The shop has been closed. Thank you for reporting this.

Sorry for the late reply, I didn't get the notification that said that the shop was reported and I just found out now when someone informed me. I've checked with other mods and shop owners before and I know for a fact that selling subscriptions and providing free advertisements is NOT against the rules. Furthermore, we do NOT sell or offer upvotes under any circumstances since we are very well aware that it is against the rules. Most shops do this and don't get reported since it does not violate the rules. This is the fourth time we have been reported for the same issues and I have no idea if it's the same reporter but please stop harassing my shop. Please re-open the shop as we have not violated any rules. I hope to see your prompt response.

As you can see here, it is not against the rules to sell subs: https://www.asianfanfics.com/flag/view/7128
For the free advertisements, I haven't got the evidence with me right now since that report was removed by the mod but I can assure you that the case was closed since we have never ever been selling upvotes and I was also told that I did not break the rules. But since it caused enough trouble for the shop to receive four reports, I'll just have to take away the free advertisements.
I will be waiting for the shop to be re-open. We have many satisfied customers and it was them who worriedly informed me when they couldn't access the shop anymore. I don't want to let them down.

Okay, me again. I just read the report more carefully now and I see that I'm being accused of "providing free advertisements for users that upvote author's personal stories". Again, untrue. We were providing free advertisements for customers that COMMENTED on the stories and the upvotes were all completely optional to the author and did not affect their free advertisements AT ALL. Feel free to ask all the staff members and customers because they will back up my word.

The report you are referring to is outdated. We discussed this specific case among the active moderators and administrator and agreed that your shop, while it does not sell upvotes, does break the Terms of Use. By requesting upvotes as payment, you are effectively breaking the following:

You warrant and agree that, while accessing or using the Service, you will not:
- use the Site or its features and services in any manner that could interrupt, damage, disable, overburden or impair the Site or interfere with any other party's use and enjoyment of the Site, including, without limitation, spamming, pinging, “flooding” servers with requests, mail bombing and piracy of software;

In this case, it is specifically the "interfere with any other party's use and enjoyment of the Site". After correlating upvotes on a featured story by your co-author, we found that many of them where users who have used your shop. As such, the shop was not closed for selling upvotes, but for buying them.

I do NOT request upvotes as payment at my shop. The only forms of payments accepted are karma points or in the case of the free ads, comments. Those users were asked ONLY to comment on my co-author's stories and they were not, I swear on everything, under any circumstances, asked to upvote so all those upvotes from the users who are my customers were WILLINGLY done by themselves. There are thousands of people who use the services of Mystic Multi-Shop and just because they requested at my shop and also happened to upvote my shop and/or the stories of my co-authors really does not mean anyone was buying upvotes. I personally upvote many stories but that's because I like them, not because I was paid to. Please understand that we never bought upvotes from anybody and we never asked or forced anyone to upvote any stories.
My staff and I are completely innocent and there are many users asking me what happened to the shop so seeing that you are impartial, I must ask you to re-open the shop as I have not done what I'm being accused of. Furthermore, even though the free ads were asking only for comments and NOT for upvotes, I removed the free ads anyway so that this misunderstanding won't happen again.

In conclusion, I have been doing advertisements ONLY in exchange for karma points and for comments. Nothing else. Not for subscriptions, not for blog posts and definitely not for upvotes. That is completely untrue and I have explained the misunderstanding.

The moderators and administrator have discussed this matter again; as your shop has been used to cheat the system in the past by providing one upvote to x number of stories by x number of authors and have those authors provide x number of upvotes to one of your co-authors' fanfictions, resulting in said fanfiction being featured, we stand by our decision to close the shop.

I'm sorry but I don't understand the decision at all. We have not cheated the system in any way and we have not been offering or asking for upvotes... All we did was offer free advertising in exchange for constructive comments on some stories and no fake upvotes were offered or asked for and this advertising has already been taken away due to the misunderstandings. I have already explained this earlier. If what I was being accused of were true then I would accept the decision but I can't since this report is based solely on misunderstandings. If the mods or the reporter had solid proof, it would be a just and fair decision but this decision seems to be made solely on assumptions. Furthermore, the said fanfiction's feature had nothing to do with our shop. We have never ever contributed to any features nor helped anyone become featured as that has nothing to do with our shop's services. We always follow the rules and I can't see why this shop was closed just because of the reporter's false claims which are not supported by evidence and the mods' assumptions which also have no evidence.

I really am still waiting for solid proof to back up these false claims because I have been wrongfully accused and my shop has been closed based on incorrect assumptions. I'm basically being told "This shop has similar subscribers and upvoters with some random stories including featured ones" and that is really not sufficient evidence that I buy and sell upvotes which I repeat, I definitely DO NOT and NEVER HAVE.

After bringing this report to the admin and other moderators once again, we are still in agreement that your conduct in the shop was against the Terms of Use, specifically:

You warrant and agree that, while accessing or using the Service, you will not:
- use the Site or its features and services in any manner that could interrupt, damage, disable, overburden or impair the Site or interfere with any other party's use and enjoyment of the Site, including, without limitation, spamming, pinging, “flooding” servers with requests, mail bombing and piracy of software;

By selling (and buying) upvotes and subscribers, you interfered with the natural flow of upvotes and subscriptions, both of which are things that you can choose to sort stories by. As this is a function, you are actively manipulating how stories are shown on the page. However, as not everyone seems to have understood that selling and buying upvotes and subscriptions fall under this part of the Terms of Use, we have added a line in section 11 to make it more clear:

- exchange votes or subscriptions for a good or service for the purpose of manipulating content search rankings.

Therefore your shop will remain closed and any shop you open that offers upvotes or subscriptions will be closed, cf. the Terms of Use.

But that line was added AFTER this report was made. Is that still valid?

Users are responsible for conducting themselves in a manner conducive to site policy and Terms of Use (TOU) at all times and do not need to be notified of changes made to those policies. In the case of previous reports that have been overturned, it is because the violation was removed in accordance with the TOU, not because the violation was made prior to a change in TOU or site policy.

Additionally, that line was added to clarify an already existing line in the Terms of Use as many users seem to misunderstand it. The rule has always been there, now it is just made explicitly clear so no more confusions should arise from it.