[Denied] Require original owner to be specified in account sale topics

What is stopping me from saying I am the OO when I am not? Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

You would be liable for any recoveries that happened to the account if you are OO. I personally think any account you sell OO or not you should be liable for recovery's indefinitely. Its complete Bs to me that you can sell an account and only be liable for 3 months and then on the 4th have the OO recover and get away with 0 liability.

 

I agree with this, there is an issue with correlating who may have recovered the account, say A was OO, B now has the account and sells it to C. As @Superfluous just said, A isn't liable if B recovered the account from C, sure A could help if they wanted to but it seems more of a convenience than an actual helper for account safety. I think a simple, "OO is Sythe user" "OO isn't Sythe user" could help with users being more aware of the accounts background or how safe it really is, but it doesn't provide any extra protection at all. I don't believe that expressly stating the OO if known will help protect users at all from issues in the future if they are to arise though, so no support.

 

Maybe that's the solution then. I would support requiring a statement of either 1) "I am the OO" or 2) "I am not the OO (and therefore this account has had multiple owners)"

So instead of requiring the name of the OO we'd be requiring a statement as to whether the seller is the OO

 

I wanted to share my two cents, As I am reading a couple of threads since yesterday about account sales.

What happened to me.

I sold an account to someone[1st Buyer] who later on decided to resell the account to some other user[2nd Buyer] of the community and scammed him by locking the account with the details, I provided to him initially. 2nd Buyer lodged a dispute and 1st Buyer never responded and I ended up refunding the 2nd Buyer for all his losses because I was the Original Owner of the account.

Account trading is a risky trade to do for both buyer and the seller. It is never safe.
My suggestion to buyers would be that if you are thinking to buy an account think again or create an account with your original IP and hire someone to train that account.

 

Support for this idea, account sellers with good faith will already be upfront about this topic. However, I do think they should be required to disclose this information BEFORE the sale and not AFTER IE; in the thread OP or Title.

 

This was already a rule, i have no idea why it isn't anymore.

 

I support +1

 

There absolutely should be a rule about this, and further rules that hold original owners to stricter standards than people who publicly advertise their accounts as not their own. Extending the 3 month recovery rule for accounts sold by the original owner would be a logical next step. In the market, those accounts will be sold for a bit higher of a price, justifying the extended "warranty period".

 

This is a rule. I support requiring it in the thread, though.

1. You must clearly state if you are the original owner or not before trading. Users are free to ask who the original owner is before trading.

 

flawed system, just get both parties irl info and they chilling.

 

Rather than merely stating who the OO of the account is; full trade history of the account should be posted in my opinion.

An account that has changed hands 5-6 times in its history, shouldn't be down to the OO to recover - chances are the original owner is no longer to recover said account anyway, so simply saying Bogla is the original owner will add a premium to the price when in reality, its not a safe account.

As much as it will stop accounts being sold by more "trusted individuals" when the OO is untrustworthy, simply labeling a trustworthy OO goes the opposite way also in giving the buyer "false security".

 

Ye, this would be the best case scenario, if user isn't able to find all history it could just say "resold at least X+ times"

 

Although id love to see a little more drastic change in regards to making account sales safer I think the original suggestion of making users state if they are OO in their market thread will not only give people a better understanding of who they are dealing with, but it will also save both parties time in regards of them being half way through negotiations and then the buyer backing out once they find out the seller isn't the OO.

Support.

 

I support this Suggestion good idea and that will help buyers to be more safe but to be honest i think sometimes people will not mention about the original owner and you will not know because you cant know if this person is original owner or not.
for example if you try to buy someone else account he will send you the user name and password how you know if this account has been made by him or not
i think buyer should only read good the seller terms of services
and that is the only way for buyer to be safe after sale

 

Fam there's no way to prevent people from lying,

We as a community cannot prove or provide proof that someone in lying.

It's why you check vouches and see whos legit or not.

No support since there's nothing Staff can do in this situation.

Yellow Hat

 

After Reading information about this. I think sellers should be liable if the accounts gets recovered. Not Hacked or locked they should only be liable if the original owner recovers the account.

 

No way to prove if it was hacked vs recovered. OO or anyone for that matter can also get the account locked themselves.

 

I always assumed that if it was hacked the password would be the same. Otherwise they would of had to hack your email which is clearly not the guy who sold it to yours fault.

 

Find me one report of a hacked account(password unchanged, but stuff missing). Fairly sure there are none. Its all recoverys and locks. If an account was truly hacked(password unchanged) It lies entirely on the person with possession of the account. (Reports where a service was done and password wasnt changed isnt considered a hack)