Half refund

Hello!

I will make this simple and short.


If you find a person to be guilty in anyway, then the refund should be 100%. If he isnt guilty and you are in the middle, you cant just say well refund him 100% and we will call it even steven.

http://www.sythe.org/14583187-post6.html


In this case, you accept the risk when you buy an account. Why should A who got scammed by B, have to pay half of what B manages to resell the account for?

 

what he said doesn't even make sense. how can you even say who recovered it.

 

Yeah this doesn't make sense to me. Imagine you are A, and you trade accounts with someone. Later, the account you were given gets recovered so you recover your own account (which you are perfectly justified in doing so) but now you have to refund someone 82.5m? I mean ideally (if A was also willing) they should "share the burden" but I don't think you should force A to refund anything...

 

This is confusing.

If i sell an account to B who in turn sells it to C then i should be completely absolved from the trade. Why should i be banned for someone elses trade?

This is why i hate account trades and i asked for clarification on the rule TWO MONTHS AGO

http://www.sythe.org/suggestions/1806428-clarity-sythes-account-selling-rule.html

Sofaking bought an account from Origen and floomer was the original owner, account is locked and origen is banned. Floomer should unlock the account (out of the goodness of his heart) but shouldn't be required to make sofaking whole again since it wasn't him who scammed nor was he the beneficiary of the 2nd account sale. I think sofaking is assed out unless Floomer recovers the account later on.

 

In this case, as I understand it, A sold account 1 to B, who sold account 1 to C. B then recovered account 1 from C and account 2 (which was given to A in exchange for account 1 in the first trade) from A. A then recovered account 1 from B because B recovered account 2 from A. By counterscamming B, A has screwed C out of account 1, and should be forced to pay some sort of penalty; also, A is practically extorting C in the pictures in that thread.

Anyway, this is in the wrong forum (should be in feedback and I've requested its removal there). If you can come up with a solution that is generalizable to ALL account sales, definitely let us know about it. Until then, we'll deal with them on a case-by-case basis until we can come up with a new rule regarding our stance on them.

 

I also do not mean to put Super on blast here.

I just think it is unfair that you have to pay for someones fuck up.

This can also be used for gold sales?

A sells B gold who resells to C and scams C.

Should A have to pay C half of the gold?

 

Except user A doesn't get his gold back like he did when floomer recovered the account.

 

where does it say floomer recovered the account? it couldve been recovered by OrigenPB.

 

A recieves $ payment.

It was a mediocre example lol but yeh.

 

I was unaware that jagex locked accounts.
Can anyone link me to something that explains this locking account business?
Thanks.

 

Jagex usually only locks an account if someone submits a report that it's been stolen.

 

Whatever happened to "You sell it, you're responsible" ? It has always been a well known fact that it shouldn't matter how many previous owners it had, if you sell it, you're responsible. - I've got some disputes to make if this rule has been changed.

Err, do you mean you've requested it to be moved ?

 

This whole clusterfuck over account resales is pretty annoying. I don't see why you ( A ) should be responsible for someone else's trade ( C ) going badly because of their lack of safety. I can understand a ban for extorting someone, but not because of the situation itself.

A was scammed and should be allowed to counter-scam as he had a method of security in his trade. C was careless and clearly did not have any form of security in his trade, therefore should not be refunded at A's loss.

If C was able to charge back their payment, A would not be out of pocket. That's not how it should be.

_

You won't get any problems with A working with B to scam people because there's no advantage of doing that over simply selling an account and scamming without B in the middle. It also means people who trade carefully won't be fucked over by scammers.

Hell, what if B and C were working together to scam A. If A were a well reputable member they'd likely accept being out of pocket because they don't want to be banned. That'll just ruin the whole market...

 

There needs to be two separate rulings on account selling and account reselling. It's an eyesore looking at how account disputes are handled.

 

there should just be a strict rule buy at your own risk. someone between A-Z can recover the account and just profit from the refunds lol.

 

Yes, I'm working on it. So for the suggestion side of this, approved and is in the works. For the feedback side, feel free to take it to the appropriate section for this particular case.