@RS Crown - CLEANED OUT MY ACCOUNT

Abuse? Abuse is what's happening to me. I trusted your company and your trainer and was literally jacked.
I DID follow your warnings. Like I've said MULTIPLE times before the only reasoning that went through my head was that 1) you're a trusted company 2) you hire people who are from Sythe.org and aren't going to shit on your company by doing something like this.

 

Your logic is so flawed, if I went to a company and say for example gave them $200 along with a computer I need fixed then I would expect to get a fixed computer back. But if they said to me "we will only fix a $100 computer for you if its any more then we are not responsible for anything that may happen to it" if I then say "ok I agree anything more than $100 and the risk is on me" I understand and take responsibility.

Its pretty insulting to ones intelligence actually that this could even be up for discussion. Like putting a "warning hot" sign next to a volcano. I'm sure you would somehow defend a guy that walked into lava because he wasnt protected enough.

I'm requesting another mod review this, I find your analysis to be very weak.

Personally if I were to end up in this situation I would certainly not have the nerve to even attempt to argue a case when I would have had to ignored multiple warnings to end up in the situation.

 

You're justifying your company not being liable for what a customer has lost as a result of your worker just because you gave him warnings about not having wealth on the account.

Welcome to chapter 1 customer service community of Sythe.

Your TOS about not having any wealth would be applicable if there wasn't sufficient evidence that loss in wealth was a result of you or your workers. I cant believe you run a business and have such mentality.

@Time To Buy @video @Yankiee

Please give your input guys..

 

"just because you gave him warnings" "just" pretty laughable I'm glad there wasnt 500m lost because of this your ruling is completely insane. My customer service is great with 99.9% of people I talk to when I run into something I see is unfair, and actually the result of someone else's stupidity, completely ignoring warnings, I will give me opinion about it and I'v tried to talk and be reasonable, but each response I get gets more and more infuriating. I'm sure agc is sitting there and cant believe his luck in this ruling.

"Your TOS about not having any wealth would be applicable if there wasn't sufficient evidence that loss in wealth was a result of you or your workers" Please explain this further

 

When dealing with RS skilling based RAS threads... most of the times there isn't sufficient evidence to prove the accusations. For example, user A accuses the skiller user B of botting on the account and wants compensation for loss in wealth. Because there isn't enough evidence that the skiller took wealth there isn't much that can be done in regards to loss in wealth. For this reason, it is recommended that skillers make it clear that wealth should be removed from accounts so reports like these occur less as the customers would be clear that loss in wealth would be on them unless they had clear evidence.

But in this case, it's clear that your worker stole the users wealth which means there is sufficient evidence that warrants compensation for the loss in wealth.

Can you answer my earlier question... what value was the deposit that Tom gave you?

 

the value was a 100m deposit.

"But in this case, it's clear that your worker stole the users wealth which means there is sufficient evidence that warrants compensation for the loss in wealth."

May I ask why a worker taking is any different to the owner taking wealth, that does not add up at all to me, it should be the same should it not?

 

Even with the warnings, your employee told the customer he could go back on the account during the order, so what else would the customer do? Due to other customers claiming they were cleaned as well, it's only fair to guess AGC was scammed for the full amount he claims. That being said, I think you should be liable for repaying AGC despite your warnings as you are the one who hired this user to work under your name. If anything can be learned from this, ask for a larger deposit in the future to reduce scams and/or payments out of your own pocket.

 

I ask for a larger deposit than ups do... You have no idea how hard it is to hire account trainers. I completely disagree with both of your rulings and I'm happy to take on one more opinion before finally giving into stupidity.

I'm going to sleep, I will see whatever the conclusion has come to tomorrow.

 

hey so i took a look into this thread and i'd like to add my opinion

azie's argument beats yours it's like smoking cigs on the pack it says smoking kills you but ppl still do it.

so for future cases before starting any order you should log into the account make sure it's wealth is under 20m and make clear that you will NOT take any responsibility if they put more gold on the account regardless of what your worker says an agreement is always better then a warning

once they accept this you should not be held liable for any losses over 20m
if you follow that you will not run into the risk of your workers holding more then the deposit

 

I was instructed by 'Tom' to go back on it and do the Enlightened Journey quest. This was a prerequisite for Monkey Madness II which I did NOT have done and obviously NOT included in the service so it had to be done by me. Later to find out I had 50 Firemaking and needed 60 for the Gnome path part of the quest; another skill not in the service.

That's the only reason I moved all my OG gear back to quest, PK, and skill. I was told too by tom to continue and then let him know.

Thanks for the input and this means I will be reimbursed, fully, correct?

 

Basically, if the customer can prove that the individual they accuse of is responsible for taking the items then TOS don't matter and the service provider will be liable to refund the amount. If there isn't concrete evidence that the servicer provider is liable for the losses then the customer is to receive 0 compensation for wealth on accounts.

If the service provider before starting service explains to the customer the risks of keeping wealth on account its beneficial because the customer agrees that unless they can provide undeniable evidence, they're to accept any losses regarding wealth on accounts. This also benefits moderators when dealing with staff reports because it sort of eliminates the "yeah but" elements of the report.

Idk if I explained it well enough so shoot me a PM if you want me to explain in more detail.

 

I totally get your point. I tried to make it as fair as possible, because there's no way to 100% proof evidience in cases like that. This could be abused by other ppl, so doing what I said is the best solution IMO. I think after accepting the agreement the responsibility should be on the customer if he breaks the agreement.

 

Typically we usually end up denying compensation for wealth unless we have concrete evidence where we can say with 100% confidence that the accused party is responsible for the loss of account wealth. In this case, it was made very clear that Tom was responsible for the scam hence it's fair and logical to assume that he stole the wealth of account. Similarly, the IHQ account recovery report had video evidence of the wealth on account. After all the facts were considered, it was determined he would also be liable to pay for the value of wealth on account.

The best solution is to emphasise the importance of transferring the wealth on account for the safety of the customer and your own. There will always be risks for RS based services unfortunately, but you have to just try your best to mitigate them.

 

Since I'm in a similar situation as a service provider as @RS Crown I figure my input might help.

At the end of the day it's Crown's responsibility to ensure that all customers don't leave more wealth on the account than necessary for a service. They should be checked for wealth before any worker is given access. Considering that the service was in process before any loss of wealth happened then I'd say Crown upheld his part of the service.

It was made very clear to the customer (Gyazo - 337716bf0ab2f971013812acb2dc3ad6.gif) that wealth over 10m is not to be left on the account, which I Buy AGC agreed to but then decided to place wealth on the account anyway. Although Crown's worker did take the wealth, it's clearly due to I Buy AGC's actions where he went against agreements.

In short, had I Buy AGC actually followed the procedure he was told then this would never have happened, and it was his own negligence that made him lose his wealth. It's hardly fair to hold Crown responsible for the entire value of this. What would be reasonable is for Crown to pay back any other victims caused by I Buy AGC's negligence first and the remainder of the deposit (or 10m as that was the agreed maximum, whichever is greater) to be given to I Buy AGC.

I'm pretty sure any other large service provider would agree with this because it's actually bullshit that you'd expect us to pay up if potentially a customer randomly logged in, left $1000 on an account after you told them not to and then expected you to pay it back.

Edit: Would also like to see upper staff / Richard getting involved if this is going to continue to be ruled in I Buy AGC's favour.

 

RsCrown's thread is a RECOMMENDATION, not a requirement. Tom works for RsCrown, represents RsCrown, so RsCrown is held responsible. This would be similar to you taking your dog to the vet & the vet's assistant intentionally kills your dog. Although the vet himself wasn't involved his company was, in which, you would sue his company for some sort of compensation. You can't expect a business owner to not be responsible for missing goods whether it be due to a glitch, scam, or hack. Just my 2 cents at least.

 

At no point did he say it was a recommendation. Crown's words were:

"feel free to pay tom directly for this and make sure the acc has less than 10m on it and we can start asap as long as you wish to purchase"

From that you would assume that if it had more than 10m on it Crown wouldn't allow the service to start. I'm not saying Crown shouldn't be liable at all because at the end of the day it is his worker. That said, the actions of the customer is what resulted the outcome, not Crown's. Making him pay up to the greater of either the agreed limit of 10m or the remainder of the deposit means Crown has no monetary gain from this and is probably the fairest outcome.

It really comes down to if you agree terms of service with a customer and one of them is "Don't leave over 10m on the account" a service provider shouldn't be liable for anything over that as long as the terms are deemed reasonable.

Edit: In the vet scenario you would have to account for the actions of the owner as well, which would most probably be something along the lines of lying about the illness of the dog and the assistant being aware but ignoring it. Not a perfect example but somewhat along those lines.

If the current ruling isn't changed any service provider is open to being forced out of business by customers intentionally encouraging workers to scam-quit and then making the manager of the service pay for it. I'm lucky in the fact that I run my services like Bogla with very close friends so this wouldn't affect me, but if I wasn't I'd shut down tomorrow if that was the result. There's no way in hell i'd run that risk for a small income.

 

I'm making a staff discussion thread regarding whether or not the warning covers @RS Crown from paying for the excess wealth. Regardless, RSCrown will be responsible for refunding the service, the base wealth that was allowed, and the value of the untradables on the account.

 

@RS Crown Is this Padbury from our IRC? It sure seems like it. You told me this was handled...

 

"The best solution is to emphasise the importance of transferring the wealth on account for the safety of the customer and your own." From what I'v heard no matter how many warnings I give this guy I would still be responsible.

When you say "Further you should be explaining that your service is a brokerage... that you are handing off the account to some unknown third party. Informed consent." it is very clear that I was giving my account to a third party, being tom. I'm not sure what role that plays here just trying to make everything clear.

To summarize I'v accepted that despite "In short, had I Buy AGC actually followed the procedure he was told then this would never have happened, and it was his own negligence that made him lose his wealth." -tofu. I will still have to pay back the wealth.

My only final question is how can I make this completely idiot-proof? I'm going to write something out, I would appreciate the input so this situation doesnt arise again:

Please agree to this before we start your service. In paying for this service you agree to transfer all wealth that is not required for your service onto another account, by accepting the only value should be what is required for the service with the acceptation of junk items. The value on your account should not exceed 10m, if supplies for the service exceed 10m (such as 50k chins) then supply the supplies in increments. If you decide to ignore these warnings I will only be responsible for at maximum 10m, please agree to this before we proceed.

Please tell me if that would cover me for future reference, I would like to continue providing services but not if even with an agreement in place I would be responsible for everything on the account.

If you say there is no way no matter what I say that I will be covered then you have to realize that someone could give me a 200m deposit come along on another account ask for a service leave 500m on the account and I would be out 300m repaying him even with an agreement.

I will pay 70m plus the service plus 1m for the pet plus void plus torso for this, but before closing I want to have a contrac that I can copy and paste for the future to avoid these situations.