[denied] Remove/change the 1 month account responsibility rule

I don't like this suggestion personally. As an account buyer, I like having peace of mind that I am protected if for some reason I am unable to access the account I paid for. This just puts more power in the hands of sellers.

 

You're free to agree to whatever warranty you wish with your seller, but why should we be stripped from this freedom of contract?

 

maybe a point to add here:

purpose of the account

i've had people buying accounts from me in the past with the sole purpose of dumping them into a botfarm.

hypothetically, they could suicide bot them for ~ 3 weeks, get banned.
when they attempt to unban the account it will always get locked upon success.
it needs to be recovered to be used again.
The registered email has been getting reset in these cases the past months.
meaning that if it was unregistered upon sale, it would set the new email to the actual login that the account has, even if that mail has never been registered and/or it's just a login like "[email protected]" which makes it ridiculously hard to recover the account in question.

however the current system would hold me liable for that account in this case, even though the customer in question knowingly infracted it.

if im unable to recover this account (which is actually very likely in this scenario) i'd be responsible for replacing or refunding it.
a.k.a. making this customer run a "risk free" botfarm, since i'd be liable for 1 month of the account running.

 

Good point.

This is typically something that you want to leave to ToS.

 

Exactly, but sythe rules are permitted to "overrule" ToS & enforce 1 month responsibility regardless of what is specified on the ToS

 

That's what this thread is about: to remove/change that rule. You just gave a good example as to why that's necessary

 

Wrote that one up last night & completely took it out of context this morning
Hope something comes out of this

 

I dont agree, I have in multiple occasions where a buyer was banned for botting after buying the account within a month and expected a refund because I could not get the account back. I have actually been scammed on another site called Playerauctions 300$ for a barrows gloves HCIM from this reason. never in the 100+ accounts ive sold had an account been banned for something else than botting.

This is also a warning to sellers: if the buyer comes to and tells you his acc was banned and when he tries to recover, it doesnt send the recovery email to the email that they registered, I will bet money that the account was banned for botting and they appealed the decision by stating the account was stolen. This is the ONLY reason jagex does not send the email to the registered email. They send it to the email used as the username to login. Do no fall for this trick.

 

I agree with most of this, it is hard to prove ownership after a certain amount of time(some people will argue between 3-9 months) of an account being in someone else's possession. Especially hard when these are 3/4 owner accounts, likely being resold by trusted users who are not even the original owner.
1 month minimum and a 1 year maximum(buyer must cooperate with recovery by providing accurate information) I would let ToS override the maximum by letting both parties come to an agreement. Two people might sell the same account, one with 30 day guarantee for $50 and one with 2 year guarantee for $100. That way the buyer gets to choose based on what they feel comfortable with and well known trusted sellers can provider safer alternatives.

Unfortunately there is no solid way to prove an account was stolen based off this "jagex password reset email" as anyone can request that and move it to a 2nd email and claim it was recovered.
I assume with these new security changes it will likely need to be re-addressed then(if we ever get them).

 

Last week I had an account locked 9 days after ownership transferred. The account sat for 6 months before purchase. Thankfully I was able to fix. I checked the history before giving it back, no quashed bans. I dont know what they did but the e-mail got removed. This one was made on my home computer, worker was too new to trust. It does however disprove my own theory stated earlier in this thread that by letting accounts sit for long enough makes them safe.

I have also had 2 false "Stolen account" disputes on other websites this last week, and what do you know. Both recoveries were successful by the worker who "stole" the account and I was able to return it to the customer. Both of these accounts were made on proxies. I dont seem to have issues recovering accounts on proxies when customers claim they dont have access anymore. Only when they are locked out. Crazy right? Also, I never used to get false stolen account recoveries and suddenly I've had 2 this last week. What a coincidence!

Alot of people when testing a new bot will only buy 1 or 2 accounts but its really unlikely and also extremely suspicious when somebody comes up and buys 10+ zulrah accounts only to turn around and ask for them all to be unlockd or refund. I personally dont think major incidents like that are the big issue here. Its more those first 1-2 accounts where people are trying a new bot/client to see if its any good. If they get slapped right away they can get a full refund on everything.

Its not that I wont try to fix the customer situation. I try to fix every lock appeal I am sent. I just dont want to be held responsible for a refund if I am unable to fix, because historically, and even recent history, has shown I CAN recover accounts even on proxies. I just cant seem to fix locked accounts. Especially locked ones where the customer freely admits to botting being the root cause of the current lock.

 

I'm with you here. My main selection of accounts are starter builds and/or made specifically for a botting task - like a lot of other sellers. That said, being forced to assist a customer who openly stated they'll be botting the account and/or you've been able to prove so is extremely discouraging as a new seller. To alleviate all pains and miscommunications, the terms that we make directly with our buyer should stand, otherwise why do we have any terms at all? As a seller, I consider it a courtesy to assist previous customers with unlocking/recovering, not a requirement.

A huge percentage of our customer bases stem directly from the OSRS black market where everyone and their brother is involved with GP sales, account sales, hiring for services, etc. We, sellers, should NOT be responsible for the customers neglect for safety.

 

How is it even remotely reasonable, that an account seller, is responsibile for the buyer, if he chooses to bot his account, claim it were stolen and his email being removed, that you are able to recover it, or you have to replace/refund it?

Im also wondering, what if the buyer set it to Email A and then later before botting it, changing it to Email B, would it even matter, maybe Jamflex would revert the ''original'' email to Email A?

 

So what happens is when someone bots on their account, it gets banned for botting. The ONLY way for you to appeal a botting ban is to say they have made a mistake (which rarely works) or to say the account was stolen. If the person does option B jagex usually unbans the account but locks it to stop any future abuse. They remove the registered email and send an email to unlock the account to the email that is used to log in.

If this happens to you I would bet money that what happened is exactly what I said above

Sources: I just unlocked account that I sold that was banned for botting. I created the email that was used to log in and jagex sent the email to unlock the account to said email.

It doesnt matter what email was used prior to botting, they send the email to the address used to login.


@Corby and @ anyone who had this problem- if you create an account with the email address [email protected] you will never be able to unlock the account. But if you use a potential email that you can create later such as [email protected], if the account gets banned > unbanned > locked for security purposes, you can unlock simply by creating the gmail [email protected] and requesting the mail be sent to unlock. They send it to the address used to login.

 

Yeah i got that part, but it seems abit excessive to hold account sellers responsible for this exact behaviour.

Not saying account sellers cant help out, if they can, but in cases where the buyer bought an account, with no email registered, its their fault not the seller.

 

I agree 110% with you. It is extremely hard to get away with botting now a days. I dont really know much about the system used to catch botters but it seems to be somewhat reliable.

For someone to buy an account specifically with botting in mind is ridiculous first of all, and to want a refund afterwards when they knew the risks were so high is beyond comprehension. It is a absolutely not fair to sellers.

 

I actually bought an account from Corby, due to the fact that it were meant to be more secure against recovery, due to no registered email, not in a million years would i expect him to be able to recover it.

I would of course still ask him, if it were doable, but wouldn't expect it. Hopefully they will change the rules, to allow sellers to void responsibility to recover, if theres no email registered.

 

The whole purpose of selling emails like @u.i and not @gmail.com is to help instill safety that I CANT recover it easily using the exact method you are describing.

I understand the solution. I do not want to do it for the sake of safety. My workers could just as easily steal the account that way later.

 

The only thing I am looking for is if the account was banned due to botting that it isnt the sellers fault if they can't recover the account. It sounds ridiculous just talking about it. I am honestly surprised this isnt a rule already because of the potential abuse...

 

Well at that point it would be the sellers fault for hiring untrustworthy workers though would it not? I was just passing out info to people who didnt know. This wasnt meant as a "you should have done this or that" and I am sorry if it came across that way. It was supposed to be strictly information to help a seller become more aware as I myself just became aware of this as well. If I had this information 2 weeks ago, I could have saved myself from being scammed the 300$ on PA