TWC Dispute

Reason for TWC: http://www.sythe.org/threads/rsmarkets.2042071/

List of vouches since receiving TWC: 11

​

​

Reasoning/Explanation: So there was a report that called me out to be a seller of duped money. I discovered a dupe recently which I used for personal gain, I told someone that I found an exploit (so he was aware of the risk) and he agreed to trade me some 07 for Runelive gold.

I did not deceive anyone, and this was never my intention. I always tried to follow the rules and was originally planning on just selling the dupe. But I never approached someone and offered them duped money. I would never do this.

So after receiving the report I went throught the rules again and I did not find anything that stated it wasn't allowed. Even then I actually wouldn't do it. I'm still not planning on doing it. So I received a TWC, which for me is a harsh punishment. There was no prior warning or any listing of what I was getting myself into.


The TWC is like a bad smudge on my profile. If I was made aware that I would receive such punishment I would have changed my actions. I would have never gone through with the deal. The legitimacy of my business is far to important to me to ever do something that could affect it negatively.

So here I am disputing the TWC, if it does stay I'd like a reasoning for why it will not be removed. There has never been a deal without the other party being left in the dark.
Never has anyone been deceived in any shape or form.
I'd like your opinion on this.



In the added screenshots you can see that I talked about the exploit and that if the client wanted he could get duped gold.
DO keep in mind that the person who reported me is someone to whom I offered the dupe NOT the duped gold.

 

I personally don't see why this isn't listed explicitly in the rules. It's obviously known from the days of pre eoc where there was that massive duping glitch but those that weren't around in that time wouldn't have known. I'm in support of removal.

 

I was asked to give my opinion on this-

Essentially, RSMarkets has been selling gold at less than half of market rate while also trying to sell a dupe. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that RSMarkets was selling duped gold. (Although, there's no way to be 100% certain about this.)

I spoke with other members of staff in the staff chat before posting on his report, and we all agreed it's fine to sell duped gold as long as customers are warned beforehand. Otherwise, it's a no-no.

I do have to agree with Entrr though; it's not fair to assume that newer users know about the precedent set by the pre eoc dupe, especially since we never wrote it anywhere in the rules. So in that sense, I agree that a TWC is a bit strong and a warning should suffice.

However, I still believe that a TWC should stay because in the report against him, RSMarkets claimed that he hadn't sold any users duped gold. Then, when he found out that it was okay to sell duped gold on sythe as long as customers are given advance warning, he provided me with proof showing that he had in fact warned a customer about the dupe before selling them gold. When I pointed out that he had said he had sold no duped gold in the report against him, he then went on to say that the duped gold he sold was only to people off site. While that may very well be true, it isn't likely just because of how underprice the gold he was trying to sell was. (According to users that contacted me on Skype, gold that should go for 700k-1m 07 per bil was being offered at 180k/bil). As such, the reason I would want the TWC to stay is for the likely lying. However, I'm okay with it being removed if others feel I'm being too harsh.

 

Regardless of the situation, if a user less than 2 weeks old manages to get a TwC on sythe within those weeks, it should remain for some time I would think. And having read this I would vote to keep the TwC

 

Looks like he's banned now, closed.