RuneScape Account Recovery Procedure

How should account recoveries be dealt with when the user isn't the original owner for the fairest outcome?

User A (the OO) should be responsible for recovering the account. Accounts are incredibly easy to recover from the home IP, and even if the person has moved, they should have the most extensive knowledge.

Should the re-seller take the risk of the account being recovered since they are using their reputation to sell the product?

This is trickier. I will list two scenarios

Scenario I: Person B is now selling the account. They do NOT inform Person C that the account is being resold, and does not mention that Person A could be some April 2015 Newcomer.
-Person B should be held responsible for the wealth (if provided proof) on the account if Person A decides to scamquit.

Scenario II: Person B has publicly posted that they are not the Original Owner, and provide proof of their vouch/thread where they bought the account. Person B informs Person C that the Original Owner always has that possibility of recovering the account.

Person B should not be held reliable. He has informed Player C of this situation, and therefore Player C should be responsible for deciding how much wealth to put onto the account.

What proof would you say solidly proved an account was recovered?

Immediately after email recovery, a message shows when trying to log in "We suspect the account has been stolen" or something similar. A gif or video of this, along with the information in a skype chat is 100% proof that the account is in the process of being recovered back.

Other proof includes invalid passwords combined with name changes, emails from jagex for confirming emails to show ownership etc.

Lastly, non-responses and Skype deleted contacts is basically hard proof that the guy is dropping communication with you, which should be worth something.

I havent seen someone provide a false scam report for the "Scammer" recovering an account in my time here on Sythe and Powerbot, and I don't really understand why anyone would other than they had the account banned and want to try getting some money out of their failure.

 

I once bought an account, had it stored away for years before the email registration process, and then recovered it. Back then I lived in Germany and now I live in USA. If there are more than two recovery attempts, then Jagex pays more attention to the IP's of the recoverers. If there is only one, then they are more lenient.

 

If someone is reselling an account for which they are not the original owner, then they should be held responsible for any problems that occur with the account. Otherwise, it makes it too easy for account sellers to absolve themselves of any responsibility for an account being recovered simply by claiming that they are not the original owner and that the OO recovered it.

I believe that an account lock is a 99% positive indication that a recovery request was submitted for the account and/or it was reported as stolen. I don't think Jagex really locks accounts anymore except in cases of drastic IP changes (i.e. jumping halfway across the globe), but I could be mistaken on this.

I was able to successfully recover an account for which I was NOT the original owner on one occasion. However, when I tried to recover the same account using the same details that resulted in a successful recovery before, it was denied and I was instead sent this message: http://i.imgur.com/8gSsEdt.jpg. It's doubtful that someone who is not the original owner will be able to recover an account more than once.
(For the record, these recoveries were part of a counterscam and I was given the go-ahead by an admin, just in case someone wants to report me...)

 

I gave someone all the answers to the recovery questions on my old account and they managed to recover it, so as long as the info is accurate there should be no problem. (that was in november or december) Although it wasn't recovered only locked, it shouldn't be too much of a difference.

Also in roarys example the password would remain the same if the account is only locked and not recovered, So trying to log into rs would result in telling you either the account is locked or incorrect password.

The reseller should be held accountable, if they don't have enough faith in the person they purchased it from, they shouldn't be reselling in the first place.

 

Changing the rules allows people with a degree of trust to buy accounts off randoms and sell them huge profit and elude all responsibility. It's god disaster written all over it.

 

There is a huge difference if it was locked and not recovered. As explained in the post right above your own. I can give (and already have) all information about my account, including payment information with the ending digits of my debit card, and the account recovery was still in fact unsuccessful. It's not hard to acquire the account information of some people if they have a dox on them, or have been hacked. I'd like to see someone display proof of this otherwise. I think account security and account trading are big reasons for the "lockdown" if you want to call it that, on accounts only being recovered by the original owner. This simple methodology is so effective, it's hilarious.

 

I bought an account a few years back, with amazing stats.
The original owner gave me all the information there was about the account.
He also gave me access to his email and stuff like that.
The way he gave it to me was like this:
He had me submit a recovery with all the details he gave me, and had me state in the recovery that I had moved house a month ago.
Whenever I try to recover my account, I always get it back, because Jagex assumes that I am the original owner.
The actual original owner was from USA Colorado, while I live somewhere close to Amsterdam in the Netherlands, yet I am always able to recover my account.

 

Just wanted to add that this would cut a lot of market activity and one of the main markets on the forums, I don't think that's a good idea.

I think you misinterpreted! A simple picture of a lock screen could be from Google, etc.

So what actual proof should be submitted? Would it have to be a video, etc?

 

Oh sorry, in that case I think a simple video should be more than enough proof that an account is locked. But beyond this phase, it might be hard to prove that an account has been unlocked and recovered because one can just enter an incorrect password.

I remember reading about one scam report that can prove recovery of an account in certain cases:

 

If an accounts resold the first seller should be removed from liability entirely but if the person recovers the account back from who it was sold to he becomes liable. This should be kept on a case by casr basis not everything needs to have a rule surrounding it and situations can change what if 3 parties becomes 6? After its changed hands so many times it can become difficult for the original owner to recover it back. Why not look into ways to assist in securing accounts rather than creating a rule to try to regulate it or ways to promote safer trading with accounts even if it cuts activity in the sections and people will find ways to manipulate rules by putting blame on others and getting away with it. Video was very good at reselling accounts and he never came to me to recover the account after as he was most likely able to recover it if he had to.

 

You shouldn't be able to dodge any liability by saying you're not the OO. If you get into the clusterfuck of account reselling, you should be the one who has to deal with it when it falls apart. Should OO's be given the choice to state that their accounts should not be resold, and if they are the reseller would be banned? Seems only fair.

Say A sells the account to B.
B resells the account to C.
B manages to recover the account from C and charges back their payment from A.

If the account had not been resold, A would have probably had the opportunity to recover the account back as a counter-scam, but due to the account being resold they must now give it back to C. The reseller effectively took away any sense of security that trusted members have that they won't be scammed by the person they sell their account to.

I'm personally against the whole idea of A being at all liable when an account is resold. Investigated to ensure they weren't the one recovering it sure, but not instantly liable. A newcomer could buy and resell an account, then recover it and voila, they've scammed a trusted member indirectly. That's a rather large hole in the market if it becomes abused.

Also, I don't think people should be allowed to state who the original owner is. Eg: Roary sells me an account which I resell. I state "Sythe Administator Roary is the original owner of this account". It adds a sense of trustworthiness from the original owner being able to recover it for you, even though the focus should be on the reseller.

 

Why not just not allowing sales where you are not the original owner of the account or if you are a reseller state that you will be 100% liable if account is recovered.

 

The issue is we don't know who recovers it

 

Brb gonna make sure to sell an account that passes between sellers at least 3 times before recovering it.

No one is seeing that

A's recovery caused B to scam quit putting ME out of like $40 worth of gold which is nothing but I thought at least someone with 15+ vouches would be trustworthy enough to the point where I'd know I'd get a refund if anything happened.

 

Bumpd

 

A tricky situation. However, in the end, if A sells to B and then B sells to C, I don't believe A should be held responsible. B took full responsibility by selling to C.

For example Roary, if I sold you a stolen phone, and you went to sell it to the pawn shop and it ends up being stolen; who are they gonna come after? Not really the fairest way, but it's the responsibility that you assume when you are selling the account. However, I do believe person A should be required to at least try to help C out by trying to get the account back to the best of their abilities (9/10 times successful)\


EDIT: Your personal opinions @ OP Roary?

EDIT 2: I believe a picture would not be enough proof for reasons already stated by you, I think it should be screen shared by a high ranking member (i.e Mod/Global/Admin)

 

But then A could sell a buttload of accounts and recover them all back and not be responsible. There's no fair to do it.

 

So you're saying the moment an account switches two hands then its you're completely off the hook and at that point you can recover the account and completely screw over B.

 

Not exactly, I knew my response might be misconstrued, hence why I said a sticky situation. For example, what if in this case: A sells to B, then B sells to C- B recovers and screws C and A can not recover, is it really fair to then ban A because (s)he can not? Although most of the time (like I stated earlier and many others have) the OO is usually able to recover, but in the off chance (s)he couldn't, does (s)he deserve to be banned (if (s)he can provide sufficient proof that (s)he can not recover)?

I'm not saying A is off the hook, but if B resells I believe (s)he then assumes full responsibility for the account safety, as A did when (s)he sold it to B. If A is then asked to help recover and can not and refuses to record a video or share screens with a mod/admin, then obviously it was A.

I know I haven't been here too long, but personally I think the current system should stay in place; however in the long run, it's up to the staff to decide. I will check back on this thread to continue & try to stay up to date on it. Any responses with criticism (good or bad) is welcome and I'll try to reply to anyone who responds to me to further talk about it.

 

B cannot recover the account as b is not the original owner, A is. The only person who can recover the account is A. With enough information given to B by A, the most B can do is lock the account.