[Denied]Disallow exoneration from recovery assistance when provider is the OO

Right now rule 5 of the account selling sections says: "Anyone who wishes to sell an account must maintain "recovery responsibility" (they must refund their buyer if the account is recovered or becomes locked and they are unable to unlock it) for at least a month after the sale. If you are an account seller and you do not specifically mention your recovery responsibility in your Terms of Service, by default you have recovery responsibility forever."


A lot of providers exonerate themselves from recovery responsibility by including constructions like "we will only recover until 6 months after purchase". I think it's fair to allow these types of constructions when providers are not the original owners and have explicitly mentioned this. The buyer is aware of the risks and this factor is most likely incorporated in the price. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to allow these types of constructions. However, when a provider is an original owner I feel like he should not be able to exonerate himself from recovery responsibility through terms. There's literally no reason to do so. It's like allowing the sale of your bike under the terms that you may rightfully steal it back after a set period of time. I feel like these two cases should be distinctly distinguished in this rule.

 

That's really the exception to the general scenario. In any case, if such a thing is factorized in the price then there's no one harmed and this also means that such practice has been explicitly discussed between two parties. More-over this seems to more to be more of a renting-construction than a trade. Lastly, there will be no dispute in your scenario so I fail to see why it's important here. Especially when you weigh it off against the following scenario, that does actually happen frequently:

You are impacted however, when you buy an account, assume it's yours forever. The original owner assures you there's no recovery risk because he is the OO. OO waits until the recovery assistance duration expires and poof. Buyer is duped by OO's scummy practices (OO lied), but is still protected per Sythe rules.

 

No support. Account recoveries can happen from people that are not OO.


I would rather us try to educate people on the system than changing our selling rules. Or educating them on how to secure an account during the timeframe they have access to it under recovery warranty

 

It's not a bad idea, but honestly I do not know if I agree or disagree because some people like to delete all this information after a specific amount of time. There are also a lot of people who resell the accounts etc etc and many other factors that might influence account locks.

 

Like I posted in the other thread as well. Anyone who sells an account OO or not should be held responsible for Recoveries indefinitely, I dont understand why they are only held responsible for 3 months. It seems easy to abuse and unfair for the buyer.

BlackBlasses brings up a good point but at that point it seems like it would be more beneficial to just rent an account.

 

Is there a point that account would have to be recovered though? I was always under the impression accounts only needed to be recovered if the OO tried to get them back.

 

No support.

First off, a few misconceptions about recoveries.

When OO is trusted AND isn't scam quitting.. recoveries are required in a few situations.

1) Account is locked for suspicious activities. This is rare, but it happens. Normally this is because user is sharing account, reselling the account or scamming another user and gets the account locked. When this happens, the email reverts to the LOGIN name, which most trusted sellers use a fake one as such: [email protected] . When this happens, the only person that can get this account unlocked is the OO and when presented with this situation has to consider a few things.. 1) did the user scam someone else and by recovering are you assisting his scam? 2) If this happens in the future, should the OO (seller) always be liable to assist if this happens? What if in 5 years from now they get the account locked and I'm not around? Should I be held responsible and delivered a DNT for not assisting? 3) What if this happens EVERY week? Should I have to invest an hour+ every week to assist with this without the certainty that user isn't scamming someone else?

2) User is reselling the account and having OO recover the account and returning it to the person in-return scamming another user. Have fun determining when this happens and how to proceed because its a fucking mess.

3) User simply forgets login info. Should I have to assist with this every time this happens? Should I have to spend my time to assist with buyers carelessness?



Simply having a "recovery" assistance isn't about a long-term scam plan by us "Bulk Sellers" of accounts. It's because we have to deal with those three above issues and if we don't have that in the TOS, we are locked into helping with these above issues 24/7 for the rest of our life essentially. That isn't fair to us, we did our part and the buyers carelessness shouldn't have to be a constant concern for us. This is more a safety clause for us so we aren't obliged to constantly help and assist people with their own carelessness.

Now there are surely account sellers here that are using it as abuse, but as with anything in life, it happens. Look at Azie, he sold unsafe accounts and tried to use the "recovery" assistance thing against others so he didn't have to help and its pretty clear in those situations when that happens. There are bad apples everywhere, and unfortunately we "work" and "deal" in a shitty community that has a lot of them.

How do you prevent this?
You don't buy accounts from SHITTY people. You stop buying accounts from non-bulk sellers and underpriced shit builds. You stop buying accounts from users who pop up with a 2009 join date and all of a sudden mass donate, mass build accounts and inevitably scam. Its clear there are users who are buying old Sythe accounts to do this thing alone, but hey.. again.. always some bad apples.

 

When you buy from someone trusted, this isn't the main reason recoveries are needed, its because the account is locked etc. My above post dives into that further.

 

Lets be honest, that almost never happens, and people believe the accounts they're buying will never be recovered in 99% of the cases, because the seller is somewhat "trusted". The main problem is users being unaware of risks that comes with these purchases, and how to educate them better.

Let's say I sell my personal main for like 2k$ with "6 months warranty", does that mean I can just recover it back without any problems after the warranty is over? Something needs to change about this for sure, maybe we should change the wording so users understand it better, we could use electronics as an example:
"This item is supposed to work for 1000hours"
We could apply this to account sales and make it say "This account is supposed to work for 6 months". but that's just my thoughts

 

My God.. This is the fifth time the same suggestion has been posted, just wrapped in a different box, in the last 30 days. Refer to Poat or Tigeris’ previous suggestion for my detailed reasoning. No support.

 

@Kanye It’s like people don’t research before they shotgun their opinions on how Sythe should be run.

“Account sales are inherently risky. As long as the buyer and seller agree to terms, Sythe is going to a provide a market for people to trade even if the goods being traded are high-risk.

The one-month recovery period rule is in place as a minimum requirement; users are allowed to go above and beyond that if they so desire.

And as for the DNP list idea, we are going to update things regarding this soon.”

[DENIED] Revamp account sale rules

[DENIED] 1Year Account responsibility




The bottom line here is that if a buyer wishes to negotiate terms where an OO seller maintains lifetime responsibility then so be it. If they can’t come to terms, both are free to walk away from the transaction.

 

First of all, thank you for responding so extensively @Wellness

1) "The account is impossible to unlock for the OO": This is actually a solid point. It addresses the different nature of locks and recoveries. This example does rebuttal why my suggestion does not work for locks, but it does make me believe that the rule should make a distinction between locks and recoveries.

2) "Accounts being resold and then recovered": Note that this problem isn't exclusive to my suggestion. It already does happen under our current model. The only thing that changes is that under the current model the thing you describe as a "mess" happens within the first six months because the original owner guarantees recovery assistance. While under my model this mess may occur before and after six months. So yeah, a bit more mess on my side, but lets zoom in on this mess, see what it really is and how bad it is in comparison to the alternative.

If it is part of the agreement to, additionally, attach the buyer's email address -which is an extremely common practice-, then the only person capable of recovering the account without access to both email or the account is the original owner. This automatically marginalizes your problem a lot, because it becomes very clear who can and cannot have recovered the account. In addition, it is compulsory to state whether or not the reseller is the original owner of the account. If the reseller does not do this, he will be held liable. Idem if he lies about being the Original Owner.

Furthermore, the thing you describe as a "mess", has almost no impact in practice. In contrast to the problem that I'm addressing and the proposition to tackle it. In the Status-Quo the buying party potentially never has "full ownership" of the product they're buying. In your worst case scenario it is unclear who recovered the account, which is really only the case if the reseller has not explicitly mentioned whether or not he is the OO. As I have explained earlier, the pointing finger argument does not work.
The weigh-off between these two is thu really easy to make.

3) "Users forgetting info": I have been around for very long and this has never been a problem in my trades. And in one or two hypothetical situations where an old buyer would approach me, requesting the account data, I don't see why I should not give it to him. You should assist buyers to the extent of your obligations and to what's reasonable, regardless if they are careless or not. And it's not like buyers from our age-group suffer from dementia...

4) "You will not be around forever": This is self-contradictory. If the Original Owner stops being around, then it will not get recovered. If it does get recovered then the OO never left and he has to feel the consequences.
This is just like me signing an agreement which includes me not walking over someone's real-estate. Me moving away after, say five years, and breaking the contract by walking over the real-estate after five years with the excuse "I moved away".
If the account is being resold, then this is a dispute between the reseller and buyer. If the reseller did not explicitly mention that he is not the original owner, then he will be deemed liable. Furthermore, the reseller can only recover the account through email, so in the very rare case where email registration has not happened, the buyer can just approach the reseller and ask him to recover the account through email.

I think this covers all scenarios.

 

After a sale is made I feel like a majority of the responsibility of the account becomes the buyers and that the OO is just there for recoveries, in extreme cases that OO will scam quit and recover accounts and probably have multiple reports made against them to correlate the scam quit. On the other hand, after a certain period of time, if an account manages to get recovered after being purchased the OO really shouldn't be responsible for it as for all they know you have resold it etc etc which causes a long line of issues for the OO. There have been issues and loopholes with account sales for a long time, I definitely think that account sellers get the benefit of the doubt here, no support.

 

I'm confused. So what then is exactly the OO's obligation here then? 6 months of recovery responsibility or 'warranty' is up right? Or is it inherently implied that OO's must maintain recovery responsibility for a lifetime?