[DENIED] Revamp account sale rules

This is a 2 part suggestion where I'd be happy to see both of these implemented but I think #2 should 100% be added.

This has become a thing for account sellers to do, they resell accounts that they may not be the owner of, not knowing the Original Owner very well or not caring if it gets recovered after the 1 month grace period has passed. This leads to unsecure accounts being sold by "Trusted" people, personally I believe all accounts should be sold as if you are the Original Owner.

Some things to note for this as well

• People are not allowed to demand a refund if you successfully aid them in re-gaining access to the account unless agreed upon beforehand. (This is because as a seller you have already shared the email/login of the account and have successfully proven you can aid in returning ownership)
  
• In the case of a successful account return the seller can't be held responsible for any lost wealth due to losing access, If someone gets careless and loses access to their account by either hack/phish the seller can not and should not be held responsible

It is important to protect both buyers and sellers of accounts from scammers and since most users are willing to pay a higher price to buy an account from a trusted user because they think it is more secure, only to be hit with the "I'm not responsible after 1 month and I can't get your account back sorry but here you can have a small portion of what you paid back because I care about customer service." Even tho they sold the user an unsecure account.

Pretty self explanatory, once an account is deemed to be owned by a scammer it should be added to a list and all middlemen for accounts should be able to login to a account, determine if it is the correct account the buyer wishes to purchase, then check the list to see if the account is on there.

This suggestion would prevent ban evaders from joining the site and attempting to resell any accounts that are owned by scammers. If the scammed user wishes to make the email/login public. (This should only be done AFTER the account has been confirmed as recovered and the user is already banned, not mid report.)

 

I 100% support this. I'm tired of seeing peoples accounts get recovered on them only to be told that due to the sellers TOS, they are no longer responsible after a specified time frame. You should be held accountable (sale price of the account) if the account you sold someone gets recovered and you are unable to recover it back for them.

This is important as well so people don't take advantage of it and to provide a level of security for the seller so that someone can't demand a refund upon a recovery. If the seller aids them, that's what they should do and that's great. But if it is unsuccessful, the buyer deserves a full refund of the price they originally paid (minus the wealth on the account as that can rarely be proven).

Additionally,
I'm not sure why there isn't an active thread of usernames/login details of accounts that were recovered by a banned user. This only helps the community and provides an extra needed layer of security if someone searches for it. Ban evading scammers that resell their accounts over and over again generally get caught out eventually when the trail becomes too evident. But to protect the people after that first account recovery scam, this is needed. Most of the time, a middleman helps the sale of an account and I feel most/if not all should/would use this thread/tool to make sure the buyer isn't buying an already scammed/recovered account.

I support both suggestions wholeheartedly and really hope this doesn't get denied.

 

What if someone purchases an account, the buyer has the account for 2 month and gets it perm banned for macro. This user then tells the seller that they recovered the account and wants a refund. Original seller cannot recover account due to lack of info and has no reason to believe that the buyer is lying, would he be entitled to a refund? Who would be the winner of this scam appeal? As even original owners can struggle to recover their accounts if information gets lost down the years.

 

Staff already require proof of the account being recovered or being banned. It's easy to ask the buyer to show the reason the account is disabled or whether it was recovered (i.e emails/account settings)

 

The seller should still be able to recover the account prove that the account has been macro banned (The OO is always able to recover an account) and deny the refund based on them getting it banned, also anyone who does that and gets exposed should be DNT/Banned as they attempted to scam the seller in that case.

 

Well for first part got nothing else to say but support because it is really good idea.

Well this second part is not that bad idea but 3 diff IPs loged on same account within 30 mins [midleman being also gold seller] woudnt that kinda effect account higher chance to get banned =?

Im not really that active in account market so i could be wrong.

 

The only ip's that should have logged into the account are the buyer and the seller. The middleman doesn't generally log onto the account at all, unless its a trade of accounts in which case the MM would hold onto one until the other is traded over. But currency for account, the MM just holds the currency until the buyer receives the account info and changes the registered email to his own, changes the password, turns on 2fa, and verifies the account is as advertised.

EDIT: If you are referring to this line in the OP,

I support the list of usernames/login details being accessible to Sythe users. I guess the MM wouldn't actually be able to verify it since they (at least I don't) get that information during the trade. That is private while the MM holds the buyers money. But the MM should definitely PM the buyer to search the username and login details on this list (if it gets implemented) while the MM is holding the money to see if anything pops up to protect the buyer.

 

This was a thing for me selling my ironman the buyer wanted the middleman to verify everything was on the account before he sent me the payment directly. In my this case it was paypal and the middleman obviously didn't want to hold the funds and I didn't want to give him access to the account first so i had Techie log-on the account and verify everything was there before he sent payment directly to me.

But after this change it id at least recommend the middleman be given the login details and login on the actual site, verify the RSN of the account and look the account up on the high scores if the buyer is worried about a ban risk.

 

I support this.

 

I think it's absurd people are allowed to sell accounts they aren't original owners of in the first place lol.

 

#2 already exists. However, it is not used nearly as much as it should be.
List of accounts NOT to purchase; click to report recovered accounts!

I support the more frequent and systematic utilization of the list.
However, even that has already been suggested (as seen here: Runescape Do Not Purchase List).


#1 No support. I agree, that it is important for both buyer and seller to be as protected as possible. However, this isn't a viable solution.

Reason 1)
Candidly, I hate this argument.. but it applies here. Sythe is a free market. Buyers are free to negotiate recovery responsibility as they please. If they cannot agree on mutual terms, then the buyer can move on. I've sold a handful of accounts. I was OO of some, but was not OO of others. I sold a few accounts to Idolized a year or so ago that were created by Phatalize (both very trustworthy members). It would get really messy if there was an unlimited degree of recovery responsibility on these accounts. I'm sure Idolized has sold them and they've been resold several more times since then. How would Idolized, myself, or Phatalize be responsible for recovery at that point?

Reason 2)
"OO's can always recover accounts" "Accounts are always recoverable" etc. are phrases we use as an attempt to educate and protect buyers. However, these blanket statements are not always true. Laptops get old and break, people move houses/towns/states, etc. The recovery responsibility time frames are generally there to give the buyer ample time to create an IP footprint on the account.
I actually have a recent case study on this.
I sold an account over a year ago to a Sythe forums user. He's a long time member (5+ yrs, vouched, etc.). Had not heard from him since the transaction until last week. He reached out and asked me to help him recover the account because he couldn't access it. (Before I continue, yes I'm the OO. The email address is one that I've had since I was a kid.)
Mind you, I had not been on this account in over a year. I made the account nearly five years ago. I do not live in the same town nor do I have the same laptop, etc. etc. My recovery attempt was denied.
Fortunately, his email was still the set email on the account.. he just forgot his password and jumped to conclusions. However, it's a great example of why this suggestion does not work. You can't require someone maintain infinite recovery responsibility.

 

If you believe there may be complications after you sell the account, this is what i'd classify as an unsecured account and puts the buyer at risk of getting screwed by user's TOS. You shouldn't be selling an account you are not 100% sure of. That's the whole point of this thread, protecting the buyers not the resellers of other people's accounts where complications are bound to arize.

It's a free market where users should feel safe buying and selling their products

This is a very rare case and I'm sure if you were able to prove that this was the case, the mods would be understanding as most people know recoveries are based off of original creation IP/Location and not just the Email.

 

This literally does not address the issue I proposed in any way/shape/form. Those accounts are as safe as they could possibly be. The OO is one of the most trusted account sellers to have ever come thru Sythe. Doesn't change the fact that it's possible for there to be a hiccup down the road after the accounts been resold three or four times and someone wants to get cheeky. If that day were to come.. let's say.. 3 years later, how could Phatalize, Idolized, or myself be held liable? That's ridiculous IMO. Not only that, but an infinite recovery responsibility opens up a lot of doors for buyers to claim that they lost accounts way later down the road (yet they still have possession of it) in hopes that a recovery wont go thru and they'll double up on a refund.

Yeah, you're right. I don't disagree. Unfortunately, we live in a world where nothing is guaranteed. Uncertainty is amplified when you're talking about buying and selling runescape accounts on an anonymous black market website. There have been over a hundred suggestions in the existence of Sythe (several even in the last few months) where the "it's a free market - the buyer should do enough due diligence to ensure they feel safe" argument reigned. Nothing different here.

Have I ever been happy with account sales standards? No. Is there a perfectly secure way of buying/selling accounts? I wish. Unfortunately, account sales is arguably the most unsafe/risky type of purchase on Sythe. Nothing will ever change that.

I've never used the website for anything business related. I've sold a handful of accounts on Sythe.. most of which I was OO of. Those that I wasn't OO on came from someone even more trusted than I am. I don't plan on selling any sketchy accounts, ever. I'm really unbiased when it comes to this suggestion. However, I don't think this is the answer.

 

This isn't a absolutely perfect solution obviously but it's better to start the conversation then allow things it continue as they are.

Possible solutions could be

• Sellers must inform the buyer and make it clear that they are not the original owner and should any complications arise within lets say 6 months and they are unable to assist in recovery they should be entitled to a refund.
• If you are the original owner you accept 100% responsibility for at least 1 year to return the account to the buyer(as long as they haven't resold it). If you are unable to for a reason that is deemed acceptable I see nothing wrong with denying a refund as you did everything in your power to attempt to return the account to the buyer.

Should you think of any other possible solutions I'd be happy to hear them, you agree that account sales standards are somewhat low, I'd love to hear your opinion on what could change.

 

This is what a example of a reasonable TOS looks like
[Admin/OMM]Selling 2k total account, ex-mod OO[100% moneyback guarantee]

Most other resellers meet the bare minimum requirements of 1 month if the account gets locked/recovered.
While his,

• States he is not the owner but is still accepting responsibility for 6 months.
• Covers the reselling of the account to only himself (to prevent the confusion of transferring account between multiple users making it easy to lose track of the owner.)

 

Definitely agree that there could be an amicable solution that’s somewhere in the middle ground. That would be a good place to start (in terms of responsibility duration, etc.). Let me do some digging on what I think makes the most sense.



Edit: @Poat your head/heart is in the right place with this suggestion. I really like & appreciate the intention.

 

Support. The 1 month period should have never been a thing. If user isn't able to assist with accounts recovery in a reasonable amount of time (can't expect much several years after the sale for sure)it isn't safe to be sold in the first place.

 

Support both ideas. I think it makes sense that if it has been proven recovered the user should refund assuming the customer doesn't want the account back. And I'm not certain everyone will want the second as sometimes irl names are in usernames/emails but it would be a fitting anti-scam measure none the less. Good suggestion @Poat

 

You can't really use the free market logic on one thread, then turn around and argue against it on another my guy. Oh, and Poat never suggested that the user should refund if the account is successful recovered, but the buyer doesn't want it back. Matter of fact, he suggests that the buyer cannot demand a refund which is quite the opposite.



I agree that the 1 month responsibility requirement is worthless. IMO, there should not be one (all that should be required is for the seller to make sure the buyer agrees to his TOS which include his responsibility) or it should be an actual meaningful timeframe. I think 3 months as @Pikachu suggested would be a good start. I think 6 months could even be a fair standard across the board.