Change account sale system.

If it was originally sold for $400 and then resold for $500 and user C wants a refund for their purchase price, its not fair to user A or C to make them make up that difference.

Keeping the chain intact means that everyone comes out the same as they went in.(Except the OO is out an account, but thats a different story in regards to risk of selling accounts)

No support.

 

Basically asking to change the whole infrastructure of Sythe; the main point of your argument being that OO should be responsible for others' account sales. If I sell a car irl, and they sell it to another individual, am I responsible for the wear and tear it incurred when buyer B was using it? While User A should be responsible for providing all necessary information and so forth,the account is no longer their responsibility as they handed control to another user (aside from the fact that OO can always recover accounts).

I understand what you mean when you say that if it gets locked, banned, recovered, etc, that User A is responsible, but I do not think that would work in every and all instance, such as botting. If User B botted and then sells it to User C who bots or does not bot and gets a delayed ban regardless due to User B botting, User A is not responsible. Now, ofc, if it's recovered by User A then they should be responsible.

System that could work, but I think it would require too much to be changed and just wouldn't work with how Sythe already is.

 

Should it not state in the ToS, for example, the original owner says you are not allowed to sell the account after purchasing it for me - and if this is violated, the OO is not responsible for said recovery?

 

Nope, never gunna happen EVER. If you have the audacity to resell an account that you bought off someone, which is against RS rules keep in mind, and you want to sell it to someone else part of the responsibility if not all of it should be on you, the OO might have information, but that doesn't mean they deserve full responsibility for your inability to keep an account.

 

It doesn't work like this, you refund in the order you sold it. User A > B > C.

B would refund C, A would refund B. There are NO good ways to handle account sales because someone will always get burned. Currently, account sellers basically act as banks since the buyer is always entitled to a refund. You can see where the frustration lies. We can't protect the seller and say "after 1 year the account is your responsibility" because that would mean account sellers can just recover their accounts 1 year later and with no punishment. By saying that, we also open up the loophole to where User B can sell the account to User C and then claim the account was hacked, thus forcing user A to recover it and scamming User C. Its a mess.

Account sales will never be fair, so long as everyone is aware of that, its the best that we can do.

 

It just sounds like the person who sold the account to user B
for $400
User B sells it to C for $300
User A only has to give user C $300 back instead of $400 because thats all user C paid
Dont we only require people to refund what the person filing a report paid?(User C)?
If Im reading this suggestion right, if User A sells an account to user B for $400-> User B wants to get rid of the account so User B sells the account to user C for $300-> The account gets recovered and User A has to refund(?) User A should have to refund $300 vs $400 as thats all user C paid?


If so, I support because I cant imagine why we are doing something else...?

I don't understand what the people commenting above me mean or if they don't understand the suggestion, this is just making it so the OO(User A) has to repay what user C paid to B, User C isn't out any money, they still get a full refund from user A, but if User A sold it to B for $400, B sold it to C for $300, A only owes C a $300 refund(what they paid to B) vs what A sold it to B for($400). So C ends up with a full refund and A still ends up $100 ahead(Unless he's banned for recovering it) and B ends up with his $300.

What exactly is the issue with this suggestion?

@Andy Samberg @Bryan what the two of you posted makes no sense to me so either I misunderstood whats being suggested or you did.

 

Third option, you apparently didn't understand what I posted.

You just said the same thing I said with different numbers lol.

If user A sell account for $400 to user B and then user B sells to user C for $500. Then what ABM suggests would force either user A to refund $100 more than he sold it for or user C would have to take a $100 loss. Either way is unfair.

"Keeping the chain intact means that everyone comes out the same as they went in.(Except the OO is out an account, but thats a different story in regards to risk of selling accounts)"


That's what I said ^ but less elaborated.

 

Closed as requested by op