RuneScape Account Recovery Procedure

People have posted above saying recovery is definitely possible by B.

 

Meteor proved it's not possible. Jagex has been going by IP recoveries for a while now.

I'd love for anyone to prove me otherwise, although I don't know how they can.

 

In circumstances where the original owner has moved IP/ISP they're still able to recover it; so if they know the original owner's IP then what's the difference.

 

I'd say it depends on various things.

1. Is that IP still being played on different accounts in the same location

2. Has the ISP reassigned the IP to a different location

3. The length of the time stamp difference between the new ISP/IP

I'm sure these are taken into account if you did in fact moved and if you're able to prove it. They continuously change the process and requirements of account recoveries, but one thing is for sure, the original owner can always recover the account. I remember being able to recover accounts that didn't belong to me long ago, but that doesn't seem to work for many as of now. We will never be able to definitively determine what is what, but the best we can do is use the knowledge that is widely known to be true and base the cases off of that. Or.. You can just eliminate account reselling from being a thing.

Bleh..

 

Personally, I've always been against the process of reselling accounts.

I mean, unless you explicitly trust the seller and are okay with being liable in the case of him recovering it, you just shouldn't do it.

Accounts get recovered way to often, and reselling makes it one confusing bunch.

Plus, resellers would basically be overpaid account trade middlemen. (as they can easily double the value of an account if they're well vouched). Many wouldn't realise that the fact that this user is selling the account means very little, as the original owner is unknown to them.

 

Implement a market ban - user B who resold the account gets market banned due to the report of user C. User B recovers the account for user C, or refunds user C. [depending if user C wants account or not - I'm assuming not].
If user B is unable to recover account , they must accept liability that they have to refund C without receiving the account.
It is then their own job to contact user A and explain the situation and attempt to recover the account, thing I don't see how it'll work if user A inthe first place did not agree to the account being unsold, and should they be forced to recover the account? - what if user A cannot recover the account? What if user A recovered the account in the first place knowing it had been sold?
What if user C just wanted a refund for the account he bought and still has access to it?
^ B takes liability for all that, if theres valid proof that C [the account was never recovered] or A [recovered the account] then they get banned.
Other than that as an account re-seller you have to understand that what you're doing offers you no compensation without sufficient proof.

 

Also here is a message I got whilst trying to recover an account I bought that was recovered by OO.
http://gyazo.com/213cd5d1895a288252fcfbda366fe8a8
^ I'm assuming that means information is correct however the IP mismatches, I didn't take it further only made a loss of 20m but the time I had the account, I had previously managed to recover the account once, using the same information.
I believe they flag accounts as "stolen and being sold" and then from then on they review each account personally, whereas if its being recovered with correct information from a random IP but the account isn't flagged, they have no reason but to give the account to the person with the correct information. [provided the accounts Ip have changed].

 

Situation:

A sell to B, Sells to C, C loses account.

1. C is to contact B and get full refund. If B refuses, Ban B.
2. If B accuses A of recovering it, B must contact A to refund, If A Refuses to help recover, Ban A.
3. If A can provide FULL Proof ( Emails, Social media postings etc) that he is trying to recover the account for B and gets the account back, that's great for B.
4. If A is unable to get the account back, but still provides FULL proof he tried (Emails, Social media postings etc) Then unfortunately B is still liable.
5. If A cannot provide substantial proof that he is trying everything he can do to get the account back, Ban A.

I do not believe A should be held accountable if the account has been resold from the initial Buyer. but i do believe A should do everything in his power to get the account back. But after so long as we know, 1,2,6 months down the road. Things can be much more difficult, as long as A can provide substantial proof he is trying his best, i don't believe he should be held accountable for Person B's sell.

 

Reasonable, but what if C "loses control" of the account by having sold it to D? Then C is rightfully liable, but both A and B are at risk of a ban and may have to refund C. So it's a win-win for C and a loss-loss for A/B.

 

Well, it should have to work in effect of how it would be with A-B-C Instead now there is A-B-C-D Therefor removing A Leaving B-C-D

D would contact C to refund and/or recover, and then if C couldn't C would contact B to assist in recovering. Now B would have the same obligation as A did in our previous scenario. Trying EVERYTHING possible to get the account back ( Which in terms would mean him contacting Seller A)

 

But if D is the new owner of the account and A/B don't know that it's been resold (C claims "I lost control!" but really just resold it and never told anyone), there is a problem.

 

I mean there is always going to be a what-if, But from a general standing i think my idea would work, i mean if you looked at it your way, i mean A/B could still recover it, and sooner or later player D is going to post somewhere on the forums with proof the purchased from C. and then C gets banned, and player A or B whom ever recovered it, can give it back to D

 

Yeah, but in actuality, this happens VERY often. Especially when player "D" is actually just an alt for player C, who's a serial scammer :/

 

Honestly, when you get into long buy/sell chains regarding account re-sales there's no 'one way fits all' solution. I can't see anything working except stopping account re-selling.

Couldn't you keep it simple, as though if you sell the account you bear the responsibility if the person you bought it off scams/doesn't refund?

Eg: If A scam recovers / refuses to recover B is liable (Ban A, add a debt for A to repay B). Then if B refuses to refund / doesn't respond, C is liable (Ban B, add a debt for B to repay C). Etc?

Pretty much just the responsibility of having to trust the person you bought it off. If you don't trust the person, you don't buy the account off them. Simple?...

 

Should just have users accept the liability of being involved in an account sale.

 

Makes a lot of sense to me, and this was the original suggestion among staff members. We could do like a "gate" sort of thing... if A sells to B sells to C and it gets recovered, B is banned. If B can show proof of not having access, A is banned, and if someone refunds C, they are unbanned. Thoughts?

The risk here is that the account gets sold like 8 times, and it eventually works its way back to someone who sold it years ago getting banned, but I think this is unlikely.

 

Yeah, in that case you could just go through the chain. It's ultimately A's responsibility to recover it, and if they don't that responsibility for repayment can just go A -> B -> C -> D etc until someone pays it. If you're buying accounts off new members and reselling them under your own reputation you should take responsibility for that IMO.

Few situations:

1) B charges back on A & recovers from C. A gets the account back and C is out of pocket / has no right to the account due to B's chargeback on A. B has unpaid debts to C.
2) B charges back on A and doesn't recover the account. Not too sure what to do here as it's somewhat bad judgement of your buyer, but at the same time you have the security of being able to recover as counter-scam (which gets awkward when it's resold to C)...
3) B doesn't charge back on A but does recover the account from C. A recovers the account and gives it to C. Nothing is lost and B is banned if they refuse to co-operate.

Whoever is proven to have recovery scammed the account is banned regardless of outcome and should pardon. It's a scam the same as any other at the end of the day.

 

Had this exact situation. Where A sold to B, and B sold account to C and recovered it . A was me ( original owner).
Not sure what retarded mod read player B's recovery attempt tho, because all he literaly told them was that he moved house.
He also gave 3 previous passwords and creation month/year (which can be easily calculated, via hans ingame)
The mod accepted the recovery attempt, even tho he shouldn't have.
It depends which mod reads your recovery attempt i guess.

Note : i did not change isp/!move houses


I think reseller (player B) should be held responsible, unless he can prove that player A recovered it.

 

Going through the chain is how we've been doing it, but there's no way to prove you DONT have access. Or if you do have access, how are we to know if you're just saying you don't.

A sells to B
B sells to off-site C, by extension B no longer has access
B reports A
B, having no access, is entitled to a refund from A - now has double the account worth

Swings and roundabouts with no clear way to call it.

 

You maybe also should add, User C may still be in ownership of the account, but is claiming it is hacked when it is still in their possession. Trying to get a refund / free account off the back of user B/A's reputation.

In some scenario's it can be difficult for even user A depending on circumstances of first account sale and therefore difficult to recover once user B or C has added billing info etc to the account that User A doesn't have.

the main issue is in account re-sales.