[denied] Create a account section for bot-ready/risky accounts

Account recovered by Corby

Using my own dispute as an example. There should be one section of the forums where we can alter our account sale Terms of Service to be less than 30 days. These would include accounts like Gauntlet, Zulrah, Vorkath ready accounts. Which would be sold with the understanding that the buyer is probably going to do things that would increase the chance of a lock/ban which the seller is then responsible for. Making 30 days far too long. I personally would like to set a 7 day warranty for these kinds of accounts but I think people should be able to set whatever warranty they want IN THAT ONE ACCOUNT SALES SECTION ONLY.

EDIT:

Alternatively, just apply this rule to the MISC accounts section since it is pretty much already used for this purpose.

EDIT 2: ^^ added to the paragraph sorry MAGZ

 

[President]

Support

 

wow, i just had a couple of conversations relating this exact topic:
i 100% agree with it and would very much like this to be implemented.

the default 30 day warranty leaves a lot of space for abuse. let me put down a quite common scenario, in which the default warranty could lead to running ANY legit account seller out of business & make goldfarmers a fortune in the process.


A Goldfarmer buys 1 vorkath ready account, unregistered with the username "[email protected]"
Sythe ToS forces a 30 day warranty including unlocks and recovery.

after happily goldfarming for 3 weeks, the account gets banned for botting
the goldfarmer goes on the appeal section & claims the account had been stolen, which of course looks pretty damn legit since it was trained on a different IP.

this by default locks the account & more often than not reverts the email to its original registration state (in the case of a @X.Y email it does too!) and the new registered email is "[email protected]" which obviously doesnt exist & cant be created either.

the goldfarmer now proceeds to contact the seller, enforcing the 30 day warranty period.
there's 2 possible outcomes:

1: the seller manages to recover said account (which is difficult in the above setting) and the goldfarmer get's the account back
2: the seller does not manage to recover said account and is liable for the original purchase price or a replacement.

in both cases, the goldfarmer gets a "fresh" start and the seller has added issues and /or expenses because of the buyer.


the above of course theoretically also applies to "cheaper" account builds.
imagine a sale of 100 accounts for air orbs, there's macros that appeal bans. however the recovery process is a manual effort.
these "cheaper" accounts are usually sold on bulk, do we really think it's fair to enforce 30 days warranty on an account with an expected lifespan of 1 week?


i Personally say, accounts should be allowed to get a tag "goldfarming" or "made for botting" and be completely free of any liability other than the ToS the seller agrees to with the buyer.

there SHOULD be some clear enforcement of the agreeing & specifications of these ToS, including a kind of protocol about delivering and agreeing to the ToS, which CLEARLY specifies the no liability for the specific accounts.

 

I think adding a section specifically for no-forced-warranty accounts could make it messier for newer users. We could add an extra sticky to such section warning users about the warranty that applies there.

I'm on the fence.

 

[President]

I think adding a section specifically for no-forced-warranty accounts could make it messier for newer users. We could add an extra sticky to such section warning users about the warranty that applies there.

I'm on the fence.

To push you over that fence:

A situation where rules only apply to part of the market section and not to the other part of the market section only complicates matters and leads to unclarity, and therefore, more (unnecessary) work for us.

The solution is right in front of us: contracting freedom. Why make things complicated when they can be simple

 

As someone who is slowly diving into the account market myself I support.

I have thought about not even posting my stuff regarding accounts on Sythe to begin with due to the stupid ruling we see in many cases. Imagine customer buys an account and bots the hell out of it for months, gets it locked (potentially from trying to get unbanned*) and then turns around and disputes you lol...

You cant unlock due to their IP sitting on the account etc, and all of a sudden you gotta refund the full price, which is a win win for them.

 

all the above basically sums up why we do not advertise accounts on Sythe.
indeed, free the market as @President said.

in addition to that: JAGEX ACCOUNTS are about to be come a thing
once they are registered to a JAGEX ACCOUNT there is apparently a 0% recovery chance according to what i've read until now

 

I’m ultimately with @President and support a free market. Folks should be able to negotiate, contractually through TOS, the terms that best suit their deal. Educating users on how to best protect themselves is something that we as a community do not do enough of IMO.


Great points are made here, and I do acknowledge the problem that can occur with these throwaway type accounts. If this were applied, I think the subsection would need very specific rules around which accounts are allowed to be posted for sale there.

 

I think adding a section specifically for no-forced-warranty accounts could make it messier for newer users. We could add an extra sticky to such section warning users about the warranty that applies there.

I'm on the fence.

Re-name it from "MISC Accounts'
To
"MISC Accounts NO DEFAULT WARRANTY"
or something like that.

 

[President]

I’m ultimately with @President and support a free market. Folks should be able to negotiate, contractually through TOS, the terms that best suit their deal. Educating users on how to best protect themselves is something that we as a community do not do enough of IMO.


Great points are made here, and I do acknowledge the problem that can occur with these throwaway type accounts. If this were applied, I think the subsection would need very specific rules around which accounts are allowed to be posted for sale there.

Another reason I am not in favor of a specific section / more rules is because of the risk of the 'bureaucracy' problem. Too many rules lead to uncertainty and can be a slipping slope where only more rules are introduced to balance out the already existing rules. See what happened to the market-manipulation rules.

Really, the best thing to do is to pull the good old capitalist move

 

Another reason I am not in favor of a specific section / more rules is because of the risk of the 'bureaucracy' problem. Too many rules lead to uncertainty and can be a slipping slope where only more rules are introduced to balance out the already existing rules. See what happened to the market-manipulation rules.

Really, the best thing to do is to pull the good old capitalist move

I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Utopia]

You would like to change a 30 day warranty to a 7 day? Runescape accounts can be recovered years later by original owner. 30 or 7, it wouldn’t make a difference other than leave you less liable to refund accounts no longer playable. Accounts don’t get “locked” for botting, they get banned.

 

wow, i just had a couple of conversations relating this exact topic:
i 100% agree with it and would very much like this to be implemented.

the default 30 day warranty leaves a lot of space for abuse. let me put down a quite common scenario, in which the default warranty could lead to running ANY legit account seller out of business & make goldfarmers a fortune in the process.


A Goldfarmer buys 1 vorkath ready account, unregistered with the username "[email protected]"
Sythe ToS forces a 30 day warranty including unlocks and recovery.

after happily goldfarming for 3 weeks, the account gets banned for botting
the goldfarmer goes on the appeal section & claims the account had been stolen, which of course looks pretty damn legit since it was trained on a different IP.

this by default locks the account & more often than not reverts the email to its original registration state (in the case of a @X.Y email it does too!) and the new registered email is "[email protected]" which obviously doesnt exist & cant be created either.

the goldfarmer now proceeds to contact the seller, enforcing the 30 day warranty period.
there's 2 possible outcomes:

1: the seller manages to recover said account (which is difficult in the above setting) and the goldfarmer get's the account back
2: the seller does not manage to recover said account and is liable for the original purchase price or a replacement.

in both cases, the goldfarmer gets a "fresh" start and the seller has added issues and /or expenses because of the buyer.


the above of course theoretically also applies to "cheaper" account builds.
imagine a sale of 100 accounts for air orbs, there's macros that appeal bans. however the recovery process is a manual effort.
these "cheaper" accounts are usually sold on bulk, do we really think it's fair to enforce 30 days warranty on an account with an expected lifespan of 1 week?


i Personally say, accounts should be allowed to get a tag "goldfarming" or "made for botting" and be completely free of any liability other than the ToS the seller agrees to with the buyer.

there SHOULD be some clear enforcement of the agreeing & specifications of these ToS, including a kind of protocol about delivering and agreeing to the ToS, which CLEARLY specifies the no liability for the specific accounts.

100% support. Primal explained it perfectly

 

You would like to change a 30 day warranty to a 7 day? Runescape accounts can be recovered years later by original owner. 30 or 7, it wouldn’t make a difference other than leave you less liable to refund accounts no longer playable. Accounts don’t get “locked” for botting, they get banned.

This isn't entirely true. I will use a scenario to explain.

- Velasso buys an account from Corby
- Velasso bots agility and trips Jagex system
- Jagex notices that the IP on the account at time of botting is different than the IP usually on the account
- Jagex locks account and requires recovery to unlock

At this point, if the account is successfully recovered, it would be unlocked to the "original owner," with no bans, warnings, etc. for botting.

 

[Utopia]

This isn't entirely true. I will use a scenario to explain.

- Velasso buys an account from Corby
- Velasso bots agility and trips Jagex system
- Jagex notices that the IP on the account at time of botting is different than the IP usually on the account
- Jagex locks account and requires recovery to unlock

At this point, if the account is successfully recovered, it would be unlocked to the "original owner," with no bans, warnings, etc. for botting.

You mean trip the bot detection system? This scenario doesn't quite make sense when you consider a few things.

1. If botting on a different IP meant that your account gets locked, rather than banned, then appealing for macro major bans whilst being hijacked wouldn't be a thing (only macro major bans while being hijacked can be successfully appealed).

2. If there was a failsafe to avoid getting banned for botting, and that being botting on a different IP, would that not be abused? What exactly is "tripping" Jagex's system here? Even if this measure was a preventative one from their end, why is this my first time hearing of such? Can you provide similar examples of this case in specific?

3. Why is it okay to sell accounts that can't be recovered? You would essentially be selling accounts with a looming expiration date.

 

You mean trip the bot detection system? This scenario doesn't quite make sense when you consider a few things.

1. If botting on a different IP meant that your account gets locked, rather than banned, then appealing for macro major bans whilst being hijacked wouldn't be a thing (only macro major bans while being hijacked can be successfully appealed).

2. If there was a failsafe to avoid getting banned for botting, and that being botting on a different IP, would that not be abused? What exactly is "tripping" Jagex's system here? Even if this measure was a preventative one from their end, why is this my first time hearing of such? Can you provide similar examples of this case in specific?

3. Why is it okay to sell accounts that can't be recovered? You would essentially be selling accounts with a looming expiration date.

Yes, trip the detection system.


Addressing your points #1 & 2 - I'm not postulating. I've had this exact scenario happen to me before.

this by default locks the account & more often than not reverts the email to its original registration state (in the case of a @X.Y email it does too!) and the new registered email is "[email protected]" which obviously doesnt exist & cant be created either.

This is essentially what happened. The account was flagged for botting, subsequently locked, and reverted to the original registration email. As bizarre as it is, don't ask me the logic behind it. Jagex makes the rules.


Addressing your point #3 - Umm, what? Anyways, this has nothing to do with my reply to your post, so I wont be addressing this [I also never indicated that selling accounts that can't be recovered is/isn't okay. Not sure why you included that in your reply].

 

[Utopia]

Yes, trip the detection system.


Addressing your points #1 & 2 - I'm not postulating. I've had this exact scenario happen to me before.

Addressing your point #3 - Umm, what? Anyways, this has nothing to do with my reply to your post, so I wont be addressing this [I also never indicated that selling accounts that can't be recovered is/isn't okay. Not sure why you included that in your reply].

For the first two points, if this is something that has happened on multiple occasions, that would suggest a trend. Trends should be easy to find and are cited for source material.

As per #3, this thread is suggesting an entire section for those type of accounts, so the question is merited.

 

Support

 

For the first two points, if this is something that has happened on multiple occasions, that would suggest a trend. Trends should be easy to find and are cited for source material.

It could just be because I'm a complete smooth brain, but I don't understand how this statement relates to my post at all

As per #3, this thread is suggesting an entire section for those type of accounts, so the question is merited.

How is selling an unrecoverable account a bad thing? I'm just curious to hear your perspective.

In a perfect blackmarket world, all accounts would be 100% unrecoverable. They wouldn't have to ever worry about their account being stolen back. There would then be zero risk for buyers, and a vast majority of scam reports would cease to exist. If they botted, RWT, etc., they'd be taking the risk upon themselves and no one else.

 

[Bert]

Support because account sellers can be blamed for bans while users buy these type of accounts to run massive bot farms which may lead to account locks and bans.