How valid is someone's TOS?

[fpla]

so today I went into an upgrade service and had a good laugh, basically it said that they aren't responsible for negative credit... and also the partner in a bussiness issue, which I'm sure well.. yea.

But obviously if someone's getting negative credit from your upgrade whether or not it's in your TOS claiming you're not responsible, it's obviously a scam if you don't re-fund and get them out of negative credit as well.

Anyways, I'd like to know how Valid are some of the points in a TOS - the partnership and the Upgrades thing I saw was only examples, but where's the line drawn that, if someone has a TOS it still doesn't matter and their held accountable/responsible.

 

[Old English]

If you agree to their TOS, then you agree to it, regardless of what happens you're also responsible for agreeing to it in the first place, and you're liable for your own actions. Don't do business with people that make claims that affect you in their TOS.

 

[SuF]

The T.O.S. of users does not invalidate any Sythe rules nor does it make moderators treat them any differently. They really mean nothing, to be honest.

 

[video]

The T.O.S. of users does not invalidate any Sythe rules nor does it make moderators treat them any differently. They really mean nothing, to be honest.

If someone's ToS states that they are not liable if my account is banned while they are botting on it, can I in fact hold them accountable then?

I believe there are some circumstances where a user's ToS is actually valid.

Also, if I sell an account and in my ToS I say "I am not the original owner of this account, hence I am not to be held liable if it gets recovered", is that not valid? For the record, I don't actually do that, it's just a hypothetical question

 

If someone says it'll take 2 weeks to bot a certain amount, but ends up taking 1month+ and after that month the account gets reset, is he liable? Even if it says "not responsible for rollbacks" in ToS?

 

[djweasel]

Well IMO. I tell people that I have no responsiblility if someone recovers an account in a trade if I was MMing.

 

[WiseFcape]

The T.O.S. of users does not invalidate any Sythe rules nor does it make moderators treat them any differently. They really mean nothing, to be honest.

I agree that not all ToS can be valid but saying that they mean nothing is down right unfair in my opinion.

 

[Sin666]

Well IMO. I tell people that I have no responsiblility if someone recovers an account in a trade if I was MMing.

Which doesn't need to be in your TOS, it applies anyway - but it's nice to inform users.

Likewise, it's never the trainer's fault if the account they're on gets banned, as long as the owner knew in advance that they were going to be training via a bot.

So, TOS are a courtesy, but again, don't mean much.

 

[Omeh]

Terms of Service are valid, so you don't rage about things. You have agreed to the Trader's terms, and then he agrees to stand by his duty.
It's the same as anything, really. Say at a themepark, you're putting your things down and there is a sign "We are not to be held accountable for the theft of any items placed here."
It's basically the same principle.

 

[fpla]

Also, if I sell an account and in my ToS I say "I am not the original owner of this account, hence I am not to be held liable if it gets recovered", is that not valid? For the record, I don't actually do that, it's just a hypothetical question

Tbh - that's BS because if someone sells an account they don't have control over, it's their responsibility to refund the buyer, and deal with the OO

Otherwise people could sell hundreds of account's they >Claim< they aren't the OO of and nothing would happen.

IMO if an account you sold is recovered, it's your responsibility to refund, otherwise it should be considered scamming, idk how the mod's interpret this, and tbh I think the Sythe rule's need an entirely new re-make, and to be much more clear

 

[SuF]

If someone's ToS states that they are not liable if my account is banned while they are botting on it, can I in fact hold them accountable then?

I believe there are some circumstances where a user's ToS is actually valid.

Also, if I sell an account and in my ToS I say "I am not the original owner of this account, hence I am not to be held liable if it gets recovered", is that not valid? For the record, I don't actually do that, it's just a hypothetical question

That's more of just information than a T.O.S. but then yes, that means something, not because he says he isn't liable but because we on the staff know that if he is not the original owner he might not be the one recovering it. That being said, if we believe he really did recover it, we are not going to not ban him because he said he wasn't liable. He is still going to get banned.

If someone says it'll take 2 weeks to bot a certain amount, but ends up taking 1month+ and after that month the account gets reset, is he liable? Even if it says "not responsible for rollbacks" in ToS?

I don't really get what he would be liable for, but as long as you know you are having your account botted, any botting related actions from Jagex against your account are not the botters fault. There is an inherent danger there and mentioning it is nice as it lets the customers know what is going on but again does not really change the staff's judgement of the situation.

I agree that not all ToS can be valid but saying that they mean nothing is down right unfair in my opinion.

I'm just being frank about it. They will almost never effect the staff's judgement.

 

[Punkerpunk13]

Which doesn't need to be in your TOS, it applies anyway - but it's nice to inform users.

Likewise, it's never the trainer's fault if the account they're on gets banned, as long as the owner knew in advance that they were going to be training via a bot.

So, TOS are a courtesy, but again, don't mean much.

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

 

I don't really get what he would be liable for, but as long as you know you are having your account botted, any botting related actions from Jagex against your account are not the botters fault. There is an inherent danger there and mentioning it is nice as it lets the customers know what is going on but again does not really change the staff's judgement of the situation.

Simply that the trainer claimed it would take two weeks rather than two months. The longer the trainer is botting affects the chances of having a report filed and having the account punished

 

[SuF]

Simply that the trainer claimed it would take two weeks rather than two months. The longer the trainer is botting affects the chances of having a report filed and having the account punished

Well, in that particular case I would think that if it was agreed that it would take two weeks then it should take two weeks. However, if for some reason Jagex makes it take longer because he is botting and that is a known effect of botting, then he shouldn't be liable for anything. However, if the botting is not done because he is just a lazy ass then he might be depending on the situation. Regardless, T.O.S. will never trump rules or staff judgement. It's nice to have but they do not matter very much.

 

[fpla]

@ the Mods who posted saying Mods > TOS

Maybe it's time to do some rule editing? - We already know what happened with the partnership ordeal, but eventually someone's going to try and claim their TOS state's something of significance, when in reality their trying to scam and use a TOS as a loophole

 

[WiseFcape]

Well, in that particular case I would think that if it was agreed that it would take two weeks then it should take two weeks. However, if for some reason Jagex makes it take longer because he is botting and that is a known effect of botting, then he shouldn't be liable for anything. However, if the botting is not done because he is just a lazy ass then he might be depending on the situation. Regardless, T.O.S. will never trump rules or staff judgement. It's nice to have but they do not matter very much.

I can agree that it will never change a staff's judgement but in all honesty some ToS do apply and some don't. It's just like anything else.. if you know you have been screwed over then you know that there is no ToS that can protect that person from being held liable so report it and go from there.

We could keep this thread going for days asking about some questionable ToS that have been used and yet it wouldn't matter because it's still something that should only be brought to light if it is necessary.

ToS are there as a blanket of protection, no one is completely safe from anything but agreeing to use the person that has said ToS means you somewhat agree within reason to those terms.

 

[SuF]

@ the Mods who posted saying Mods > TOS

Maybe it's time to do some rule editing? - We already know what happened with the partnership ordeal, but eventually someone's going to try and claim their TOS state's something of significance, when in reality their trying to scam and use a TOS as a loophole

The staff will never let someone use a T.O.S. to get away with scamming.

 

[FireZ]

so today I went into an upgrade service and had a good laugh, basically it said that they aren't responsible for negative credit... and also the partner in a bussiness issue, which I'm sure well.. yea.

But obviously if someone's getting negative credit from your upgrade whether or not it's in your TOS claiming you're not responsible, it's obviously a scam if you don't re-fund and get them out of negative credit as well.

Feel free to send any of these threads to me and I will redo their TOS for them personally. Not responsible for negative credit - I doubt that. We won't let a TOS be the path to scamming.

 

[cosrob97]

Tos lol. They do absolutely nothing.

 

[Alteranz]

Aren't terms of service meant to be the conditions that someone has for completing said service? Responsibility of anything shouldn't be intertwined with these....