[DENIED] Account return procedure

Why is the default that you can return an account at any time? I was unaware of this, and now that I have to deal with a return (for no reason) after the user has used the account I face the following risks:

1. Since the user is a brand new user with no previous trades, he might be a scammer. The user has access to the recovery information of the account, including username, creation details (exact creation date), possibly payment details and past passwords. He can recover the account without any issues, posing a danger to any future buyers while lowering the value of the account significantly.
2. He might've botted on the account, or done some other actions against the rules risking the account.
3. He might've never wanted to keep the account, but just figured out a way to rent accounts for free.

I feel like there should be a valid reason in order to qualify for a return.

Is it really so that unless agreed, by both parties, a purchased account can be returned? What prevents people from buying pures from trusted users, pking on them and then returning them? Or mains to stake on? Or zulrah ready accounts to bot on for a week before returning them for free?

I have never seen any return policies in threads, and thus was also unaware, like many users.

This loophope, which is very open for exploitation should be closed.

Accounts should be returnable only with valid reasons, such as not being what was promised, or doubts of claims of ownership etc.

 

[Pain]

This has been discussed literally 50 times in the past - this is never - ever going to happen.

Sythe is a buyers market - It always has and always will favor the buyer - I just tl;dr'd about 50 discussions for you.

Staff have never came up with a viable solution to prevent buyers from simply just claiming "XXX recovered their account!" and the OO/seller has to issue a refund. The only way that doesn't occur is if the OO/seller can prove damages were done to the account during the tenure the buyer had control of it(near impossible) - There is a reason there are only two account resellers and only 4-5 really big marketplaces. You've got PA(who's insurance is a scam and takes no risk out a bunch of chargebacks), G2g who is Chinese. Accountwarehouse is fine if you can deal with their policies, Acckings and that's it. Of these 3 of the four are on Sythe - Each one has their own policies and agreements so that there's at least some places people can go for accounts in this shithole industry.

The account market is an extremely high risk market - It's why trust is so important - This issue of users buying accounts off individuals(versus companies like us) will never be resolved. Our entire business models are based on the fact that you have extrodionary amounts of assets - vouches and reputation backing the companies versus an individual - It's also why you don't see someone purchase an account off a company than file a report - everything is handled internally in governance with our terms.

The day you find a way to protect individual sellers is the day you cost companies like ours a lot of money - Sythe favors buyers and always will when it comes to individuals.

It's a no from me - You just described the problem like 50 others have - You proposed no solutions.

This has been an issue since the dawn of gaming - I never see a solution to this being viable.

 

I know a guy recently who had his account recovered, bought it for like $100 and now worth $300+. Seller threatened if disputes on Sythe then it'll take a month to resolve when OG owner could just recover it again.

Stinks if you ask me.

 

there will always be a loophole on one of the sides no matter what, your best bet is to ask user to leave sales vouch or ask for a pm on a platform that better fit your policy so official the trade happens through that (pb is a lot easier to work with as a seller for example, but that's maybe cuz mods have actual experience in the market there)

 

[Tyler]

This has been discussed literally 50 times in the past - this is never - ever going to happen.

That's why there's a recent approved suggestion in regards to this huh?

[APPROVED] Fix account selling rules
Jesus you just talk out of your ass 24/7.



@OP

Check out that thread. Maybe talk to @Champ if you have any additional details/suggestions regarding what you have talked about here.

 

[Pain]

That's why there's a recent approved suggestion in regards to this huh?

[APPROVED] Fix account selling rules
Jesus you just talk out of your ass 24/7.



@OP

Check out that thread. Maybe talk to @Champ if you have any additional details/suggestions regarding what you have talked about here.

Dude there are approved suggestions that have sat years.

You act like that approved suggestion will ever mean jack shit until 2020.

The ironic part is this suggestion and yours are actually pro my own interest's - Your lying to yourself if you think that or this is ever going anywhere.

There is no fix - It's either screw one side or another - If your so blind after your time as a moderator to not understand Sythe ALWAYS sides with the buyer than you need to read more Sythe threads.

R2 and I collaborated for ages and I'm talking *ages* literally weeks if not months on end together merging our market knowledge to attempt to overcome the problems in the account market - We never did find a solution that could be fair to both sides in this specific instance - We ended up having to do a work around and have special terms approved by staff that govern any issues relating to our website.

If you or someone else or staff can come up with something R2 and I failed to than kudos to whoever - Your smarter than we are.

All that suggestion thread is - is describing the problem you jackass - there is no solution. If your going to call me an ass than read ur own suggestion.

 

I have a potential solution to this:

You can only sell accounts you are the original owner of. If a dispute happens, you are to recover and return the account. A refund is optional upon agreement with the seller.

Is there a loophole to the above?

 

I have a potential solution to this:

You can only sell accounts you are the original owner of. If a dispute happens, you are to recover and return the account. A refund is optional upon agreement with the seller.

Is there a loophole to the above?

The customer can ask you to recover an account that he already sold, to re-sell again. Might cause more problems in the future.

 

The customer can ask you to recover an account that he already sold, to re-sell again. Might cause more problems in the future.

Ah crap, you're right. LMAO this is harder than I thought..

EDIT
But wait, he can't re-sell it because you can only sell accounts that you're the original owner of..

 

Ah crap, you're right. LMAO this is harder than I thought..

EDIT
But wait, he can't re-sell it because you can only sell accounts that you're the original owner of..

He doesnt need to be the original owner to sell an account and people will still buy it. Some randoms do that alot in account section on sythe and what not.

 

He doesnt need to be the original owner to sell an account and people will still buy it. Some randoms do that alot in account section on sythe and what not.

Yes but what I was suggesting was that you can only sell an account you are the original owner to. This would in turn stop what you said would happen. It will piss off a lot of websites, though.

 

[Josik1]

Yes but what I was suggesting was that you can only sell an account you are the original owner to. This would in turn stop what you said would happen. It will piss off a lot of websites, though.

How do you prove some is or not OO of an acc ? anyone can lie about it.

In a lot of threads in the acc section a lot of people have listed that every purchase is final , I dont know if this helps with anything but you shouldnt refund an acc without a valid reason just because the buyer for example got bored of the acc.

 

How do you prove some is or not OO of an acc ? anyone can lie about it.

Ehhh.. Require the account seller to always supply a recovery test before the sale to the buyer. On the recovery test, the new email should be set to the buyer's so that they can't play pretend.

First thing that comes to mind, but I'm sure other solutions could be found as well..

 

[Josik1]

Ehhh.. Require the account seller to always supply a recovery test before the sale to the buyer. On the recovery test, the new email should be set to the buyer's so that they can't play pretend.

I can buy an acc from you , I recived all information and recovery is a success then I can go and sell the account clamining to be OO and provide same recovery info you gave me and the recovery will probably be succesful ... Anyway this is not the point of this thread.
What is being discussed here is why buyers can return accs when they feel like it and why a sellers are obliged comply.

 

I can buy an acc from you , I recived all information and recovery is a success then I can go and sell the account clamining to be OO and provide same recovery info you gave me and the recovery will probably be succesful ... Anyway this is not the point of this thread.
What is being discussed here is why buyers can return accs when they feel like it and why a sellers are obliged comply.

Yeah I know, was simply looking for a solution instead of just having a debate.
The likelihood of you passing a recovery test with the details is less likely than the original owner, though, because of the home IP adress.

 

I think i saw someone before selling his account while providing email access to the customer, and he told the customer that if that email changes then hes not responsible for anything. Account should be kept linked to that email at all times (customer can change the email password) . This way customer can change pass anytime he wants and if that email changes, the customer will be the one at fault

 

I think i saw someone before selling his account while providing email access to the customer, and he told the customer that if that email changes then hes not responsible for anything. Account should be kept linked to that email at all times (customer can change the email password) . This way customer can change pass anytime he wants and if that email changes, the customer will be the one at fault

That's pretty good, BUt, what if the seller recovers the account? The email will be considered as "changed" and he won't be held responsible?

 

That's pretty good, BUt, what if the seller recovers the account? The email will be considered as "changed" and he won't be held responsible?

if seller recovers the acc then ye its back to stalemate. I was just saying how can sellers protect themselves from customers fake recovery reports but in this case, i dont think theres a solution as both sides can tell a different story.

 

I have a potential solution to this:

You can only sell accounts you are the original owner of. If a dispute happens, you are to recover and return the account. A refund is optional upon agreement with the seller.

Is there a loophole to the above?

This would solve the issue of ppl reselling accounts they can't guarantee the safety of, but there is till an issue with buyers claiming false shit which you can only take their word for it

 

[Taking]

I have a potential solution to this:

You can only sell accounts you are the original owner of. If a dispute happens, you are to recover and return the account. A refund is optional upon agreement with the seller.

Is there a loophole to the above?

You're missing a bigger issue. Account seller (Legit original owner) sells acc. 2 months later, he recovers, cleans the account of wealth, then happily "recovers for the buyer" again and returns the account.

If we don't allow refunds when the account is deemed insecure, account sellers can take advantage of this like in the above example.

On the flip side (as it stands now), accounts deemed insecure have to be refunded. The buyer can claim the account was "hacked" (in reality, they don't have to do anything, just say they can't login anymore), as many times as necessary until the seller is forced to refund.

Both approaches leave open a massive window of opportunity for abuse. In my eyes, there is no solution.