This should have been posted in the SL as an amendment to provide the additional evidence you guys said I was missing. Please treat this as a scam report: if the evidence proves that Corey went against our agreement, you can't just ignore it because it's convenient. After all, I lost about $2,000 because of Corey's actions. Yes, obviously it's a more high profile case with a more complicated agreement than just, "you give me 2 rune bars for $0.01," but a scam report is a scam report. And if I'm missing something, instead of making Corey, the scammer, innocent, please let me know what I'm missing just as you do on any other scam report (i.e, you have to provide screenshots proving this happened).
tl;dr version: I show evidence of what Corey knew, at the time of the delivery: that he was supposed to call/text, check IPs, and save all the evidence, or else he would be responsible for the full chargeback amount plus $100.
What I will be proving, as requested: Corey did not do what he was required, the mentioned policies were in place.
First, let's assume that Corey delivered these orders, based on the previous evidence provided:
Below are the detailed delivery information that RSUltimate agents go by when delivering orders. Please check the order numbers. They match those in the screenshot above, that Corey delivered.
http://puu.sh/13Wm5/a4cab2bd3cab2f397a8a459a4f11f738
http://puu.sh/13Wmr/1bf5abdffd85c11e6e8de72f148dcb4c
http://puu.sh/13Wn0/c9d0bd39389611c5ca037831f1f739b3
These orders will now be referred to as "500M Order," "999M Order," and "175M Order," based on the order size.
Please notice the chargeback date on each:
999M ORDER - May 12
500M ORDER - May 12
175M ORDER - May 12
Now, the contract Corey, signed BEFORE these chargebacks occured, included a clause, which made Corey responsible for all gold delivered. Yes, the gold was delivered afterward so it did not have to necessarily follow procedures outlined in the contract, but it does not change the fact that this clause would still apply:
There are many other clauses, and most of this contract was already known before the date of signature, but let's give Corey an advantage, and invalidate this contract, as the orders were delivered at a previous date. Once again, the contract was already valid by the time the chargebacks came in, but before this contract, we had several written and verbal agreements. Here's one that was explicitly agreed upon by Corey via PM. Now, this was agreed upon by Corey on the day it was delivered, and was sent to him earlier. The date will appear as 03/25 while the orders are 03/24, but Robert Mayberry's orders were HELD by Google temporarily until the 25th, when Corey delivered them via MSN. Once again, these procedures were already in place, but this was the first day I begin asking my workers to put it in explicit written form.
http://puu.sh/13Wkw/f19ce179a6cdd6de368bcf68e661b848
Now, from this agreement, which was, again, agreed upon before the Robert Mayberry deliveries that Corey carried out, there's a very important part we will be focusing on:
The only thing that this changes is make Corey owe me $300 additional money, so if Corey says that the second, more specific contract is invalid, the agreement that these three transactions fall under is this one. To re-iterate, Corey was at least supposed to confirm the user's IP, phone number, and keep this evidence.
Corey made two claims:
Both of these claims are instantly invalidated, based on the agreement. Again, Hahanerd, a worker at the time, as well as the contract, confirm that Corey was supposed to call Robert Mayberry.
Even so, a more detailed version of how orders were supposed to be delivered was included:
Point a states that Corey should cancel and refund the customer if there's any problems with it. These were the following problems with the order: the IP of the customer did not match a previous order, the customer placed 3 consecutive orders to bypass our 999M limit, the customer's phone was never confirmed.
Corey followed point b properly.
Point c states that Corey should have called and/or texted the customer, and verified their phone number. Corey skipped this step.
Point d states that the IP should be close to the address, which it is, however, Mayberry's previous order(s) had a different IP, as proven by this earlier delivery: http://puu.sh/YcYi/5ea4445e03f54a32c156f4691165f1fd. Mayberry was switching between two houses, which is not permitted. From common sense alone, Corey should have halted the order and contacted me.
Point e, once again, re-iterates that Corey should use common sense. The beginning of this agreement states that merely not knowing isn't enough: always contact me for assistance.
Point f was done correctly, as seen by the delivery screenshots on the scam report.
-----------------------------------------
So what does this prove?
Below is a screenshot of each chargeback we disputed. It includes no evidence of a phone call, once again confirming that Corey did not submit it when asked for it.
http://puu.sh/13Wnt/f9836dc8f23dcc168d100db4fb0468c7
http://puu.sh/13WnL/53ee9c10a5e9bfcb4c20a28799e164c1
http://puu.sh/13WnW/f833d01a194ee2a2a2f06cc3dc4d27a9
As further evidence, here is what Corey sent me when I requested evidence for the Mayberry orders, around the time when these chargebacks were filed. Notice how he has absolutely no evidence of calls.
http://puu.sh/Yd9I/0cce681677c3e177a57693b07977918c
http://puu.sh/Yd9T/72392707334142f7dc40b802cd285046
The other screenshot for the smaller order was never submitted, and I had to beg him to send it and dig through a pile of files he sent me at a later time. Also notice how the customer was given 10% more gold than he purchased, which was our policy for late delivered orders, once again re-iterating how the written agreement was before these deliveries.
Please read over this and get back to me with anything more you would like.
tl;dr version: I show evidence of what Corey knew, at the time of the delivery: that he was supposed to call/text, check IPs, and save all the evidence, or else he would be responsible for the full chargeback amount plus $100.
What I will be proving, as requested: Corey did not do what he was required, the mentioned policies were in place.
First, let's assume that Corey delivered these orders, based on the previous evidence provided:
Below are the detailed delivery information that RSUltimate agents go by when delivering orders. Please check the order numbers. They match those in the screenshot above, that Corey delivered.
http://puu.sh/13Wm5/a4cab2bd3cab2f397a8a459a4f11f738
http://puu.sh/13Wmr/1bf5abdffd85c11e6e8de72f148dcb4c
http://puu.sh/13Wn0/c9d0bd39389611c5ca037831f1f739b3
These orders will now be referred to as "500M Order," "999M Order," and "175M Order," based on the order size.
Please notice the chargeback date on each:
999M ORDER - May 12
500M ORDER - May 12
175M ORDER - May 12
Now, the contract Corey, signed BEFORE these chargebacks occured, included a clause, which made Corey responsible for all gold delivered. Yes, the gold was delivered afterward so it did not have to necessarily follow procedures outlined in the contract, but it does not change the fact that this clause would still apply:
There are many other clauses, and most of this contract was already known before the date of signature, but let's give Corey an advantage, and invalidate this contract, as the orders were delivered at a previous date. Once again, the contract was already valid by the time the chargebacks came in, but before this contract, we had several written and verbal agreements. Here's one that was explicitly agreed upon by Corey via PM. Now, this was agreed upon by Corey on the day it was delivered, and was sent to him earlier. The date will appear as 03/25 while the orders are 03/24, but Robert Mayberry's orders were HELD by Google temporarily until the 25th, when Corey delivered them via MSN. Once again, these procedures were already in place, but this was the first day I begin asking my workers to put it in explicit written form.
http://puu.sh/13Wkw/f19ce179a6cdd6de368bcf68e661b848
Now, from this agreement, which was, again, agreed upon before the Robert Mayberry deliveries that Corey carried out, there's a very important part we will be focusing on:
The only thing that this changes is make Corey owe me $300 additional money, so if Corey says that the second, more specific contract is invalid, the agreement that these three transactions fall under is this one. To re-iterate, Corey was at least supposed to confirm the user's IP, phone number, and keep this evidence.
Corey made two claims:
- He called, but he was not supposed to keep the proof
- He was not supposed to call
Both of these claims are instantly invalidated, based on the agreement. Again, Hahanerd, a worker at the time, as well as the contract, confirm that Corey was supposed to call Robert Mayberry.
Even so, a more detailed version of how orders were supposed to be delivered was included:
Point a states that Corey should cancel and refund the customer if there's any problems with it. These were the following problems with the order: the IP of the customer did not match a previous order, the customer placed 3 consecutive orders to bypass our 999M limit, the customer's phone was never confirmed.
Corey followed point b properly.
Point c states that Corey should have called and/or texted the customer, and verified their phone number. Corey skipped this step.
Point d states that the IP should be close to the address, which it is, however, Mayberry's previous order(s) had a different IP, as proven by this earlier delivery: http://puu.sh/YcYi/5ea4445e03f54a32c156f4691165f1fd. Mayberry was switching between two houses, which is not permitted. From common sense alone, Corey should have halted the order and contacted me.
Point e, once again, re-iterates that Corey should use common sense. The beginning of this agreement states that merely not knowing isn't enough: always contact me for assistance.
Point f was done correctly, as seen by the delivery screenshots on the scam report.
-----------------------------------------
So what does this prove?
- Corey was aware of our calling policy
- Corey did not submit the required evidence, when asked for it
Below is a screenshot of each chargeback we disputed. It includes no evidence of a phone call, once again confirming that Corey did not submit it when asked for it.
http://puu.sh/13Wnt/f9836dc8f23dcc168d100db4fb0468c7
http://puu.sh/13WnL/53ee9c10a5e9bfcb4c20a28799e164c1
http://puu.sh/13WnW/f833d01a194ee2a2a2f06cc3dc4d27a9
As further evidence, here is what Corey sent me when I requested evidence for the Mayberry orders, around the time when these chargebacks were filed. Notice how he has absolutely no evidence of calls.
http://puu.sh/Yd9I/0cce681677c3e177a57693b07977918c
http://puu.sh/Yd9T/72392707334142f7dc40b802cd285046
The other screenshot for the smaller order was never submitted, and I had to beg him to send it and dig through a pile of files he sent me at a later time. Also notice how the customer was given 10% more gold than he purchased, which was our policy for late delivered orders, once again re-iterating how the written agreement was before these deliveries.
Please read over this and get back to me with anything more you would like.
