS

What checks would be necessary to avoid a ban? And are sellers being punished for buyers being banned?

The main problem is that it's difficult for us to prove anything, and this section has always had traders with lower standards compared to others.

Sounds like buyers should be required to record their transactions to be protected in the case of a report.

 

Sounds like buyers should be required to record their transactions to be protected in the case of a report.

What’s stopping a buyer from removing the gold in some way & then re-logging while then starting the recording and claiming it’s not there?

 

[Utopia]

What’s stopping a buyer from removing the gold in some way & then re-logging while then starting the recording and claiming it’s not there?

Just say the recording must start prior to confirmation on both ends being submitted during trade window and must not end til the transaction is completed. You can also make it so gyazo video links are only accepted, or an alternative form of media that cannot be altered in it’s original state.

To combat manipulation of said media, only allow 1 link to be permissible in the report. If you thoroughly explain the Do’s & Do Not’s in the sticky then it should be easy to handle in reports. I’m not sure if it is possible, but it should be made so the new sticky must be viewed before entering said forum/posting.

 

Just say the recording must start prior to confirmation on both ends being submitted during trade window and must not end til the transaction is completed. You can also make it so gyazo video links are only accepted, or an alternative form of media that cannot be altered in it’s original state.

To combat manipulation of said media, only allow 1 link to be permissible in the report. If you thoroughly explain the Do’s & Do Not’s in the sticky then it should be easy to handle in reports. I’m not sure if it is possible, but it should be made so the new sticky must be viewed before entering said forum/posting.

That’s a stretch for a multitude of reasons:

- Gyazo may have time limits
- some of these RSPS dealers/buyers can barely operate a PC (to put it as nicely as possible)
- These conversations/trades take a very long time so it wouldn’t be feasible IMO

We already have stickies in sections as well & people don’t follow it. Making more stickies just means more stickies for people not to follow.

 

[Utopia]

That’s a stretch for a multitude of reasons:

- Gyazo may have time limits
- some of these RSPS dealers/buyers can barely operate a PC (to put it as nicely as possible)
- These conversations/trades take a very long time so it wouldn’t be feasible IMO

We already have stickies in sections as well & people don’t follow it. Making more stickies just means more stickies for people not to follow.

The only logical solution to this problem is to get unaltered video evidence of the trade commencing. Still-images or chat texts are insufficient proof to verify a complete trade. I’m not saying it should be mandatory to record a trade being done, but instead it being for protections when it comes to making a report.

In response to your earlier points, I am saying to start the video recording at the time of the trade commencing, not at the beginning of a conversation between both parties being had. In the video, it must show the profile of the user in the trade, the chat text verifying both parties are in the trade window (for example; “this is you?”), and both parties accepting the trade window for a complete transaction. There are other alternatives to Gyazo. This again is just a suggestion of the type of software that cannot be altered.

It is also important to come to the realization that not every trade is done so in a way that follows procedures in stickies to a tee. The purpose of the stickies is to not put blame on the outlet (Sythe), that allows these trades to happen. It is best to view it as a guide/warning for optimal trade practices.

 

I had typed out a very long response with an inordinate amount of rambling but decided to pull back and list some takeaways.

- Some RSPS traders do not play on the servers that they advertise on. This is especially true for someone trying to sell on multiple servers at once. That means they don't know much about the intricacies of the server, or about the staff team, or money makers. Their knowledge about the server is very limited.

- There is a base level of deception that happens when buyers might inquire about bans and what they can do to get ahead of it (e.g disputes that have buyers saying "I asked to not be given a venny account but was given one anyway!"). Some RSPS traders write off bans as entirely luck based rather than looking at empirical insights such as logs/monitoring/alerting that RSPS staff use.

- RSPS Traders very rarely actually PERSONALLY verify if someone has the RSPS GP they intend to sell, so they end up blindly middlemanning trades. The reasons for this vary, sometimes they're banned on the server, sometimes they're afraid to log on and flag an account with their IP, etc.


---
There's multiple points in the trade where things can go wrong:

- The "supplier" can lie to the RSPS Trader and say they have a certain amount of GP even though they don't.
- The buyer can lie to the RSPS trader and say they never received the gold.


From the supplier side, I'd say you need an RSPS trader to be able to produce evidence that GP existed pre-sale on any kind of dispute (an image can be tampered with too easily). Screen sharing live while the sale is conducted would be a good example of decent proof. If a dispute arises and the RSPS trader cannot prove without a reasonable doubt that the exact GP existed pre-sale, then a TWC on 1st offense, DNT 2nd offense etc is warranted, imo.

The buyer side is going to be a lot more difficult to verify, but from personal experience I know it's not very easy to move GP around on RSPS without setting off alarms, so the buyer would be doing themselves more harm than good trying to do additional xfers after receiving the GP from the sale itself which can further alert RSPS staff and increase the buyers odds of being banned. I'm pointing this out because staff saying "we cant possibly know what happened in the seconds/minutes after you said the gold was xferred/handed off", and that thinking is not exactly 1:1 to OSRS because nonchalantly trying to move that GP an additional time will greatly put the buyer at risk. Repeat customers in RSPS understand this relatively well.

 

[TradeMyGIM]

The seller should be responsible for delivery concerns by default. In theory they should be required to have a "system" in place that protects them and the buyer.

Outsourcing exists in every market, if there is a concern a seller doesn't have stock they should be forced to show current stock to sythe staff if requested, as required in other sections if they have something for sale they may have to prove it.

 

Agreed, put liability on the seller, from there lineair responsability to supplier in case of disputes, I'd highly recommend screenshare as a requirement from the moment login data is provided & showing the entire login process from the buyer. Then there's little to nothing that could go wrong

 

[Bert]

I believe we can establish clear guidelines for these types of trades to help prevent scams. One effective method would be to require a screenshare where the gold supplier logs into the account that will provide the gold. The supplier should remain on screenshare while sharing their account information with the middleman.

Then, the buyer initiates their own screenshare to enter their account details, but stops before clicking "login". At this point, the middleman can ask the supplier to log off. This way, the buyer is ready to log in immediately as soon as the supplier is off the account, ensuring there's no time for the someone to transfer the gold elsewhere.

Additionally, implementing a PIN on the account can further protect against unauthorized access and an additional potential of the gold ending up in the wrong hands. This eliminated any risks, as the pin will be provided after the buyer logs in the account which eliminates any risk of another party gaining access to the account with the gold since they are not able to do anything without the pin.

I know I’m not an expert in RSPS trades, but I believe these measures can be straightforward to implement and could significantly improve the trading environment for everyone involved in the RSPS section.

Please feel free to share your opinons and how we can implement some rules which can insure the trades going smoothly for all parties involved, may it be using some of what I listed and mixing it up with other methods such as an obligation of recording of the whole trade going on with screenshares etc or may it be something completley different! Please do not hesitate to share your opinions even if you think what you are saying sounds stupid... I am looking forward to reading your responses!

 

[Suedi]

Disband RSPS section! - jokes aside

I agree with the following;

• Assign responsibility to the person who suggests the trading method first.

 

[Bordercollie127]

Disband RSPS section! - jokes aside

I agree with the following;

• Assign responsibility to the person who suggests the trading method first.

This, but all the big ass donors should know enough to avoid the drop method..... if they're the ones who suggest doing it they should be slapped with a TWC just for suggesting it cause they know they can get away with a easy scam because of it.

 

as others have stated, the seller should be held more responsible as they need to prove delivery of said gold to the actual customer, drop trading it does not prove that the customer received the gold. but good suggestion

 

My suggestion is to implement the following into the [Section Rules] Private Server Marketplace sticky.


Risky trading methods:

Account Transfers:​

• If you are outsourcing your trade, all parties involved must be notified before the trade.
• As a re-seller (middleman), if you do not properly inform your supplier and/or buyer that you will not be verifying if the gold is on the account, you will be required to provide proof of the gold being on the account at the time you delivered the account, in the event of a dispute by the buyer.
• As a re-seller, you may state in your Terms of Service that you will not be verifying the gold is on the account, and the supplier will assume liability/burden of proof for any missing gold on the account in the event of a dispute from the buyer.
• Screenshots of a bank/inventory will not be considered sufficient proof of delivery in the event of a dispute.

Drop Trading:

• Staff will not get involved in any dispute that involves drop trading. There are multiple ways where it could go wrong and there's 0 reason to be drop trading to begin with. If users want to engage in riskier trades, they are free to do so since Sythe is a free market. However, Sythe Staff members will not see this as a valid report if something were to go wrong.

 

Dont get involved

 

RSPS trading with handling over an account, is a method where everything can go wrong and there is no way to proof who is liable.
Buyer can take/drop the gold then saying, there wasn‘t any gold on the account.
Seller could possibly log into the account and take the gold themself.
Outsourced person can put gold on the account, send proof of gold to the seller and then remove the gold.

i personally see only 1 possibility here, where staff can get involved in a dispute.
Both people need to screenshare through call that the details are being handled over and the buyer logging in. The seller should record this transaction for further proof.

If we take the tos of Zulu:

Spoiler

Account Transfers:

• If you are outsourcing your trade, all parties involved must be notified before the trade.
• As a re-seller (middleman), if you do not properly inform your supplier and/or buyer that you will not be verifying if the gold is on the account, you will be required to provide proof of the gold being on the account at the time you delivered the account, in the event of a dispute by the buyer.
• As a re-seller, you may state in your Terms of Service that you will not be verifying the gold is on the account, and the supplier will assume liability/burden of proof for any missing gold on the account in the event of a dispute from the buyer.
• Screenshots of a bank/inventory will not be considered sufficient proof of delivery in the event of a dispute.

This tos can possibly be abused by the sellers to remove any liabality. Making it easier for the scammers and ban evaders in this section to scam others.

 

bump

 

[Poat]

I think due to the nature of RSPS’ as a whole anything we do to try and loosen the rope around the rules will be used to exploit others, creating an overall less safe trading environment in that section.

The reason these RSPS’ aren’t allowed to advertise here are due to their strict no RWT rules. They are alot smaller than RS itself and have easier ways to track wealth transfer. Instead of allowing a easy to exploit way of transferring wealth to be allowed, id suggest finding an alternative way of transferring wealth which is safer for both parties.
For those reasons no support.

 

We're not going to be changing our stance around drop trading at this time.

Drop trading is an unsafe form of trading that we highly discourage users from participating in, and Sythe will not get involved in drop trading related disputes.