Make it so people have to agree with TOS

[Flipora]

I saw someone else's suggestion talking about reviewing TOS, and I don't think that is practical. What I do think is practical is you have to show the buyer the TOS and have them verbally agree to it. This way, the buyer actually sees your TOS instead of it being in your signature.


EDIT: It is the same way in law, you are not allowed to have a TOS that you just passively agree to, the customer actually has to agree to it.
(this is https://www.nextadvisor.com/how-enforceable-are-terms-of-service-agreements/ btw)

 

[Maddy]

I think that you should be able obliged to agree.

However, with certain terms like Maddy "if the product doesnt work, I don't have to replace it" (basically what his says) I think that this is unfair.

Not even close to what I have:
“
All codes are checked prior to the transaction, So if you claim it's invalidated we will have proof.
“

 

[Zyger]

If it's on a thread and shown clearly that by dealing with them they agree to the ToS stated in it, then it should be fine imo.

Having to copy and paste the ToS to every single customer would quickly become tedious, and it would also waste a lot of time as well if they're only online for a limited amount of time.

 

[Ally]

You admitted to saying that, I have pics

You've moved beyond the scope of the suggestion at hand. Maybe take that off the thread?

Pettiness aside, as long as the TOS in the thread doesn't violate MCM's, I'm pretty sure it's okay. With that being said, there should be restrictions as to what the TOS can have (saying that you have no responsibility over anything in the deal is a straight up lie -- of course you have responsibility in the transaction, because if you scam or deceive, that's on you & not the victim. It's a bit of a grey area because people should be entitled to refunds should an account get pulled which is outside of the victim's control; but at the same time, there will always be risks).

 

[Flipora]

I think that you should be able obliged to agree.

However, with certain terms like Maddy "if the product doesnt work, I don't have to replace it" (basically what his says) I think that this is unfair.

In most contexts I agree, but basically if they say that just run them down. That’s what I do.
“Why do you have that in your TOS”
“So you don’t own the account”
“So you’re saying it’s not a safe account”
Make them admit it’s theirs and if it is say then take it out of the TOS for this deal.

Also like they said earlier on the other thread you can’t really enforce what’s in a TOS that takes way too long, but you can at least make it do the buyer has to agree with the TOS[DOUBLEPOST=1565799240][/DOUBLEPOST]

If it's on a thread and shown clearly that by dealing with them they agree to the ToS stated in it, then it should be fine imo.

Having to copy and paste the ToS to every single customer would quickly become tedious, and it would also waste a lot of time as well if they're only online for a limited amount of time.

I figured sellers would argue this point, however: in my opinion, if you want to force a rule on someone, you have to put the effort into actually telling them the rule. It isn't fair to make the other person have to read the TOS every time and sift through your posts and signature to try to find it, when all you have to do is have it on a sticky note and paste it in. There is a certain point where laziness isn't okay, and I think copy and pasting one thing per sale is very fair if you are making someone agree to it. Putting it on your thread or in your signature or in a spoiler ISNT showing it clearly, that is the whole problem. You could even just say "you agree with my TOS that's in my signature right?", just as long as they actually agree with your TOS.

You've moved beyond the scope of the suggestion at hand. Maybe take that off the thread?

Pettiness aside, as long as the TOS in the thread doesn't violate MCM's, I'm pretty sure it's okay. With that being said, there should be restrictions as to what the TOS can have (saying that you have no responsibility over anything in the deal is a straight up lie -- of course you have responsibility in the transaction, because if you scam or deceive, that's on you & not the victim. It's a bit of a grey area because people should be entitled to refunds should an account get pulled which is outside of the victim's control; but at the same time, there will always be risks).

I'm saying the exact opposite. That is an AMAZING idea, I agree, but it is just unenforceable. Staff don't have time to go through everyone's TOS and read it (especially if its hidden in one of your threads or your signature), the simple solution is just to have to present it to the buyer so if there is something stupid the buyer can call you out on it.

 

[Flipora]

I really believe in this suggestion. Is there any way to get it looked at by more people?

 

[doodle]

I really believe in this suggestion. Is there any way to get it looked at by more people?

A merchant should not be required to have a Terms & Conditions page/spoiler. If a customer wants to purchase something, they can ask for any fine print or hidden things they may not know about, or ask for the TOS of that specific deal before dealing.

 

[Flipora]

A merchant should not be required to have a Terms & Conditions page/spoiler. If a customer wants to purchase something, they can ask for any fine print or hidden things they may not know about, or ask for the TOS of that specific deal before dealing.

You're kidding right? That's even worse than I thought. If you don't have a TOS page / spoiler, you don't have a TOS, period. You can't just make them ask for TOS and even though its not public everyone is held to it. You're one step below what I thought most sellers were at. At that point, its not an opinion, its a fact. Your TOS doesn't exist if you don't put it anywhere, people don't have to ask for TOS.

I'm talking about more keeping it accessible. Most sellers keep it in their signature or on a spoiler on their thread. The reason that this responsibility should fall on the seller is it is what the seller and only the seller wants. You don't have to have a TOS, you chose to make a TOS to protect yourself, so you should have to actually show that TOS to the buyer if you are going to be able to enforce it.

 

[doodle]

You're kidding right? That's even worse than I thought. If you don't have a TOS page / spoiler, you don't have a TOS, period. You can't just make them ask for TOS and even though its not public everyone is held to it. You're one step below what I thought most sellers were at. At that point, its not an opinion, its a fact. Your TOS doesn't exist if you don't put it anywhere, people don't have to ask for TOS.

I'm talking about more keeping it accessible. Most sellers keep it in their signature or on a spoiler on their thread. The reason that this responsibility should fall on the seller is it is what the seller and only the seller wants. You don't have to have a TOS, you chose to make a TOS to protect yourself, so you should have to actually show that TOS to the buyer if you are going to be able to enforce it.

Sorry, I thought it was clear as a joke, I'll add a winky face so people know it's a joke

 

[Flipora]

Sorry, I thought it was clear as a joke, I'll add a winky face so people know it's a joke

Oh lol, sorry.

 

[doodle]

Oh lol, sorry.

No worries, I realized it could be easily misconstrued.

 

[Flipora]

No worries, I realized it could be easily misconstrued.

I would have known it was a joke but some people on this site are seriously self centered and lazy so that is not totally out of reach for someone on this site

 

[Harry]

In a situation where one party hasn't provided on their side of the deal, I think we can all agree that terms such as "Refunds will not be given" are quite unjust. There's actually a term in contract law for this, called unconscionability ("Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power.").

I cannot speak on behalf of scam resolvers, so this is, of course, my own opinion; for a TOS to be enforceable, it must be clearly presented to the user, and they must explicitly agree to it (no - "you agreed to it when you did a deal with me").

Further, the terms of a TOS actually have to be reasonable for both parties.

What I do think is practical is you have to show the buyer the TOS and have them verbally agree to it.

From my understanding, this is already how TOSs are enforced within scam reports; unreasonable terms aren't usually enforced either.

 

[Flipora]

From my understanding, this is already how TOSs are enforced within scam reports; unreasonable terms aren't usually enforced either.

Oh. Well, I look like an idiot now, don't I?

 

[Mick]

From my understanding, this is already how TOSs are enforced within scam reports; unreasonable terms aren't usually enforced either.

Indeed. We only uphold terms within a TOS that are within reason. Justis has been working on a standardised agreement explaining the default terms implied when you are transacting on the site, which I believe he will be requesting more feedback on in the coming weeks.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.