[Denied] Warranty period.

How so? With fresh b gloves accounts or fresh HCIM/Starter accounts the reason lower warranty periods is somewhat necessary is because they become a lot more difficult to recover after the buyer has set an email/membership/played on them for a long time on a residential IP address. So for big sellers like you, keeping that shorter warranty in place helps to protect you too.

For the most part, whether or not someone is the OO of a starter account probably doesn't matter. As Primal suggested above, starter accounts without any set email and only 1-50 days play time probably shouldn't require a warranty period because of what I mentioned above. But re-sold accounts that aren't starter accounts where the seller isn't the OO should require a longer warranty period. If you're re selling a main for a non-trusted user and you're not willing to put a 6-24 month warranty on it, ask yourself why. If you can't trust the OO enough to do that, you shouldn't be selling the account on to a buyer.

Not trying to be an ass, genuinely just trying to understand different points of view.

 

This isn't a new suggestion, it's one that's been beaten like a dead horse since the beginning of Sythe.

No support for #1 and #2.
Support for #3.

Sythe is a free market. Don't buy an account if you don't trust the seller. Do your due diligence.

It's quite simple. Risk will always exist, even if Sythe forced lifetime recovery liability. People will still be scammed, and I HIGHLY doubt that changing the minimum recovery responsibility will have any meaningful impact on scam occurrence rates.

Scammers will scam and honest sellers will be honest, regardless of what façade of recovery trust exists (whether it's 1 mo/ 6 mo / lifetime). All I see this doing is creating a false sense of security, and causing an increase in account prices.

TL;DR: This is virtue signaling and won't actually reduce risk.

 

No support, all reasons has already been mentioned by others not supporting either.

However I see it, but the buyer can negotiate/ask himself to a higher warranty if needed. It's a free market.

 

What about an obligated statement of who the OO is when reselling?
Considering that you're essentially buying from that person, with the "seller" as a "middleman"

 

Hey fella - that already exists!

"

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.

"

 

Well, it almost exists. You're obligated to say you're not the original owner, but not obligated to list who the original owner is.

People are still free to ask who it is though. But I still think a seller that's actively selling an account for a newcomer with 6 post count and zero vouches - knowing it will 99% likely be recovered once their warranty period is over, are essentially selling a knowingly unsafe account for a small profit.

I just don't see how scamming someone yourself, or taking a small commission for helping someone else scam is any different lol.

Don't think the above suggestion fixes this though. Just think the warranty period on these accounts should be a lot longer to cover scam victims.

 

It, as @2277 said, almost exists.
Saying you're not OO is one thing. Listing "legitaccountseller42069" as original owner, already sounds a lot different.
People would know who they are effectively buying from

 

You’d have to be an absolute moron to buy an account from a seller who disclosed they aren’t the OO but won’t say who that is.

that doesn’t happen. @2277 @Primal

You’re making an irrelevant argument. Give me one example, ever, of a scenario where the seller disclosed they weren’t OO but wouldn’t say who the OO was when asked, and the buyer still purchased. Straw man argument.

Some of life’s best lessons are hard learned. If someone is willing to be that careless with their money, then perhaps a lessons is being taught.

 

That's not the argument. The argument is that for people who are less familiar with the account buying/selling process or are new to the black market - seeing a trusted seller stating they're not the OO of an account doesn't mean that the account isn't safe to them. Because most new buyers (rightfully) assume that if a trusted seller is selling an account they're not the OO of, then its completely safe because the seller is trusted and must trust the account they're helping to list.

If a thread were to say "The original owner of this account is @[enter user] and I have absolutely no way to guarantee how safe or unsafe the account is" clearly stating that they're nothing more than a place for the user to list the account for exposure, it would likely help deter most newer buyers from making that mistake. It's not that they won't disclose who the OO is, its that they currently don't have to. Which misleads newer market users to believe that a trusted seller would only sell trustworthy accounts (crazy right? In what world should trusted sellers only be able to sell trustworthy accounts?).

Also, your argument is that if someone is stupid enough to fall for a scam - then it's all their fault. Not everyone is as knowledgeable of the market as you are. We should be protecting newer buyers too by making the sellers equally as accountable. For literally any seller that 100% trusts the account they're helping to sell - listing the OO or having a 12 month warranty period makes zero difference. The only people this would affect are the people that are selling accounts that they aren't willing to risk their own money with. In which case, stop being willing to take advantage of newer buyers and risking their money instead. You're aiding a scam and getting paid a commission on it, no matter how stupid the buyer is.

 

I never said if someone is stupid enough to fall for a scam, then it's their fault. I've been scammed many times on Sythe and I did everything I could to reasonably protect myself. What I did, is insist that if someone is so careless with their money that they'd buy an account from someone who chooses to deny disclosure of the account's OO, then life might be teaching them a valuable lesson. I didn't say it was right, or that I liked it. The bottom line is that you can't put a diaper and helmet on every newcomer on Sythe.

We've beaten the recovery responsibility requirements like a dead horse, and have changed it many times over the years. It's ultimately never had a sizeable impact on scam reduction one way or the other.

Scammers will always scam, and users who have pure intentions will have pure and honest intentions.

Umm, what? If they don't have to, but are willing to, then I don't understand the issue? Who in their right mind, after being told that the seller is not the OO, wouldn't then ask who the OO is? That's a very simple logical next step. Again, diapers and helmets.

Raise the recovery responsibility to lifetime, force OO's to be listed on a sale thread, I really don't care. I just think it has zero realizable impact on success/failure of scams and is pure virtue signaling.

 

Other way around
How difficult is it to add a tag to the 'I'm not oo of the account"
Takes around 3 seconds, and anyhow you'd have to keep it on file for any issues during that month

 

Once again though, nobody claimed that they were buying from a person who refuses to disclaim the OO. Just that simply listing someone else is the OO doesn't make the account seem untrustworthy in the eyes of a newcomer to the market. Where as stating on the thread the OO's name and that you have no guarantee of its safety, likely will do. That's not putting a diaper on anyone, it's just allowing them to see the trade at face value. Then even people who don't understand how this market works can make an informed decision and do everything they can to reasonably protect themselves too.

Also as I said, these changes literally wouldn't impact a legitimate re-seller other than taking an extra 10-15 seconds to type out an additional sentence including the actual name of an OO.

So if your argument is that you can't put a helmet on everyone, then that's fair enough. But for an additional layer to help people not get scammed at the cost of a few seconds for resellers, I'd say it's probably worth the time.

Even if you think it's virtue signalling, what does it cost? If it helps one person (and more importantly stops the shady business practices of people reselling unsafe accounts, which it will) then that alone is worth it.

 

That’s LITERALLY the point you both initially insinuated as counter argument to me stating Sythe already required disclosure that sellers aren’t the OO. You’re trying to play both sides of the card now.

Regardless, my point is going right over your head. If it’s already a requirement for a seller to notify a buyer that he isn’t the OO, and as you claim, sellers aren’t refusing to disclose this info, then your suggestion is completely pointless.

What would happen when a Sythe user resold an account in which the OO isn’t on Sythe? How would they identify or qualify the OO’s trustworthiness within their thread then?

This will be my last post on the topic because we’ve strayed away from pikachu’s original suggestion.

 

That wasn't the counter argument though, read back. Someone said that they should need to disclose the OO on the selling thread (not just that it isn't them). You went on to say it is already a rule (which it isn't, the rule is that they need to state if they're not the OO and not who the OO is on the thread). My point has remained the same, make it so the OO has to be stated on the thread and make the warranty time longer.

I've explained three times why it could make a difference to a new buyer without the market experience that other people have, but that point you're choosing to ignore. Along with my repeated point of how this wouldn't affect a single person that is confident in the safety of the account that they're selling.

If the person is off-site then have the same thing listed. "The seller of this account isn't a part of Sythe.org and therefore has no reputation or vouches". Even as a newcomer to the market, that's a red flag to me.

The irony is that it's clear the point being made to you is going over your head. There's nothing for any legitimate seller to lose from this other than a few extra seconds - and only potential gain for helping people to not get scammed. Whether or not you think it will be successful in that fact, we can disagree on. But as it wouldn't make a single difference to anyone selling a safe account, it's worth the change.

Totally agree on this being our last post though. I think we've both made our stances and points pretty clear for everyone to read/discuss. Which I guess is the whole point of all of this.

Edit: It's probably worth mentioning that a longer warranty period fixes this issue either way and makes the other one almost obsolete. But stating who the OO is on selling threads potentially helps in the event that longer warranties don't come into play.

 

This summed it up for me, ToS exist for a reason - if you're not happy about someone's warranty period, don't buy from them or ask them to extend it for an additional price.

There's also been situations on Sythe where people play on the account long enough to be deemed OO by Jagex, and those inconsistencies are from Jagex's end.

I don't see how forcing people (who have never had any issues with recoveries) with stringent rules is a good idea in a free market. Let the two parties decide what's reasonable and agree on a ToS between themselves.

 

Personally, I would think that a better set up would be the following:

• No Registered E-mail Accounts - 1 month warranty
• Resale Accounts/E-mail Registered - 6 months

I think this would be a good compromise between the buyer and seller, as resale accounts are generally riskier to purchase than fresh and unregistered ones made by account stores.

Some points were right, that once an e-mail has been registered on a fresh/unregistered account and played for quite some time, Jagex does indeed deem the buyer as the original owner, especially when membership was paid for through Paypal/credit card.

However, for resale/registered accounts, this is not the case so I agree with OP that this might put buyers at risk, and extra precautions must be made.

I also agree that when accounts are recovered and enough proof was shown - it should automatically warrant a DNT to the sller due to the following reasons:

• When resale accounts are listed, sellers should be 100% confident that the accounts are secure and there is absolutely no chance of recovery.
• Lifetime insurances on resale accounts often cost twice the purchase price - though not inherently wrong in any way, one might argue why pay extra for safety of an account that must have been guaranteed in the first place