Sythe must decide whether to protect its users... or not

Abstract:

This suggestion revolves around the current discordant rules that govern how outside businesses & websites do business on Sythe.


History:

The long-standing application of these rules is that outside businesses must abide by Sythe's rules in order to advertise on Sythe. Don't believe me?

The RSPS sections have utilized this rule for a very long time - RSPS servers that do not allow RWT are not allowed on Sythe, to have a thread, or to advertise banners on this site.

This makes sense - the admins decided that they do not want to turn Sythe into a catfish site where users fall prey to purchasing things that conflict with outside businesses TOS.

Here the precedent was: If you advertise a website or business on Sythe, it must abide by Sythe rules.


Current:

As of this past year and last, we have seen a complete reversal of this position. We also have site's advertised whose TOS completely conflict (removed) with Sythe's.

These two rule sets are completely misaligned, and one must be changed in order to align with the other.

Should we wish to change the RSPS section rule, then RSPS's will be able to advertise and post regardless of allowing RWT.

Should we wish to change the Market section rule, then sites that are linked to from the section must have a TOS that is at least similar to Sythe's.


More misalignment:

I have seen people's max mains get recovered from external sites. Every time the admins on Sythe hold the owner of that site liable if indeed they did recover the max main according to Sythe's rules. What if the TOS of that site allows them to recover the account should the time be up by one minute and keep all the gold on the account?

I've seen it happen, yet for some reason in this instance the Sythe staff thought their domain prevailed over the site's.


Misc:

I am making this argument out of logic rather than just telling the admins of this site what needs to be said, you are doing a horrible job protecting the users of this site by allowing them to come to this website and be redirected to a site that takes NO RESPONSIBILITY for accounts being recovered.

I can literally just make a Wix.com with my account on it and link it from the account section, able to post any TOS that I want and the buyer must abide by that TOS according to Sythe's rules - and if staff were consistent in the rules they would be bound to enforce the rules of my wix.com (or what they do now - "we cant do anything about scams offsite sorry").


Suggestion:

Simple, protect our users.

If your site advertises on this site, and it's TOS does not abide by Sythe's, then you must remove ALL TRACE OF IT from this site.

As it stands now, we are not protecting our users and allowing outside sites to falsely advertise their services on this site under the guise that they are compliant with the protections that are afforded every other direct seller and buyer of a good on this site.

I Support, have a good evening.


Edit:

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE

Site A buys account X from JD for 100$.

Site A sells account to Pingy for 200$.

JD recovers account.

Pingy disputes Site A.

Site A's TOS: We are not responsible for recoveries!

JD and Site A profit -> Pingy is rekd

 

Administration approved our agreement. The entire administration. Accountwarehouse has an agreement aswell. Staff are allowed to make exceptions when deemed needed - Our entire company was founded on the basis that our policies would be upheld by Staff otherwise we would of never entered such an extremely risky industry.

2nd off I'm tired of you whining about our "scam" policy's - We haven't had a single report since we opened over our policies and have a 0% recovery rate which means our policies aren't even currently applying. You have no basis and no foundation to indicate that we are abusing our agreement with any of our users of any kind. Your personally salty because your RSPS is shit and you have nothing better to do than post about our "scam policies" 5 times a day.

I'll happily tag administration @video to tell you the same thing.

Bloody playerauctions doesn't abide by Sythe rules and has 30,000 complaints and your whining about OUR POLICIES? Did you ever stop and consider that perhaps administration looked at what a shithole the account market is and thought that 2 highly trusted and well known market users might be able to turn a shit hole into not such a bad place?

FYI our sales - and 0 complaints regarding our policies and fair arbitration which I can tag @hattez in is 10x fairer and easier than our competition.

How many hundreds of accounts have been sold that for once(after 6 months already) wont be recovered for once? How many users have we saved from being scammed over and over and over in this shithole industry? We have proven that we can do what PA and AWH do but better and with better policies and stances.

 

If the admins don't want to protect the users of this site, thats fine, they currently aren't doing it - thats their prerogative.

-> Just as a note because I think you misunderstand my thread (or lets be honest, probably didnt read it entirely). Your site can have whatever TOS you want, just shouldnt be allowed to be advertised here.

2nd I don't own a RSPS, so no clue what on earth you are talking about - no idea why you are trying to insult me instead of just making your TOS compliant with Sythe's rules or explaining why it shouldnt be so.

3rd I am sorry for filing this suggestion before you DO have a recovery and someone posts about it, you are completely correct that we should focus on stopping your predatory ways only AFTER users are scammed and not BEFORE it.

 

Their protecting the users of this site.

Lets see;

Lets just theoretically(of course) say we've sold 400 accounts without an issue.

Lets say the average user gets scammed twice(probably higher but I'll be nice) in the account market when not using us.

I know based on ur SF post that "I'm just a retard" but 400 x 2 = 800

So lets just do some basic comparison math;

We've potentially stopped 800 scams - Sold 400 accounts with 0 issues and have had 0 recovery reports/complaints.

So in your mind - Sythe administration approving our terms and policies - Which have protected 800 people and upset nobody but you - Are harming the site?

That's your argument?

Would you like to go read the 30,000 playerauctions complaints or hundreds of 1 or 2 stars reviews of AWH?

You must think administration is stupid. They approved R2 and I to take a crack at a market that NOBODY else has did on a commercial scale besides AWH and we all know PA itself is a scam and guess what? IT WORKED. Hundreds of accounts are now being bought and sold safely with no complaints. Not ONE.

1,000+ accounts have been bought and sold. 1000+. How dare you sit and say administration is not protecting users? If anything they've showed extreme wisdom in allowing certain agreements to be upheld.

 

Ok the best I can do is point out you have a spelling mistake in your first sentence. The rest of your post does not make sense at all. Please just either support or no support this thread with your reasoning instead of giving us more cannon fodder to use against you.

 

No I think I'm okay.

I'll tag @R2Pleasent here as well since you seem to want to attack his business ontop of mine.

Might aswell tag anyone else such as @Champ @Charlotte @Gen

I'd like to see someone justify to the administrators I've tagged that anyone they've approved an agreement with is abusing it what-so-ever. AWH barely gets reported and sells in the hundreds of accounts a day - Acckings has never even used our policies because our anti-fraud is so good.

This suggestion has no merit and has no evidence to back it - You used a foolish inciteful title backed by absurd claims you keep repeating with no evidence and no backing. You are trying to put pressure on administration by crying their "not protecting the community" and you conveniently avoided my last statement;

I have evidence - I have 1000 pieces of evidence that show we have been nothing but a contribution and aiding what has historically been a shithole industry. You make claims saying we have scam policys and administration should toss our agreement based on those claims? Where is your evidence to even imply that our policies are unfair ? Where are the mass insurance claims we're denying and scamming users? Where are the recovery reports? Where are the refund policy reports?

Let me tell you; They don't exist ; You know why? BECAUSE WE HAVENT HAD A BLOODY REPORT ABOUT OUR POLICIES OR ANY ISSUES WITH THEM IN 6 MONTHS OF BUSINESS.

You know why? Because we took the best aspects of PA and the best aspects of AWH and built a site that is fundamentally different in the account market and one that can actually be legitimate without having to steal users funds to stay afloat(PA Insurance example).

PA doesn't answer to Sythe rules at-all and they blatantly scam people. AWH less than 2% of their traffic comes from Sythe(They've posted proof in the past - They don't really give a shit if they get banned - The owner's said so himself) and your going to go after the one site that is actually doing things properly and that cares about Sythe due to our immense ties to this forum(R2 and I both) that we made an agreement with administration before our company even started? Us having that agreement was a CONDITION before R2 and I would even consider entering this market. This agreement was the first thing we did going on 7-8 months ago now.

It would seem you have a hard-on for me with no evidence to back your claims ; which basically makes this suggestion a personal attack against @R2Pleasent and myself for no reason other than you dislike me. You have nothing - NOTHING to show any sort of abuse.

Despite what some think R2 and I run a extremely tight operation(we have to with the accounts industry) and every penny, every account, every claim, every policy is put in place to protect consumers as much as we possibly can while turning a profit in a very high-risk industry.​

 

There have been shifts in the account industry that the public is unaware of. Staff are aware of it. While it has nothing to do with private agreements the old policy is now completely useless. You'll never see it shift back and that's due to shifts in the industry. Not Sythe.

Also you seem to be under a misconception ; If an account is recovered we take a loss. We don't act as middleman. We buy & resell - We pay upfront. It's within our business's interests to protect buyers from recoveries as much as we try to protect sellers. A recovered account means we took a monetary loss(what we paid for the account) AND the buyer will file a dispute/chargeback which does harm to our Paypal & causes chargeback fees & it costs us labor to try to get the account back, and labor to moderate the insurance claim.

So the statement that the buyer is the one that gets screwed is completely incorrect. Infact it's often times more expensive for US than it would be a buyer - We offer insurance which over 90% of our purchases get - So the buyer is actually covered while we still bite all the above damages/costs/losses.

None of you can grasp the complexity's that go into every single account - 20 different games recovery systems - listings - costs - recovery rates - Because you simply don't have the knowledge and experience to understand what a service Acckings provides to the account industry as a whole. It's a miracle that we can offer the terms we do as is. The fact someone hates me so much personally to attack our company that is making HUGE leaps and strides in an industry that's sat stagnant and full of scammers for over a decade is disgusting. OP cares nothing of the 1,000+ users we've already helped. Tons of users(nearly everyone) has had a bad experience with account buying and selling - Yet nobody has in 6 months with us. That alone should tell you we are very - very good for this industry. If there were two people on the planet to make a go at the accounts market I couldn't think of anyone with better skillsets and knowledge than R2 & I. Administration clearly recognized that as-well and so far we have not disappointed in any form.

 

It would.... if your TOS said you refund the buyer the full amount (which it doesnt). Have you read it recently? You give them more credit to use on your site - NOT the same as refunding them lol. Let me give you an illustration.

1. You buy an account from JD for $100.
2. You list the account for sale for $200
3. @video buys the account for $200
4. It gets recovered 50 days later - buyer has not purchased scamsurance
5. You refund buyer $100 in store credit.
6. You have not lost ANY MONEY
7. Buyer has lost $100
8. Buyer has to buy another crap acc at a crap price
9. Buyer is sad
10. @video wishes he bought XRP

Just so you can correctly recall your TOS - let me post it. Past 3 months you don't refund buyers anything.

[removed]

 

You actually don't know what your talking about. I was expecting to have an argument at 4 AM but I'm actually off to bed instead. I actually reported OP and your posts and explained why your arguments/statements don't make sense/are not correct.

You actually don't know what your talking about is apparent lol. You literally don't understand. This is like one of my suggestions from 2014 where I was clueless and just made blind suggestions to see what stuck.

I'm off to bed. You should read up next time on what your talking about as it only makes you look the fool to administration that I tagged.

Also; You might want to be a little bit less obvious about asking your friends to support because if staff check the edit history of Dissolve's comment above you - It said "support" until it was conveniently re-written to avoid being deleted. Coincidence you say? Well how lucky for you!

This entire suggestion is just full of incorrect information to the brim.

Fun fact; The old rules were abolished - The precedence your basing this suggestion on is a precedence I personally created - I was the one who formed the rule to not allow RSPS who don't allow RWT to be on Sythe. Quite ironic that you picked a precedence that you know nothing about that was created by me in an attempt to use against me isn't it? How well do you think that's going to work?

I'll let you stew on just how much bad information is in the thread and the irony that you tried using a precedence(That I made) against me implying that it somehow has relevance to this case or the backstory of where it came from - Which fun fact; It does not!

I would highly suggest reading up on B2C, C2C and account policy's and how account purchasing/trading actually works than try this again. You'll sound less like an idiot than.

 

The difference is that playerauctions doesn’t advertise on Sythe and they’re a peer to peer marketplace which is completely different than what you’re doing.

 

Directly applies

 

This post can be closed if @Sythe ruling stands - which is the correct one. Market threads cannot just link to outside sites. They must adhere to the rules in the section's stickies. They can point out there are more accounts for sale via their signature if they prefer. Signatures are not included in this report.

@video If you agree then please close this

 

We were told by administration that we just needed customers to express their agreement as you said and we were told that this is fine;

Screenshot - 6c88c52c59a713d19b818c23c6655a12 - Gyazo

I trust that this is still acceptable? We require users to checkmark their acknowledgement and agreement of the policies before they can continue with a purchase(it wont let you continue on without doing so). You know that every customer has consented to our terms if they made a purchase as they cant purchase without doing so.

 

Works for me. No our policies are not that one sided. When the agreement was drafted originally it was made to fit within reasonable boundary's of Sythe rules otherwise I would assume admins never would of approved it. Saying we'd never cover recoveries or anything is borderline just us taking advantage of people. We wrote our agreement to try to work with sythe rules as much as possible while still being able to stay profitable.

If that's your stance than I find that completely acceptable. As long as our policies protect us I believe we and @Accountwarehouse can continue operations.

Thank you for not killing our business off in one suggestion.

 

Well it is rather one sided when your refund is non-negotiable store credits (that diminish monthly) on accounts that are marked up often 150-250%, i wouldn't call this a fair refund

but hey, business is business