Solution

Support

Doesn't look like he's going to bother replying after viewing the thread. User has been banned. Sad kid.

You're quite welcome!

What script was this? I can take a look and see if it does indeed attempt to steal account info. That being said, information in the script selector should be safe.

10/10 would postcount on this thread again

I'm sorry to say, but there's absolutely no way to tell who took the items from the account. It's word vs word with no possible evidence and that's going to waste everybody's time. This is the reason I'm going to close this dispute without taking action towards either party. It's is equally unlikely for either player to have committed the scam and even if that wasn't the case it still wouldn't have been sufficient proof. That being said: Me and @@Decode have been discussing a possible addition to the rules; (Mind you, it's a rough draft that hasn't been through all staff-members yet, but I would like some feedback from the community as well, send me a PM on here or on skype if you feel like I've missed anything, or if you think this is a good/bad idea.) I've been recommending this for ages, and I'm not sure why I haven't brought it up as a rule-draft before, but better late than never. Servicers must receive a password change link before they start the service. The owner of the accounts can obviously still recover the password and regain access to the account in case of anything shady. Once the servicer has set his unique password to the account (which is obviously UNKNOWN to the owner of the account!) both parties mus verify the wealth that is on the account. A simple screenshot should suffice, this will HAVE to be provided as evidence in the case of a dispute. Failure to bring forth this evidence would render the person performing the service 100% liable. The pro(s): 1) It 100% clear who has access to the account at what point in time, and will be no way for either party to talk his way out in the case of a dispute. In this case for example, if Jamez was the only one that knew the password then he would be held accountable for the missing items no matter what. He could be hacked, he could've stolen them, it could've been his cat, but he is the only one with the password and therefore whatever happened would be his fault. 2) Though this is a smaller item it's not something to be overlooked; it'll help with account unbans if the services are botted. It makes it look like the account was hacked, instead of shared. It's obviously speculation, but worth mentioning. The con(s): 1) Effort. The effort might scare away new servicers or customers, even though this would provide additional security for both parties. Unlikely, but something to consider. 2) Workers would still have to know the password. Though this isn't much of a downside, since service owners are responsible for their workers anyways, in the case of a scam it wouldn't be much of a different scenario than one without workers involved. Should this happen, I would have it placed in the Global OSBot TOS. Which means I'd have to spend a year or two updating all service threads etc. but if it helps it'll be well worth the time. If servicers don't want to follow the new guideline we'd hold them accountable in any dispute that's similar in nature to this one. As a reminder; this is just a rough draft that hasn't gone through staff yet. I cannot make any guarantees towards this happening if the majority agrees with this @Solution but I will try my best to make it happen if that's the case.

I'm sorry to say, but there's absolutely no way to tell who took the items from the account. It's word vs word with no possible evidence and that's going to waste everybody's time. This is the reason I'm going to close this dispute without taking action towards either party. It's is equally unlikely for either player to have committed the scam and even if that wasn't the case it still wouldn't have been sufficient proof. That being said: Me and @@Decode have been discussing a possible addition to the rules; (Mind you, it's a rough draft that hasn't been through all staff-members yet, but I would like some feedback from the community as well, send me a PM on here or on skype if you feel like I've missed anything, or if you think this is a good/bad idea.) I've been recommending this for ages, and I'm not sure why I haven't brought it up as a rule-draft before, but better late than never. Servicers must receive a password change link before they start the service. The owner of the accounts can obviously still recover the password and regain access to the account in case of anything shady. Once the servicer has set his unique password to the account (which is obviously UNKNOWN to the owner of the account!) both parties mus verify the wealth that is on the account. A simple screenshot should suffice, this will HAVE to be provided as evidence in the case of a dispute. Failure to bring forth this evidence would render the person performing the service 100% liable. The pro(s): 1) It 100% clear who has access to the account at what point in time, and will be no way for either party to talk his way out in the case of a dispute. In this case for example, if Jamez was the only one that knew the password then he would be held accountable for the missing items no matter what. He could be hacked, he could've stolen them, it could've been his cat, but he is the only one with the password and therefore whatever happened would be his fault. 2) Though this is a smaller item it's not something to be overlooked; it'll help with account unbans if the services are botted. It makes it look like the account was hacked, instead of shared. It's obviously speculation, but worth mentioning. The con(s): 1) Effort. The effort might scare away new servicers or customers, even though this would provide additional security for both parties. Unlikely, but something to consider. 2) Workers would still have to know the password. Though this isn't much of a downside, since service owners are responsible for their workers anyways, in the case of a scam it wouldn't be much of a different scenario than one without workers involved. Should this happen, I would have it placed in the Global OSBot TOS. Which means I'd have to spend a year or two updating all service threads etc. but if it helps it'll be well worth the time. If servicers don't want to follow the new guideline we'd hold them accountable in any dispute that's similar in nature to this one. As a reminder; this is just a rough draft that hasn't gone through staff yet. I cannot make any guarantees towards this happening if the majority agrees with this @Solution but I will try my best to make it happen if that's the case. p.s. copy pasta skype logs are utterly useless as evidence, just saying.

This is something @@ProjectPact would drive

hm for s3 -> gold v before season ends pls

Cuz nexus iz like no solutions here pls move on ty

Cancel via paypal pleb @@Dex @@Maldesto can fix it for u though

Don't play it myself, but I know that NL has made decent appearances in world championships (at least previously) :P

On phone, checked with jonny first was np

User placed in TWC and requested to reply here.

Postcount

Applicable in more than 1 way in this context kthxbai

Well OSBot has contacts with the NSA but I don't know where this guy got this jagex from

I blame the fact you botted. Pretty sure that's what gets u banned but oke.

I'll consider this settled then, I think you can work out any further terms on Skype. Goodluck with the service @@Decode and goodluck with the account once it's all beasted up to you, @@SnowMan

Baited and outsmarted

I shall tax him for these syns.

I think the entire deal of giving somebody is budget is that you expect somebody to use that money. If he told you he would need 30m in supplies and you didn't like that, you should've told him that in advance or not gone ahead with the service. It would've been nice to know 'exactly' what he spend it on, but I would hardly call that a responsibility for the servicer. That being said, I do understand where you're coming from by saying you feel like your build isn't what it should have been. The issue therein is that you're both at fault, though you more than Decode. If you really cared that much about the build you would've given him stricter guidelines of what quests would be (im)possible to complete. All it would've taken to prevent this entire thing was telling decode 'Please don't level my attack' and that would've been that. All of those experienced in running a questing service will have some idea of what quests are efficient to complete in order to gain the QP requirement, obviously taking into account the user-requested ones (in your case; DT, Lunars and King Ransom.) In this case, specifically, I can hardly blame decode for doing what he did. He delivered the service exactly as you specified it. In different circumstances (such as a 1 defence pure, or a zerker as you mentioned) it would be more obvious what stats to keep and which ones are free to train, but unless you clearly specified Decode not to train attack I don't see how we can blame him for any of this. That leaves one more thing to address; your fear of opening a dispute because of his position. While I can imagine where this is coming from, I'd like to stress that we don't treat the staff team any differently than any random greyname . I'm just throwing this out there because I don't want people to feel like we're biased towards any members. I personally don't find Decode responsible for getting you the aforementioned 75 attack, if he were to agree to this it'd be out of kindness and as an apology, but I don't see how he should be forced to perform this as a form of 'refund'.

*panic votes*

Goodbye and hope to see ya around!