Jagex is a scammer!

Scammer's profile link:
Wortel
WEEABOO GIRL
still vkid

Explanation of the trade:
I was middlemanning @WEEABOO GIRL his/her/it account to be sold in exchange for @still vkid his 130M 07GP.

How they scammed:
My 07 account got banned mid-trade.

Proof that the account got banned mid-trade:
https://gyazo.com/e3a42ce4ca47650028c456f11ce653c4

Proof that this was the account @still vkid traded with:
https://gyazo.com/2ac62035b3f545f96341c11793f968ff

Other relevant trade screenshots:


My Terms of Service:

Proof they agreed with it:

I am fine providing them with a partial refund, because I like @still vkid and @WEEABOO GIRL has to provide himself/herself/itself with food, but I do not believe that because of a deed out of good will (without even asking for any fees) I should be held liable for it completely.

Password to 2 other pictures will be provided in deleted post.

 

not sure if i have to add anything to this but i had blaze ready to mm this trade then still vkid said lets use wortel as they needed it for there omm reqs,this is obviously nobodys fault and couldnt be predicted so not sure what else to say just hope this has a good outcome for all of us
would also like to point out that the account still vkid gave the gold on wasnt banned for rwting which seems like he shouldve if it was a rwt ban for that 130m

 

I'll address this statement from the deleted post just because it's relevant to the report.

You stated - "Middleman is not free of risk and your TOS do not trump sythe rules (you should know that)"

No Sythe rules are being "trumped", so this isn't a valid argument. We never held gold traders liable for any bans that occur from their transactions (and it'd be ridiculous if we did) because their TOS protects them from that, and it doesn't break any of rules we have in place, so why should we do the same with MM? @Wortel's TOS clearly states he's not liable for any bans (which include the loss of gold) during the use of his services, and both the buyer, and seller agreed to that. If I recall correctly in the previous cases where the MM was liable occurred when they wouldn't specify that they aren't liable for the loss of gold through any RWT bans that occurred. I can't recall it 100% because it might've been before I was active, but we've also been working on making a rule reform in regards to these type of scenarios.

In regards to this:

It's unfortunate to hear, but you have to keep in mind that Wortel MM's consistently, not just for you two. No one can predict when a ban is coming, and that's why gold traders / MM's have a TOS in place, so that they can be protected in unfortunate scenarios like this.

@Wortel's account got banned mid-trade with 130M 07 GP. He received the GP from @still vkid (the buyer), and the transaction for the account went through, then he was banned. He was technically in possession of @WEEABOO GIRL's (the seller's) money, however since we don't have a specific rule that would cause the seller to be fully liable in this instance, then there's only two viable options to settle this.

1) The buyer pays the seller 65M for the account. (This way the seller would have 1/2 of the GP for the account)
2) The seller pays the buyer 65M to keep the account. (This way the buyer isn't out a full 130M)

 

I like wortel alot hes a good guy, but all what you say about the tos, wortel had the same incident a week ago. Maybe he couldve informed us about that? So if wortel did 10 trades and they all got banned all the people just lose out because of the tos, altough he was banned a week ago with the same issue..

 

i do feel as a middleman the responsible thing to do is to use a proxy if you have been banned for rwting your being moniterd especially if it wasnt even a week prior and being banned minutes if not seconds after the gold kind of proves its being monitered otherwise your just constantly putting others gold at risk again and again i understand you have to pay for a proxy but seems like a small cost compaired to potential loses,this is clearly a tricky situation and i will respect any final outcome but i dont feel this fact has been taken into consideration if it has then im sorry.

 

That's out of his control though. Even if he told you, then what? I mean it's not like this hasn't happened to any other MM's in the past, and whether he informed you, or not, then what would it change? Anyone who RWT's is aware of the risks that come with it, and he had that TOS in place (which you even agreed to on the form) just like gold traders do, so that you're aware of this prior to proceeding with the trade.

The ban was only placed on @Wortel's account (the buyer wasn't banned), so it most definitely had to do with previous trades, but even then this is irrelevant to the case for reasons mentioned above.

A proxy doesn't mean you'll avoid RWT bans, and we can't, nor will we ever force anyone to use them while trading.

Look I feel bad for you guys, but at the end of the day @Wortel is just trying to do a good deed by making sure you have a secure transaction, and he made you aware of the risks when you acknowledged / agreed to his TOS where he specifically mentioned he's not liable for any bans / rollbacks (which include the loss of GP), so to try to point any blame his way when he's risking his accounts to help you guys out is quite unfair. If the TOS was never acknowledged / agreed upon prior to the trade taking place, then this would be a different story.

 

@King I would like to clarify my statement. A TOS does not trump sythe rules (or previous head-middleman staff decisions).

In any event I was incorrect, and the actual rules regarding this matter can be found on this report by the ex-head I believe middleman (Dave).

Scam Report - Harleigh

Edit: The actual reference for the rule is here
Gyazo - cfd85ab39beda11ad3a6be3c5cb3f596.png
Guide: How to Middleman a trade!

However it does say that an MM - CAN BE - held accountable for the trade if they have done something that is considered "unprofessional" and leading to a ban.

This would probably include :

• MM'ing on a tweeted account
• MM'ing on a botted account (Macroing major ban)

I believe that @Wortel Would be held responsible if either of these are the case. If not then as @Dave said, they should be split between both parties of the trade.

 

i understand that but if i was aware before i wouldve not gone ahead with it i was willing to go first to still vkid as i could see he was trusted but he wanted to help out wortel with his omm application. a proxy may not stop rwt bans but trading on the same i.p after already being banned on it seems very very risky surely, i assumed once people got banned for rwt they would use a proxy as to not lose anymore gold. and of course i know there is a risk to being banned for rwt but that risk is greatly higher if you have previous rwt bans on the i.p which like ive said if i was aware of prior i wouldve prefered not to use as i was willing to go first and had blaze lined up to mm before wortel was mentioned.
im not trying to pin this on anyone we are all losing out from this but i feel like its something you should atleast add to the tos for the future so people are aware of the added risk that you trade on an already twice banned i,p.
like how many rwt bans will it take like still vkid said cos every trade from now on on that same i.p is at great risk of being insta banned so your basically trading knowing your more than likely going to be banned and if a proxy isnt a rule then i think maybe it should be suggested otherwise you can get banned and banned over and over and thats just allowed to keep happening? makes no sense

 

@Searchy @Shexy and @Ruben Eason Can all confirm I asked them for advice after my first RWT ban. They all believed I was at bad luck and especially since it was my first RWT ban they believed I'd be fine.

Also note, I have around 20 unused mules (@Bryan can confirm this). Some are still holding gold and still not banned. The account being banned here was not used for a week atleast, if not more.

Could I have informed the guys about it? Maybe, but there was nothing to inform them about. RWT bans are a possibility at all times and they agreed to be hold liable for it if I'd get banned. Now that's the case and I'm offering atleast a partial refund.

I also told them about the risks of account trades (I specifically told @still vkid that 99% of the accounts get recovered) and eventually he went through with it, so do you truely believe this trade wouldn't have happened if I told them I've been RWT banned on one of my 20 accounts last week? I highly doubt it.

 

i understand what youre saying but i %100 wouldnt have gone ahead if i knew you had just received a rwt ban and was using the same i.p i cant talk for still vkid but i can for myself, i was happy to go first to still vkid so wasnt even a need for a mm from my pov, but he wanted to help you out with your omm application so we used you.
im not expecting anything from you and not trying to blame this on you im suggesting you start using a proxy from this point on otherwise your just putting others gold at risk after two bans id like to think you would realise its time to use a proxy there may be no rules for proxy which i see no logic in your basicaly saying you can get banned for rwt unlimited times putting everyones items at risk but because of tos it dosnt matter that seems silly to me. but i mean for your own sake aswell as others do you not have gold you dont want to lose or accs?
i realise this isnt good for any of us im literally just pointing it out now for yours and others safety and for the people saying we knew the risk when we were rwting that may be true but we wernt exactly aware of the added risk from a ban not even a week before people may think that means nothing but i %100 wouldve asked to use another mm or asked still vkid to let me go first like i stated in the beggining, not sure why anyone would still say yeah after being told you got rwt banned and are on the same i.p unless they literally dont care about there accs/items or they arnt the smartest tool in the shed.
also not being funny if i wanted to say no to using you and asked to go first or use blaze that wouldve just looked suspect why would anyone decline using one of the most trusted mm's i literally had no choice but its w,e i guess but tbh 2 days later id just be happy with any outcome which is better than 0gp for an account. no hard feelings to either of you this is very unfortunate i just hope you will atleast take into consideration for yourself and others to start using a proxy from now on you may have to pay but like ive said before its a small price to pay for abit more piece of mind and if its not a rule i really think it should be suggested/considered as a mm rule if it hasnt already seems silly that you can get banned over and over but because of tos it dosnt matter.

 

@ Staff In regards to the first RWT ban please contact me, I'd like to shed some light on that.

 

just for confirmation @still vkid gave me 32.5m the other day as a partial payment while we are still waiting for the outcome to help me out a little

 

This is under discussion, and a conclusion will be posted. Any posts that does not add to the report will be infracted.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on Discord.

Discord: Champ#6303

 

Wortel did his due diligence here and is not at fault for the RWT ban. As stated by king above, there are 2 options.

1) The buyer pays the seller 65M for the account. (This way the seller would have 1/2 of the GP for the account)
2) The seller pays the buyer 65M to keep the account. (This way the buyer isn't out a full 130M)

It looks like from what @WEEABOO GIRL posted that he and @still vkid have chosen to go with option 2 so we will need an update when that is paid in full

 

@still vkid has just given me the other 32.5m so 65m recieved this can be closed if you like thanks guys and once again no hard feelings <3

 

looks closed @Wortel gave me a partial refund out of good will, thanks buddy
topic can be closed.