How valid is someone's TOS?

[Cronos]

From what moderators have just recently shed light on, i am confident that a great deal of people aren't aware of the triviality behind a TOS. A sticky is in order, IMO.

 

[SuF]

From what moderators have just recently shed light on, i am confident that a great deal of people aren't aware of the triviality behind a TOS. A sticky is in order, IMO.

That isn't unreasonable.

 

[Sin666]

Does the same go for a seller who's selling an account and they state the account's been botted?

As long as the seller is up-front about how much the account has been botted, how long ago, etc, then by default, they are not responsible if the account is banned after the sale.

However, alternative arrangements can also be made. Ie, a seller might agree in advance to refund 50% of the purchase price if the account is banned for a botting offense within the first week. This agreement would be valid, since the seller is accepting more responsibility than is required of him (presumably in exchange for a better price).

 

Staff: If there is disagreement about what valid ToS are, then we should discuss this in the staff lounge.

My take on it is this:
A ToS is just a contract template. If the seller of a good or service can show evidence that the buyer has expressly consented to his conditions, as a contract between them, then that contract is binding -- unless of course it is not a valid contract.

Invalid contracts are ones which:
a) break sythe.org rules;
b) break the law;
c) lack consideration (an exchange of value);
d) are physically or logically unfulfillable; or
e) are made without freely given and express consent of both parties.

In adjudicating a dispute, we will IGNORE any aspect of a contract or ToS that is in contradiction with sythe.org rules. It is the sellers responsibility to ensure their ToS are consistent with the law and the site's rules.

 

[WiseFcape]

Staff: If there is disagreement about what valid ToS are, then we should discuss this in the staff lounge.

My take on it is this:
A ToS is just a contract template. If the seller of a good or service can show evidence that the buyer has expressly consented to his conditions, as a contract between them, then that contract is binding -- unless of course it is not a valid contract.

Invalid contracts are ones which:
a) break sythe.org rules;
b) break the law;
c) lack consideration (an exchange of value);
d) are physically or logically unfulfillable; or
e) are made without freely given and express consent of both parties.

In adjudicating a dispute, we will IGNORE any aspect of a contract or ToS that is in contradiction with sythe.org rules. It is the sellers responsibility to ensure their ToS are consistent with the law and the site's rules.

Well said.

I can agree with this more than " ToS are nothing " (no offence to anyone).

 

[Sypherz]

I too agree with Sythe. You can't take away their "rights" given by Sythe, but everyone has entitlement to have specific terms in a business that are reasonable. It's kind of life a real life contract. You couldn't throw iin that the signer is now your slave or something like that.

 

[Noam]

While TOS cannot conflict with Sythe rules, they are valid if they are followed with reasonable precautions (EG not botting 24/7 or whatever)

I think that an official policy should be worked out and added to the rules.

 

[rstrader1471]

I sold a guide which didn't work as well as it use to, i forgot to mention no refunds in TOS so i refunded, simple, i did offer half before as i thought it was in my TOS, hwoever, on my verified guide i have said no refunds, unless i ask the previous OGV team as to whether their reason is legit or not.

 

[kjam3]

I think if you see any T.O.S that seems unreasonable to you just don't agree to it and hence don't deal with them. It's there for people to read and you have a choice whether or not to agree. I mean I can put up 'I'm not responsible for you losing all your gold while I'm training your account' but no one'll trade with me if I put that as a T.O.S.

 

[iBuyStoof]

My question to the moderators answering questions on this thread would be what if someone put something like this in their TOS:

"If you login during the service, I will then stop your service and seize to complete what was agreed upon."

So, if someone logs into their account while I'm training it, can I actually stop? I mean they agreed to not log in, but does that make stopping what you agreed upon not scamming?

I have ALWAYS had this question.

 

[Alteranz]

My question to the moderators answering questions on this thread would be what if someone put something like this in their TOS:

"If you login during the service, I will then stop your service and seize to complete what was agreed upon."

So, if someone logs into their account while I'm training it, can I actually stop? I mean they agreed to not log in, but does that make stopping what you agreed upon not scamming?

I have ALWAYS had this question.

I've never really liked it when people use this term in their thread, and I feel it should only be valid under certain circumstances.

I myself like to frequently check up on my account every day while someone else has access to it - that way I know my stats are safe, my wealth is safe, and the whole account security is safe. If the activity being worked on is in a safe zone, I see no reason for not being allowed to do this.

If on the other hand, the person is on your account because:

A - they are transferring gold
B - They could be in the middle of an UNSAFE activity (like the wilderness/fight caves)
C - they are using a private method (like a glitch or a unknown money making guide)

then having that above mentioned statement in your ToS is completely valid, and the member should be allowed to cease all work.

 

[iBuyStoof]

I've never really liked it when people use this term in their thread, and I feel it should only be valid under certain circumstances.

I myself like to frequently check up on my account every day while someone else has access to it - that way I know my stats are safe, my wealth is safe, and the whole account security is safe. If the activity being worked on is in a safe zone, I see no reason for not being allowed to do this.

If on the other hand, the person is on your account because:

then having that above mentioned statement in your ToS is completely valid, and the member should be allowed to cease all work.

Makes sense.

 

[Pure nitros]

I've never really liked it when people use this term in their thread, and I feel it should only be valid under certain circumstances.

I myself like to frequently check up on my account every day while someone else has access to it - that way I know my stats are safe, my wealth is safe, and the whole account security is safe. If the activity being worked on is in a safe zone, I see no reason for not being allowed to do this.

If on the other hand, the person is on your account because:

then having that above mentioned statement in your ToS is completely valid, and the member should be allowed to cease all work.

i think why trainers do not allow people to log in is because the buyer could just "run away" with the stats trainned without paying. But i mean if the service is payed up-front there should be no reason to not allow the owner to log in his account to check up

 

i think why trainers do not allow people to log in is because the buyer could just "run away" with the stats trainned without paying. But i mean if the service is payed up-front there should be no reason to not allow the owner to log in his account to check up

I don't like customers logging in, snatching away some wealth, and then blaming me for stealing their bank.