Pikachu is either abusing his power or extremely incompetent

Link the current Sythe account: @Pikachu
Which violation you are reporting the user for: There are clear signs of judicial bias being shown in our recently report. He has shown no intention of getting things right. This is not the professional behavior we expect from a global moderator.
Why you think they're violating Sythe rules: MyPVM Plugin Exposed/Violations & Resolved

In this report, we will argue several points. As the post may get long, feel free to skip any sections that you may find more relevant.


Releasing Sensitive Information

@Pikachu decided that it was in his best interest to release this information without consulting us on the pretense of damage control. Damage control is defined as "an action taken to limit the damaging effects of an accident or error". We did not share this information to cover an accident or error. We could've been purposely vague (eg. "We use approaches available on approved community plugins.").

Furthermore, we respected everybody's time and wrote a deep-dive for you in an attempt to help better your understanding. This backfired as, in return, Pikachu spat in our face.

The evidence that Pikachu revealed does not affect the conclusion of the report. We shared sensitive information in an attempt to show that our methods are approved. Instead, the conclusion Pikachu reached was the polar opposite - "there very strong argument they uses bots/marco on accounts". Given the circumstances, there was absolutely no need to reveal what we posted. We can only assume this was done strictly out of malice.

Furthermore, the information is an area that is not listed in the default examples. This is a gray zone - we deemed this information sensitive. Releasing such information without consulting the user is a serious violation of the trust that we have about our privacy in the system. We don't believe it has been done in previous reports. Why is it being done now?

Getting around client safeguards is a serious development hurdle. We believe it is also the reason why most developers opt to integrate with an existing client rather than creating their own. This is evident by the distribution of posts in your Client Plugins section (https://www.sythe.org/runescape/client-plugins/). Given how Pikachu decided that this was not sensitive, insults not only the work we've put in to derive such as solution but the entire development community as a whole.


Zero Accountability. Unreceptive to Feedback.

@Pikachu has shown no interest in correcting incorrect statements.

After Pikachu delivered his ruling, the thread was immediately locked, giving us no opportunity to correct any misunderstandings. We understand that reading long posts is mentally taxing and users often make mistakes. But to straight up give an ultimatum without discussion shows a clear lack of interest in reaching a ruling that is both fair and correct. This behavior is not seen in any other posts, nor by any other moderators. What makes this situation special?

A common thought that users may have is: Was this done by accident? Why didn't we reach out?

We did reach out:
- by communicating on certain public Discord channels, ignored
- by communicating to Pikachu directly through direct messages, ignored and unfriended
- by reporting the post directly, ignored

Unreceptive. Don't say that we didn't try.

Pikachu does not care about the truth. All rulings are immediately final. No exchanges. A judicial body making invalid defamation statements is concerning.


Making Rules on the Fly

Pikachu has introduced new rules at his own convenience to indirectly justify his rulings. Many times, these are not backed up with actual written rules or any precedent.

In https://www.sythe.org/threads/4342573/ our TOS was overridden using the image that "deposits are not meant to be used for profit".

From A Guide to Terms of Service (ToS), we have always been able to create our own interpretation of a TOS. We have strict terms to protect our valued customers. With workers, trust is a two-way street, if you don't do anything shady, we've never had any issues with sending payouts and returning deposits.

Not only was this "overruled", but it was also done under the pretense of us using deposits for profits. We have made several attempts to donate the fund to the community repayment pool instead. Need evidence? Feel free to search on both Sythe and on the official Discord. Painting us in this light is straight up slander.

While we didn't agree with his ruling, we acted on it out of respect.

Do you want to know what that result was? https://i.imgur.com/XUhfBOd.png

Also, pushing for new rules after delivering your ruling sounds a bit backwards to us. Updating guidelines + more transparency around TOS

Here on @CheapGP report, he thinks his in the wrong, but because there is no actual official Sythe Rule that he is breaking, he chooses not to punish him. Our situation is not different, Pikachu thinks we're in the wrong, but there is no actual official Sythe rule that we're breaking. Yet, we got punished, and after the report he opens a suggestion thread to instill a new rule.

https://www.sythe.org/posts/79980383/

Conclusion: He punishes retroactively whenever it suits him and is completely inconsistent about it. Clear favoritism.

"Contempt against court" is not a Sythe rule. Neither is forcing others to change their TOS the exact way you wanted them to. We acted out of good faith with good intentions. This is now being abused.


Professionalism

We also question how serious Pikachu was when dealing with our reports.
Pikachu has a history of bragging about not reading reports.

On top of that, Pikachu has been locking and unlocking the thread, not giving us a fair chance to respond. Then, when finalizing his own ruling, he quickly wrote down his verdict in the middle of the night, locked the thread, and continued editing it afterward to make himself look better.

Pikachu's level of unprofessionalism doesn’t match the standard of professionalism we’ve come to expect from Sythe staff.

Also, we want to ask @Pikachu who did he consult to come to the conclusion of what he is saying, since he never compiled a RL client before afaik. Was it one person? 2? Or ChatGPT?


Understanding DNT

We’d like to point Pikachu to Sythes explanation of the DNT Understanding the DNT (Do Not Trade) rank

DNT is for the protection of others. It’s not meant to be used as punishment.

Pikachu claims we should get a DNT because of "contempt of court". My question is: how does contempt of court (which isn’t even an official Sythe rule) prove that I’m such a threat to the community?


The Wrong Verdict

I did extensive research into this case, techy and non-techy side into this report and have come to conclusion that this is a third party client as it's modifying the base code of Runelite (This can be seen in set up guide and hence it was made public), this would fall into the same bracket of OpenOsrs or Exilent Client or any other client and 1359347[/URL]]@MyPvM was also well aware of this so playing victum is not really necessary as they even used the word client in the title of the report here: Mcneill - Steroids Client owner and you could also argue there are dangers of RSNs being leaked without the customers consent.

They knowingly used a client on customers which report in past for leaking RSNs.

We were the ones who made the report against Mcneil's about him leaking rsn's, with anon account.

Mcneil's client was shut down when 3PC bans came into effect. Our developer decided to use the same name. Our client was meant to be internal facing only, so we didn't think it mattered at the time.

I hope that you can show proof that we use the same client other than just the same name. You have access to our download files. I'm hoping that your "extensive research" also resulted in the download file for Mcneil's steroid. A simple comparison on file size and directory should be more than enough.

Also you must add that RSN which are using you service are sent off third party which is outside of your company

We don't send anything to Mcneil. This should not be included.
We also have other issues with your ruling, but understand that it can be based off user interpretation. We won't be fighting that.

1359347[/URL]]@MyPvM You have one week to remove any mention of RuneLite in your terms of service.

Proof of TOS/Section of site not being updated correctly:

How did we get from "terms of service" to "section of site"? All customers must agree to our terms of service before placing an order. If you wanted us to also update a blog post, it should've been stated in the original ruling.


Contempt of staff ruling

Given the tremendous amount of disrespect shown to us and the fact that an timed ultimatum was given based on incorrect facts, and attempts of communication being refused, you have essentially forced us to give a false confession and self-incriminate. Since you enjoy quoting lawbooks so much, feel free to give State v. Sawyer, 561 So. 2d 278 | Casetext Search + Citator a read.

We would like to resolve our DNT. Please make the necessary edits to your ruling or provide evidence that we are using Mcneil's steroid. Furthermore, list all pages that you would like statements to be added. Finally, a nice to have would be that you reconsider your stance on revealing privileged information.

 

I'll address this point by point since there is a lot to go through here:

Releasing Sensitive Information:
Staff aren't meant to handle private reports, many people involved in disputes attempt to circumvent this by claiming information is sensitive and must be hidden, often when it isn't. While I don't think the material that was made public is particularly egregious, especially since the sensitive portions have been redacted, staff should generally consult the provider of potentially sensitive information before making any part of it public.

Zero Accountability. Unreceptive to Feedback:
Staff are under no obligation to reply to any specific user via DM, this goes especially for a user that is being hostile, which you yourself have admitted to here. You've clearly been unhappy with recent rulings, and yet you have neglected to dispute these decisions or provide any clarification via the dispute section? Feel free to post a proper dispute should you wish to, but given the inflammatory nature of your correspondence, I think it's more than reasonable for @Pikachu to halt direct message replies and allow you to dispute via official channels instead.

Making Rules on the Fly:
The arbitration system here at Sythe relies upon both written rules and precedent from previous cases. In the report surrounding the deposit you were shown multiple previous cases that were in line with the ruling that was given, and it's made clear in the ToS thread that staff reserve the right to overrule ToS in cases where it isn't congruent with our rules, or where the terms are found to be abusive.

As for the suggestion thread, Pikachu posted it with the goal of having the precedent codified as a rule surrounding terms of service, to ensure that users are better informed before establishing contracts between one another.

Professionalism:
Staff are encouraged to engage with the community, including in places such as the Discord server, which is treated as a softer version of spam forum. I do hold staff to a higher degree of professionalism than the average user, but they are people and I do not feel like telling a bunch of volunteers that they aren't allowed to crack a few jokes in a place that is specifically intended for that sort of nonsense.

As for the report being locked and unlocked, staff have done this on many occasions where there are heated and unproductive arguments occurring on the thread, we do this so that the facts of the case do not become obfuscated, and the threads are unlocked by request to allow involved users to provide relevant information if necessary.

The Wrong Verdict:
I think the ruling on the plugin report is a bit verbose so I will attempt to simplify it. You are using a modified and outdated version of Runelite with an unapproved (by Jagex/Runelite) plugin. You have acknowledged yourself that this is detectable and may carry an extra ban risk to customer accounts, and claiming that you're using regular Runelite is disingenuous at best even if there have been no issues thus far. You need to inform your customers that you are performing services on a modified version of Runelite before any trade occurs to ensure said customers can make an informed decision before proceeding.

I'm not going to split hairs over what specific version or offshoot of Runelite you use, because frankly it doesn't impact what I've outlined above. If you'd like to dispute the Steroid aspect of the report and want that ruling updated you'll need to post a proper dispute with evidence refuting it.

Contempt Ruling:
There is actually precedent for this, though it hasn't been invoked in years. I also do agree that what you did fits the definition as well, especially given the fact that you filed no proper dispute as I outlined above before proceeding the way you did.

Outcome:
I think both parties could have handled this better in numerous ways, and I will be having a discussion with @Pikachu to that end.

@MyPvM, you will need to post a dispute regarding the Steroid connection, you'll also need to demonstrate changes in your procedure that are congruent with what I have instructed you to do here:

You are using a modified and outdated version of Runelite with an unapproved (by Jagex/Runelite) plugin. You have acknowledged yourself that this is detectable and may carry an extra ban risk to customer accounts, and claiming that you're using regular Runelite is disingenuous at best even if there have been no issues thus far. You need to inform your customers that you are performing services on a modified version of Runelite before any trade occurs to ensure said customers can make an informed decision before proceeding.

The DNT will remain for now.