Swapping FC Liability

In that case some ranks would've needed to refund other ranks. Outside of the hosts, no one got scammed as far as I know before K0 got removed.

 

I completely disagree.

The reason being because the market giants will tailor the rules to benefit them more than customers. It's like if you say let the prisoners decide when they eat/get to do things rather than the government. (Quite a different situation, but you get what I'm saying.)

 

What about something that protects the employer, by having "partners" and "employees"


I wouldn't know how you can protect yourself from your employee scamming you in the context you provided in your previous post. But this seems like a step in the right direction.

 

Jagex lost the battle against RWT, Bots, and Gambling. Banning DDyce, SM, etc on proof that could be buried in court by any piece of shit lawyer was just admission that they lost and they were carpet combing the game after extracting the money.

See below

Also see above for explanation of my experience in risk mitigation for virtually anonymous employees.

This is correct. Basically, the way the business was set up with IRC as an anchor, there was no way to fire KO for scamming. It's easier for owners to fire their employees than it is for employees to fire their boss. KO essentially was fired by the business when all of his staff/hosts quit.

@ Both above, also, Corowns departed from SM because of a 50b+ scam that occured due to Xsplit security issues and some head running into post social engineering. As far as I heard, it wasn't refunded (Corowns being a co-leader of sorts would have been the one responsible for refunding in this case) and Corowns left the clan.

 

Sythe is a sandbox market that operates within a basic set of guidelines (staff and rules). In order to expand (I believe there's an "ambiguous future of Sythe" thread somewhere that I haven't read yet because I don't have time), there needs to be allowances made for multi-person market movements. This site won't grow unless the community can evolve into larger groups.

 

Corowns's 50b ish case is being slowly refunded over time, I believe Skept has already been completely paid back or is getting close to it. Not 100% sure on the payment progress though, so dont trust my word on that.
But SM has assumed responsibility for the loss.

 

Kind of agree with you, to be honest

 

If you're putting your name on it and claiming a partnership relationship then it should fall under current regulations. If you don't trust them enough not to scam then why do you trust them enough to profit off of them? Sounds shady as fuck to me.

Now there is a difference between employee and partnerships. Employee employer relationships are not on level playing fields. If you hire someone you are responsible for their actions because they are your agent. If you are hired by someone who later goes into scam and you were not an accomplice to the scam then you are not responsible, agents are not reliable for the actions of their employers unless they took part in the harmful action. When you say I am a partner with person X then that entails a whole other set of legal and market principles. A partnership allows for both people to act as mutually beneficial entities and agents for each other.

 

I'm impressed. SM has run into a lot of bad luck =\

By any chance, were you there on the SM tinychat when Dragon Dyce rank Blocks did a 1 man raid on Adrijana and a dozen randoms eating toothpaste with his shirt off and shorts pulled up to his torso? I'll never forget that as long as I live.

Nearcast ;_)

/thread

/thread

 

Oh GOD I wish I saw that
I assume that happened in the past 1.9~ years?

EDIT: We may be getting a bit off-topic here

Good luck with the business if you decide to start it R2p

 

These rules are extremely weighted against the employer / partnership. Anytime you enter a partnership or employ somebody you are 100% responsible now for everything they do. Sythe has never even mentioned a limit on this amount, however, I would like to think that cooler heads would prevail in a freak situation.

There needs to be some rules in place that can protect partnerships / employers from abuse of the liability systems. As it is right now, we fear taking risks in providing valuable new services because of the restrictive liability rules of this website. There's just so many risks you take on by creating any sort of partnership, that in reality the risk is NEVER worth it.

 

I personally like the idea of R2 opening a swapping FC, I can tell it would be pretty successful because of their website already being known as one of the top websites to buy/sell gold to. The only problem I see in this scenario is the name of the swapping Friends Chat. When you affiliate your website to a swapping Friends Chat, I can see a majority of those ranks being banned for RWT even though they might just have a big swap.

 

Essentially what you're saying is that you're looking for a rules reform that allows you to profit and take little responsibility over who you choose to hire or partner with. A hands off approach to business. I can go into real life law and draw parallels on how the liability works. Essentially a court is more likely to hold a company liable for the negligence of their workers instead of a worker because a wage laborer isn't likely to be able to make those harmed whole. The same goes for malicious actions against individuals. An employer is responsible for their hiring practices and if they're not discreet enough in hiring and protecting sensitive information then it is their fault.

 

Ok, but in real life, if someone from Wal-Mart goes and robs a bank, Wal-Mart is not responsible. On Sythe, once you partner with someone, Sythe essentially says OK, now you're responsible for whatever that person does.

I'm not asking for 0 liability, I'm asking for some sort of fair limit which is communicated to people. For example, if I opened a LoL Boosting service with someone, and then they somehow managed to scam somebody on Sythe $20,000 USD, should I be responsible to pay for that shit? I'd tell you that you're nuts.

Before you say this would never happen, let me refer to a case on Powerbot. Arcus was hacked awhile back, and GOT RAPED by "Count Vidal" from Powerbot. Count Vidal created a completely fake scam with the assistance of the hacker. They made a fake trade of over $10,000 USD (YES $10,000 USD)! And Arcus had to pay the fucker the whole amount back. This system is absolutely fucked up because there is no way to distinguish a real trade from a fake trade.

LINK: https://www.powerbot.org/community/topic/784763-huge-scam-report-arcus-scams-10000-usd/page-2

 

It has nothing to do with real-life whatsoever.

Why are you responsible for your workers?
pretty simple.

You choose who to employ.
The people who employ, can within the rules use your thread on sythe and refer to your vouches.
People who purchase/sell to you, do so because they have assurance that they won't be scammed.

When you employ someone on sythe, you don't just donate for him and leave him there. You, as a company share your feedback/vouches with them in order for them to be "trusted".


tl;dr
You work someone, he uses your vouches to be trusted
He scams, you should be partially held responsible.

Real life isn't correlated at all. Simply wearing a badge that says walmart doesn't make you more trusted than the average bloke around the block.
Technically speaking, if somebody ran off with 1,500$ (we'll use walmart, since you used it as an example) he would be legally prosecuted. On sythe, if you run off with 1,500$ nobody will ever hear from you again.


Edit:

Wanted to make this clear as i don't agree at all with your correlation to walmart.
I'm not referring to anything on topic about swapping, but the probability is that the accounts would be banned for rwt.

 

You did not tackle partnership, you only tackled employees / employers. You also mention that people should be held "partially responsible" without defining what "partially responsible" means. Simply by using the word "partially" you implicitly are acknowledging that employers should not be held 100% responsible for their employees.

Also, you do not provide any insight on how we separate real trades from fake trades.

 

if you own it, you are responsible, wether it be questing, selling gold, or swapping gp, just because the number of employees change doesn't mean the rules should.

if you arn't comfortable risking your money, don't do it. simple as that. it's your brand, your reputation that would be bringing customers in, so why wouldn't YOU be backing it?




lord knows how many people would get scammed if you weren't responsible, and just said " hey, i thought he was legit".

 

You are polarizing the situation. I am not saying that I shouldn't be responsible, I am saying there should be some limit on that responsibility. I have an easy solution that covers the situation and certainly should keep everybody happy.

I make a policy where I will refund $2,500 USD worth of damages on a set of incidents, unless I personally am conducting the deal and this has been verified. A set of incidents = a hacking / rogue worker / etc. We monitor our businesses closely and these situations are handled very quickly.

Example: My Sythe account is hacked. I will repay up to $2,500 USD total for the victims of scams. The amount that I will repay is also publicly displayed so that everybody knows that is the maximum I will pay out.

Got a problem with that amount? Cool story, it's a fucking Runescape trade. If you don't know me personally, do $2,500 USD worth, get paid and repeat. The amount of legitimate trades over $2,500 USD are rare. Increments are your friend.

Know me well? Confirm my identity and verify it's me you're speaking with, and there's no problem. I obviously stand behind anything I do personally.

Tell me Delta, what do you have to say about fake trades? Did you read the report on Arcus from Powerbot? You realize he paid $10,000 USD to someone over this exact bullshit situation? But you feel nothing is wrong?

 

if it was a fake trade why did he pay the guy?

You can try to weasel your way out of it as much as you want, while still trying to turn a profit, regardless it's your company, your employees, if i fuck up a paintjob on a new car, the company i work for pays for it, yes my employer will most likely charge be for it afterwards, but it was done at his shop, with his client.


it's really as simple as that, you can throw up as many shrewd examples as you want, i see no problem with you taking time to repay someone while the report is FULLY investigated, to prove it wasn't fake, as we all know there are shady fucks around, but if your livechat agent or whoever scams you would be required to repay correct?

Someone scams off your website you still are required to pay, so why would it change just because the place of business changes?

 

Pretty much this, i don't see a reason why you would not be responsible for it,it just leaves the people at a lot more risk than if you'd be responsible for scams,where they know you would/could repay them.

Don't mean to be rude or something,but for me it sounds like u just want to have a friendschat open and not give a fuck about if a rank scams as long as you don't have to repay?