disputing my ban; spacegems

Link to/reason for TWC/DNT/Ban: SpaceGems & DavidTheBig possible market manipulation | Sell & Trade Game Items | OSRS Gold | ELO (sythe.org)

Link to your vouches: Spacegems' Vouches | Sell & Trade Game Items | OSRS Gold | ELO (sythe.org)

Detailed description of the events that took place and why you disagree with the decision:

I appreciate each staff members input on the case and the effort made by staff members who gathered evidence and worked this case. With that said I think that some information within the case was accidentally mishandled and portrayed incorrectly, and I also don’t understand the inconsistency of ruling based on recently set precedent.

I will go over these 2 main reasons that I think this ruling should be overturned in favor of lighter/no punishment. (And while I can’t do davids dispute for him I hope this reasoning also shows davids ban should be overturned as well).

Nothing in this dispute is meant to be disparaging or underhanded I will speak as truthfully as I can and use screenshots to back it up when possible. Zora kept me updated throughout the process and requested information from me, so I know he handled most of the evidence acquisition and I aired my reasons for wanting to dispute with him, so it is for these reasons I cite him so much as the primary staff here. I do understand that this and all verdicts are full staff majority decisions and don’t wish to single anybody out.


1. Misrepresentation/incorrect claim of trading while market threads were being bumped


Zora stated on the verdict on the report that:


“New evidence has come to light showing that @spacegems traded gold in @DavidTheBig his server. This happened on several occasions. At these times, both @spacegems and @DavidTheBig their threads were actively being bumped”


As I stated I did complete a handful of trades in davids server however NONE of them occurred while David and I simultaneously bumped our RELEVANT market subsection threads. I believe this was an error made overlooking what I believe to be the proper understanding of the details of the sythe thread rules.


Sythe.org rules:

“Market Manipulation: This is a blanket term for rule-breaking that is done in order to gain an unfair market advantage, most commonly broken when a user/business runs multiple threads in a market subsection. Punishment varies based on the severity of the offense.”



Zora matched bumping from davids WTB thread to the dates of these transactions which were SELL transactions. David did NOT bump his WTS thread during the duration of any of these transactions. In-fact most/all of these handful of trades occurred in JUNE and David did not bump his WTS thread a single time in June. Meaning these sales were not generated from traffic from his sythe thread and he wasn’t bumping it in any times near the trades.


Screenshots of Zora confirming no trades of the relevant subsections occurred during any cross-bumping times:

imgur.com





During the times when the SELL trades overlapped with davids WTB thread bumping, David was himself handling buying 07 gold, which is probably why he was bumping it. I know this not because of the tickets in his server, but because he directly sold me gold that he bought from customers 3-5 times throughout JUNE, if I had been intending to gain an unfair advantage, and had David been intending to give me an unfair advantage, he would have simply had me buy the gold, but he bought the gold himself and sold it for a profit to me.


David selling me gold he bought from customers while bumping his WTB in June:

imgur.com



TL;DR of #1: while I don’t know the exact specifics of the market manipulation rule as it isn’t super specific, the bumping which zora matched up happened across different market sub-sections, so there was no trade that occurred during any overlap within any 1 market sub-section. Zora notified me I did discuss buying gold with a user in davids server during a time he was bumping his buying thread, but no trade occurred, and David was actively buying himself while bumping his WTB.





2. I had no intent to gain any unfair market advantage, I was unaware of David bumping his WTS thread, and his WTB thread given the sporadic nature of his activity and bumping on sythe. In a recent previous report, actually made by me, it was ruled that:


“The link on your website currently relinks to another website, therefor giving that website an unfair advantage. Though these websites may not have known of this redirect so we can't punish them for it.”


I feel this is a similar situation as I specifically intended for David not to be bumping his seemingly inactive thread on the times when I was active in his server, and he in fact did not bump the relevant market subsection threads. I had no intention of gaining an unfair market advantage or I would have been encouraging him to actively bump his thread. I don’t know why this wasn’t ruled in a similar fashion as the report quoted above.


Also, in Davids defense I believe David had no intent to mess up and was just being a bit inattentive in bumping these threads, while in the report I quoted above the user was intentionally using their thread to drive sales to their affiliates for their own benefit, and yet that user only received a 3 day ban, while David is given a 1 month ban despite the fact that I think this was a clear misunderstand/ non-intentional.


TL;DR of #2: I feel that at least to me it is clear that I nor David tried to intentionally gain an unfair advantage. Maybe it is only more apparent to me as I am inside my own head, but I feel that I have made it evident now hopefully for staff, and I think the precedent for rulings in similar situations seems much lighter than the ruling I received.



And I really don’t want to get into this much as I am scared it’ll effect the outcome of my dispute, but I feel I have to. This report was supposedly targeted and made by the users I reported in the report discussed above. Given that case was a blatant and intentional misuse of sythe threads, and they ended up with a very light punishment. I don’t understand why these, very light and unintentional, and in my opinion incorrect due to market subsection divisions, bump-trade correlations as I will call them, are ruled so harshly in comparison. I can’t see any other reasoning besides the fact that zuzel was an ex-staff member. I fear this either allowed him to receive a lighter ruling or allowed him to influence and punish me with a stricter ruling, or both. Whether this was conscious or subconscious bias I feel it may have played a part. I don’t want to call the staff out at all by saying this, just had to mention it as it is the only rationale, I can find for the difference in rulings between the two cases.


imgur.com






Link to previous disputes: 0 previous disputes

Anything else you wish to say:

Once again, I appreciate all the staff’s efforts, but I would greatly appreciate if this was reviewed, I have no intention to gain any advantages except through the quality and effort of my work, and I hope staff that know me and know that to be true can take that into consideration along with the points I’ve raised. Thank you.