Clarity on Sythe's Account Selling Rule.

I would like some clarity on the following situation.

Example:

A is selling an RS account to B, A is the original owner of the account.

Account is locked a day later.

A sends a request to get the account unlocked which is denied by Jagex.

What happens in this situation?

I always thought the seller of an account is REQUIRED to get the account unlocked if it's locked, if he or she is unable to get it unlocked than the person who sold the account is required to refund.... am I wrong?

My suggestion is the account selling rule needs to be clearly defined somewhere so there is no grey area.

My suggestion comes from this thread: http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer/1804980-rsjunkie-scammer-will-not-refund.html

Why is the buyer being forced to compromise and take a 50% refund? The two solutions were given only if the account is unlocked, what if its never unlocked?!?

 

Went ahead and updated your title so it reads: Sythe's account selling rule instead of Sythe account selling rule. One is pretty much asking about selling your account

As for this trade in particular I'm not entirely sure why the refund was only 50% of the stated amount. Could possibly be due to confusion in what we thought the account was sold for. I'll get that cleared up.

 

I'd like some clarity on the rule as well. Handling this on a case by case basis won't do.

http://www.sythe.org/sythe-org-support/1806369-so-still-nothing.html

^ Perfect example

 

Unless the owner got the account locked it shouldn't be the owners job to recover it. If the buyer got the account locked then it should be the buyers job to recover the account or he's shit out of luck. There are risks stated everywhere about buying accounts and everyone should know them before doing so. If a buyer intentionally gets an account locked and the seller can't recover it for some reason who would the liability fall on? Should be the buyer yes?

 

As the original owner, it's always been my understanding at least, that you are responsible to unlock the account when needed.

 

Original owner should unlock, due upon request.
Accounts are grey areas, its already stated in stickies how unsafe account trading is.

I think the buyer beware rule that Sythe already has in place is fine. Not msny original owners will want to be part of the unlocking and resolving business, even though ethically they should.

 

That doesn't really seem fair, what if you sell the account to someone who has been botting/otherwise and has a flagged ip so any account bought by them would be locked?

 

Thanks Entrr

As far as I know, only the original account owner can get an account unlocked nowadays.

A person with all the information will not be able to get it unlocked so yes the original account owner should ALWAYS be required to get an account unlocked as a stipulation for selling an RS account.

In this case specifically, RSJunkie says his recovery attempts are being denied, probably because hes either A. Not the original account owner. B. Lying about his attempts.

If he's unable to get his own account unlocked why should the fault fall on the buyer?

That's neither here nor there. A flagged IP wouldn't get an account locked, it'd be banned.

Edit: Why is it that in this case theres an entirely new rule suddenly popping up where the buyer can only get 50% back? In all other cases the seller must get the account unlocked, if he's unable to then a refund or ban needs to be issued.

So, clarification on the rule please?

 

Then it would be banned not locked

 

Also i don't get how people fall for this, went through so many scam reports regarding recovered accounts.

People offer amazing accounts for such a low price, and people expect them not to be recovered I really REALLY don't understand how people are so stupid, there's plenty of accounts up for sale right now for the lowest prices.

People need to understand the fact that the owner of the account probably got cleaned & is looking for quick cash.

 

guess we wont be getting any clarity.

 

I asked a similar question and was told it is handled on a case to case basis. A mod confirmation would be good.

 

2 weeks later?


http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer/1804980-rsjunkie-scammer-will-not-refund-2.html

 

I can post my opinion on the subject of recovery here:

It seems many of you operate under the assumption that once the buyer of an account claims the account has been stolen, the seller is automatically responsible for recovering the account or refunding the buyer. To my understanding this stems from the belief that only the original owner can recover an account.

While it may be true that the original owner has an advantage in recovering an account (geographic location, firsthand experience with account information), it is not true that only the original owner can recover an account. Successful recovery tests done by MMs can serve as examples of non-original owners recovering accounts. Another example can be those that we banned some time ago for recovering very old accounts that they weren't theirs, and those that published guides for doing so. Personally, I know that Jagex's recovery system is largely a crapshoot. Original owners can be denied recovery, non-original owners can have their appeals accepted with little to no proof. The system has always been rather unpredictable.

Now even if it were true that only the original owner could recover an account, I would argue that any staff member need not take action against a seller unless there is proof that damns him. An example of damning proof would be a seller recovering an account and then attempting to resell it. In that case the staff member can ban the user because he is sure the seller is at fault. See here for an example: http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer-archive/1800765-hidden_-reselling-account.html

What seems to be happening should stop: sellers should not be held responsible for refunding or recovering if their buyers merely claim their accounts are out of their possession. Although this might be the easiest way for staff to handle scam reports, it is not fair to the seller and leaves much wiggle room for buyers to scam. Granted, account disputes are difficult to judge fairly because sometimes it's hard to establish who has possession of the account. To remedy that, instead of automatically holding the seller responsible, we all need to be encouraging users to draft their own agreements that enumerate exactly what is expected of the seller/buyer if the account is claimed to be stolen or locked. Then, given proof of those terms, we (staff) can properly mediate between the two parties and help them reach an agreement. But unless there is overwhelming evidence that proves someone is guilty of account scamming, we should not be banning anyone.

The pre-trade agreement mentioned can be quite simple and we can easily throw up a sticky template. If the traders don't list terms beforehand then, as with all scam reports, the buyer needs to prove the seller is at fault and has scammed in order for us to take action.

 

I assume Superman's post was enough clarification.

Not a sugesstion - denied.