Questions regarding service rules: bans and locks

[President]

Hi everyone, I have two questions concerning the service rules on Sythe and whether there is any policy on it.

From what I understand a trainer has the obligation to inform his client whether or not a bot will be used during the service. Now let's sketch a hypothetical scenario for my first question. Let's assume that the trainer in question discloses to the buyer that he will not be botting, yet the account gets banned during the service-period. What is Sythe's policy on this? Is it so that the trainer is instantly liable for this ban? If so, to what extend? What happens with burdens of proof when this trainer tries to dispute his liability?

Locks are also a risk when dealing with services. I have personally had cases where I could not recover my accounts after they were locked. In other words, my question is: if an account is locked due to a service, what is Sythe's policy on that? Especially if there was nothing agreed upon that by both parties. And if there is something agreed here, does the contract freedom here preside over Sythe's policy on this matter?

Thanks!

 

So.. If a service provider has their own terms of service they must be able to provide proof of that agreement between both parties. Think of it like a contract.

If you were to agree that the provider was going to bot train your account and then it later gets banned for botting you can’t necessarily take him to RaS for something you agreed with. I don’t personally feel like any service provider would openly support botting and take responsibility for the account after it’s been turned over back to the owner. It just sounds like bad business practices.

As far as official information goes you can find that here: [Section Rules] Old School RuneScape Skill Training

Edit: Correcting my autocorrect’s spelling - Be safe and happy trading!

 

[President]

Thanks for your response @MAGZ ,

I think you might have misunderstood me. In my first question I assumed that both parties did not agree on botting, yet the account gets banned. My question really concerns that scenario.

 

Thanks for your response @MAGZ ,

I think you might have misunderstood me. In my first question I assumed that both parties did not agree on botting, yet the account gets banned. My question really concerns that scenario.

I gotcha, well I looked for a more official answer regarding your question but upon doing so I would say these are handled on a case by case scenario.

In the RaS section you’ll just utilize the basics: How to Report a Scammer; Report Templates + Video Tutorial

I’m sorry I can’t provide a better answer. I went out and found you an example however: Resolved

Hopefully this helps!

 

[President]

I gotcha, well I looked for a more official answer regarding your question but upon doing so I would say these are handled on a case by case scenario.

In the RaS section you’ll just utilize the basics: How to Report a Scammer; Report Templates + Video Tutorial

I’m sorry I can’t provide a better answer. I went out and found you an example however: Resolved

Hopefully this helps!

Yeah, but I assumed those cases are handled by a set of rules or policy. I hoped, by posting this, that someone who know is more familiar with this (perhaps someone who handles the disputes) would shed some light on this.

Thanks for responding man!

 

Thanks for your response @MAGZ ,

I think you might have misunderstood me. In my first question I assumed that both parties did not agree on botting, yet the account gets banned. My question really concerns that scenario.

If an account is macro banned and it is expressly noted in TOS that the person is or isn't liable for any bans on accounts the service provider must provide proof of training/questing etc. Such as screenshots from Runelite, which is why Runelite is a very suggested client for legitimate service providers. That way Mods can see that the work done by the service provider is done by hand. If you can't provide proof of training Mods are more than likely going to find the provider at fault even if their TOS says otherwise. Essentially, don't bot and do the services as they are requested and things should be fine. As for account locks, personally they are rare. I've done quests/services on 100's of accounts from over the world and never EVER had an account locked. I think in the rare case that it were to happen, the customer would need to try to recover the account and if not Mods would probably ask that the provider and the customer come up with a plan, but I don't believe the provider is 100% at fault for a locked account, don't quote me on the locked accounts though.

 

[President]

I gotcha, well I looked for a more official answer regarding your question but upon doing so I would say these are handled on a case by case scenario.

In the RaS section you’ll just utilize the basics: How to Report a Scammer; Report Templates + Video Tutorial

I’m sorry I can’t provide a better answer. I went out and found you an example however: Resolved

Hopefully this helps!

I looked at the dispute @MAGZ sent (Resolved), in that case the moderator concluded the following:
-There were ToS; vague ToS = ToS without any effect is the assumption here
-ToS were unclear; thus assuming that the ToS have no effect, also this implies that contract-freedom is decisive here and that Sythe policy doesn't specifically cover this area
-No way to conclude who botted; Burden of proof falls on the client.

Isn't this a very unfair practice towards service-buyers? Especially if the service-provider has a good reputation and is trusted. As a service-buyer it's not only almost impossible to prove that you have not been on the account, but there is somewhat of a vertical relation when the service-provider has a good reputation and might abuse this position without any risk.

If an account is macro banned and it is expressly noted in TOS that the person is or isn't liable for any bans on accounts the service provider must provide proof of training/questing etc. Such as screenshots from Runelite, which is why Runelite is a very suggested client for legitimate service providers. That way Mods can see that the work done by the service provider is done by hand. If you can't provide proof of training Mods are more than likely going to find the provider at fault even if their TOS says otherwise. Essentially, don't bot and do the services as they are requested and things should be fine. As for account locks, personally they are rare. I've done quests/services on 100's of accounts from over the world and never EVER had an account locked. I think in the rare case that it were to happen, the customer would need to try to recover the account and if not Mods would probably ask that the provider and the customer come up with a plan, but I don't believe the provider is 100% at fault for a locked account, don't quote me on the locked accounts though.

Thank you for responding @Bryan , so according to you, Sythe rules preside over ToS in the sense that a service provider has the obligation to provide proof of non-bot training (if agreed upon) and if this is violated, he will be deemed liable. This does, contrast what happened in the dispute @MAGZ referred me to. In that scenario, the provider got the benefit of the doubt without providing any proof of leveling without the use of bots
Additionally, what happens when an account is banned under a service and the customer manages to unban it? (this literally happened to me)
On one hand, it proves that there was no botting on the account and thus the provider is protected (a lot of bans are happening due to Twitch Prime). On the other hand, the account does have blackmarks now, which are perhaps caused by the provider. These blackmarks devaluate the account. What is to happen then?

Personal sidenote: I feel like a lot of this is unnecessarily a grey area. I can imagine that a lot of cases would be handled much faster if there would be more policy in the stickied threads. From your answer, I see that there is more policy. For example, it is unclear to me what can and cannot be handled in ToS. There are obvious things but also less obvious things that are worth mentioning. I don't more policy has to be exhausting. A lot of things can be handled by ToS. but more can be added than what's there atm.

 

I looked at the dispute @MAGZ sent (Resolved), in that case the moderator concluded the following:
-There were ToS; vague ToS = ToS without any effect is the assumption here
-ToS were unclear; thus assuming that the ToS have no effect, also this implies that contract-freedom is decisive here and that Sythe policy doesn't specifically cover this area
-No way to conclude who botted; Burden of proof falls on the client.

Isn't this a very unfair practice towards service-buyers? Especially if the service-provider has a good reputation and is trusted. As a service-buyer it's not only almost impossible to prove that you have not been on the account, but there is somewhat of a vertical relation when the service-provider has a good reputation and might abuse this position without any risk.




Thank you for responding @Bryan , so according to you, Sythe rules preside over ToS in the sense that a service provider has the obligation to provide proof of non-bot training (if agreed upon) and if this is violated, he will be deemed liable. This does, contrast what happened in the dispute @MAGZ referred me to. In that scenario, the provider got the benefit of the doubt without providing any proof of leveling without the use of bots
Additionally, what happens when an account is banned under a service and the customer manages to unban it? (this literally happened to me)
On one hand, it proves that there was no botting on the account and thus the provider is protected (a lot of bans are happening due to Twitch Prime). On the other hand, the account does have blackmarks now, which are perhaps caused by the provider. These blackmarks devaluate the account. What is to happen then?

Personal sidenote: I feel like a lot of this is unnecessarily a grey area. I can imagine that a lot of cases would be handled much faster if there would be more policy in the stickied threads. From your answer, I see that there is more policy. For example, it is unclear to me what can and cannot be handled in ToS. There are obvious things but also less obvious things that are worth mentioning. I don't more policy has to be exhausting. A lot of things can be handled by ToS. but more can be added than what's there atm.

A lot of it is grey area and it depends on how the mod team interprets the specific case and evidence. Not everything is set in stone, but you should always do your best to avoid conflict anyways really.