Regarding last report - Overruling ToS

I urge the highest arbiter of the platform to review this ruling.

We do not believe he supports overruling contract freedom or the direction this decision would take Sythe towards.

1 - Substantive response to the report: Resolved
Our ToS were crystal clear, and Elko explicitly agreed to them. We did not force him to sign anything. What is the point of agreeing to terms if they are later deemed invalid or overruled? The Sythe community is becoming increasingly mature, and we believe users should be held to higher standards when agreeing to contracts rather than being babysat by arbiters. It also makes no sense to allow Elko to walk away from this unscathed, and I have already explained why in our original post.

2 - This ruling will have bad consequences
This narrow interpretation of deposits and the overruling of ToS is strategically unwise. It incentivizes scams by lowering the financial risk scammers face, knowing they are more likely to get their deposits back in cases like this. Decisions like this undermine the integrity of the platform. Please reconsider.

3 - Inconsistency with previous rulings
This decision is not consistent with previous rulings. Similar provisions have been upheld in the past. Overturning the ToS in this case sends a message to users who have written their terms in line with earlier decisions that those efforts were pointless.

4 - Heading towards communism
This decision to overrule the ToS for deposits is yet another example of contract freedom being eroded. Other examples include policies regarding ToS acceptance and recovery policies. I question whether this is the direction Sythe should be heading.

We hope you will take the time to consider these points carefully.

-----------------------------------
Takeaways from the Report:
We were only able to prove these cases of elko faking screenshots not because of negligence but due to technical limitations from external parties. Ticket transcripts are broken, and image links fail to load. We collected over 37,000 pictures from Elko alone. To prevent similar situations in the future, automated screenshots in tickets will be implemented.
This decision carries significant monetary consequences. As a result, we will remove everyone connected to Elko in any capacity. This means that seven people, including Elko, will lose their jobs—jobs they likely depend on. This action is necessary to prevent any current or future associations with him within our operations, since this ruling won't protect our clients at all and we can't risk it.

Collectively, they accumulated:
$57,991.93 & 24,179.20M

Blatantly breaking the ToS, immediately acknowledging the wrongdoing, and repeatedly agreeing to the same ToS hundreds of times should not result in such a lengthy report when the violation is clear from the start.

 

You are firing people who are 'remotely' connected to a guy with one hand then stating how tragic it is on another. This is mildly comical.

 

The facts are you wanted to profit nearly $1500 off of a guys deposit. If it weren't for this ruling you would have run off with $1500 and the people with debts would have never seen a dollar. I think this ruling is good because it stops 'predatory' hiring, a practice which you were clearly implementing.

 

The downfall of MyPVM will be the best thing to happen on Sythe.

Fully agree with Wolf, you pray on the people that need work the most and exploit the people paying for services.

Keeping anywhere near the % you do is just criminal.

Ban & DNT MyPVM for attempted scamming and TOS abuse, that’s the only ruling that should be overturned.

True scum.

 

You make discord servers look so bad as a whole.

To try and play the victim card after you tried to withhold someone's deposit is absolutely wild, you prey on the weak and unfortunately for you on this one elkboy wasn't completely retarded and was able to prove a lot. Otherwise you would have walked off with his deposit laughing, as above said.. you should be DNT / banned for attempting to scam and TOS abusing.


I actually just laughed out loud when I read in the recent violation post...

unreal, 2.0 Runemetrix incoming.

 

After a little bit of thought, given the ruling in the aforementioned post (Resolved | Sell & Trade Game Items | OSRS Gold | ELO) it would appear every single one of the orders put through MyPVM is now due a refund due to their continuous shady business, effectively scamming their own customers (not to mention their workers).

You flew way too close to the sun, thought you were untouchable and by the looks of it, will now face the consequences.

Good riddance, the less of you there are on here the better.

I would advise, urge even, any active workers to cease their own employment before this scum pulls the rug and keeps all their deposits.

 

I've been waiting to put my two cents into this post. But lets be honest her My PVM for some reason why everyone hate you in all honestly i have no idea. Probably because of your success which is in all honesty just weird but understandable.

With that being said this particular case you're 100% in the wrong. Reason being yes the dude was a rat to begin with. But the fact is that I'm 100% sure you asked those people who commented to comment on that post essentially helping. Then you swiftly proceed to ban them for what exactly to get rid of everyone associated with that original posters. Why the hell would you do that if they helped you in the 1st place that just 100% scummy on your part. As an employer you asked several employee to help you and they did and then proceed to fire everyone involved that just shitty treatment.

Also the who argument of you not paying him back the money he owed. And instead of paying it back to the community refund pool do you not see how backwards that is. I believe a counterargument could be used to he was just gonna yoink and walk away with the money. Is a valid precaution however again your own employee came to help then you swiftly banned them from conducting service where they did nothing wrong is 100% scum behavior.

I do believe scyth mods overall was a necessary one. However the way i believe you went to solve this problem was right HOWEVER you did it all the wrong but essentially banning the people who helped you and furthermore you attempted to keep the depo over x amount of scammed money that is just wrong in general but its understandable your way of thinking.

TLDR: you did everything right to prevent the dude from getting the money and possible running away with it and ensuring the people who lend it to him in receiving it back. However your methods of just using your employee and then swiftly banning them afterwards when they did nothing wrong is 100% scummy. And for that alone you should be overruled in disputes like this. Your essentially saying im gonna use whatever in my power to prove me right then proceed to throw those people who did me a favor away.

 

Totally agree with you. The only people complaining are the ones that don't understand how business work and have never run one before.

People only hate you when you're doing better than them. I say keep up the good work, all the best in 2025!

 

We ended up firing only 3 people associated with him, one of whom was his brother. As you know, it's possible to lend a Discord account and have someone else using it. We cannot risk having Elko working for us again through his brother's or friends' accounts.

The "help" was to secure their money (they didn't do us a "favor"), ensuring that the Sythe Mods wouldn't rule in favor of sending everything to Elko, which could have put them at risk of losing the money, and as you can understand we preferred that the money went towards those workers than the rat himself. So yes, we acted to protect their money, but we never promised they would stay.

~ Dário

 

I honestly still don’t understand how Sythe was able to overrule your own business TOS. The tos that the worker AGREED to before working there. If the deposit was truly taken away then it would have been no one’s fault but the workers. He tried to cheat the system, got caught, and should have faced the consequences of his actions. I also don’t get how it’s predatory when all you have to do is the right thing to get your deposit back?


That being said.. I do think the tos is a little harsh and you should only take the deposit if the worker themselves takes something they aren’t suppose to or cause damages to someone’s account.

 

Yeah I'm agreeing with you but the fact at the end of the day the supposed "help" was swiftly fired immediately afterwards do you know see how that is a scummy practice ? Yes you can share discord account but can you see who is playing on what ? Via IP Address therefore seeing if someone is actually doing the services you can proceed to get rid of them the thing u dont understand dario is im agreeing with you but what you did is scummy. Yes we help secure them their money them immediately afterwards we tossed them away because they were no longer needed. The whole scam report made by the guys was 100% wrong but you needed to be overruled. The good part of the report is the original owners got their gp back but you immediately threw them out afterwards that just 100% scummy no matter how you try to pain the picture

 

@TheRusher

I didn’t need the workers' help, but I had to involve them to return the money – not by choice. pikachu required me to do it.


Also it's really not about the money. It's just a water drop in a pool. But when u reach some scale where you can't run on excel sheets anymore (probably 90% don't reach this stage) then you need to have principles and stick to them, but certain people just see one individual unfortunate situation (self caused as well) and believe they know it all - but don't see the big picture.

I also have to stick to what I promised, I can't change the earning percentages whenever it favours me when i agreed to pay x %. If I dropped just 3% less, you’d have enough reports to keep the entire mod team busy for a month.

 

Honestly deserve it just for the scummy 46.5% commission rate ngl, how ratty can u get lmao

 

So many opinions :O

 

I feel like this discussion is heading in the wrong direction. PvM is starting an interesting conversation—one that should have been had already—about the platform’s underlying philosophy. Let’s take a step back and consider the bigger picture please

Regarding (the restriction of) contractual freedom:
Over the past years, we’ve seen an increasing trend where ToS provisions are invalidated or where general rules impose limitations on the scope of ToS.

I'm against this development. On Sythe, we’re dealing with adults who should be capable of understanding ToS and interacting with a similarly competent group. This isn’t a typical B2C environment where one party is a Big Tech giant with information asymmetry, extensive legal resources, and the other is an average consumer. And even if that were the case, one could argue that heavy regulation is neither justifiable nor beneficial for the market.

So, what are these Sythe rules that override ToS meant to achieve? Consumer protection. However, Sythe already has numerous mechanisms to ensure quality, such as vouch threads and reputation systems. Customers can easily research these factors before engaging in transactions. Therefore, imposing restrictions on contractual freedom is unnecessary and excessive, and it will ultimately push larger parties to seek alternatives elsewhere.

To be clear, I’m not fundamentally opposed to regulation. As long as it supports the platform’s efficient functioning, I’m in all for it. That, however, should be the upper limit. For example, rules against market manipulation make sense because, without them, maintaining a healthy, competitive market could become impossible, with users spamming threads and undermining the system.

That's my 2 cents. Have a nice day.

 

Instead of debating whether this thread is the right place for this discussion, it would be far more interesting to hear your stance on regulating ToS versus freedom of contract. I have yet to see a substantive argument on that

 

Most of the stipulations included in the ToS of these so called "services/providers" would be voided by Unconscionability - Wikipedia in most real world scenarios.