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

You said you had this exact scenario happen to you before. This is my first time hearing of accounts getting locked, not banned for botting. If the trigger is a change of IP, and if those accounts are created with a VPN to begin with (assuming), I wouldn’t understand how the account would be locked, and not banned. I’m not saying it’s impossible either. This could be a new approach to how these situations are dealt with. It just would create a loophole that could lead to fail-safes/abuse.

In this particular instance you would be selling deadlocked accounts. Basically accounts with an expiration date, not of if, but of when. The approach here assumes that to get an account locked, it is the sole doing of the buyer, and not on part of the seller. Can this be proven for all cases? I'm not so sure on that.

In a perfect blackmarket world, all accounts would be 100% accessible from a buyer's perspective. In this case, selling accounts without creation email given is always gonna be to the detriment of the buyer. If the buyer in this instance was given creation email of account, then a report wouldn't have been made.

 

If appealing a ban with the "my account was hijacked, it's 90%+ chance to be followed by a lock

 

Ahh, must've misinterpreted it
But yeah, especially logging into proxies can cause this

 

A ban would suggest the account is in worse standing than a lock. I’ve appealed old accounts that were banned for macro major and they weren’t locked after.

 

Spoiler: See here

This happened to me on 3 different occasions and the accounts were never locked. The ban was lifted and I was able to log in with the same password. These are for perm banned accounts, both RS3 & OSRS.

This is not me going against what you’re saying, rather me sharing my own personal experiences. With Jagex accounts being a thing and talks of better account support, it’s possible that procedures have changed in regards to how these cases are handled.

 

I'd personally argue that this line should be taken into deeper consideration when considering this suggestion.
i personally know at least 10 sellers that would come to sythe, if this were to be adapted.
The rule locks out a whole niche of sellers of operation properly, due to the chances of getting screwed over massively, if adhering to the Syhte ToS.

To address the sale of cracked accounts, i'd argue that 95%+ of those are sold WITHOUT access to the actual email. mean's they'd not qualify for the "unregistered goldfarming sales"
It could possibly be counteracted by a "proof of creation" or a "proof of first p2p payment" or.. both?
"proof of creation" could be as simple as owning the actual email address where the acc was created & showing the email sent from jagex to register the initial email
Assuming that the majority of account sellers use codes over bonds, it's easy enough to get that screenshot too

I personally think, having to take this extra step (whereas it would "invalidate" a lot of the current stock for people of course) is an acceptable evil, to be rid of those 30 day obligations.

then again..
@President .. the good 'ol capitalist move
sounds incredibly appealing

 

There is already a 2 year safety measure for when ToS are not agreed on. Im with Prezzy there shouldnt be a limit on how short you can offer your ToS if the customer agrees they know what they are agreeing to.

EDIT:
I think attempting to consider special cases for unregistered email accounts and cracked accounts is a waste of time with the new launcher client looming over the scene. Things are going to change anyway so SOON would be the best time to re-evaluate the entire process. I would wait until the launcher BETA is over.

 

What if the section was literally called "NO WARRANTY ACCOUNTS". Cant be much more direct than that.

 

Yo..there is a warranty?

 

I also agree 100% with this topic, I support

 

The balance of power between the seller and thebuyer shifts immensely to the seller should the market be freed in the way that @President suggests in my opinion.

The market as it is currently allows for the customer to be guaranteed the 30 day recovery process, while I can imagine this is frustrating for the seller, and as stated in posts there is the potential for abuse of this system, should the market be 'freed' as suggested, it is extremely likely that the Selling market will trend towards not giving a guarantee at all - because without the need for it, why assume the extra risk? You can see evidence of this in the TOS of people in other markets with this level of 'freedom' (namely: account services where no extra risk is assumed by the vast majority of the sellers)

Now, it's not like this guarantee prevents any amount of account recovery - so disingenuous sellers are free to recover should they choose regardless of this guarantee. But I believe that this 30 day guarantee allows for the buyers to feel a level of protection from reputable people to receive some level of protection from a seller that claims they are not the OO and instantly recovers the account.

In saying all this, I do believe that there is an issue that needs to be addressed on the sellers side - that these bot farm accounts are free to abuse the system as they have stated.

But by removing this guarantee, and providing room for reputable seller to abuse the buyers in this market really achieving anything? What could be done, should the removal of this guarantee happen, to protect buyers from purchasing accounts from reputable sellers who claim they are not the OO, and have their account recovered instantly?

 

People will be taken advantage of even further.

People think that "sellers" have it bad and they'll be taken advantage of by buyers of accounts but that is almost never the case, even if TOS aren't agreed upon.

If a seller is avoiding advertising on Sythe due to the 30 day requirement, they shouldn't be selling accounts in the first place. 30 days is nothing and its almost never taken advantage of by the consumer in these scenarios, and even when it is, its normally pretty easy to prove that they had bad intentions from the start or were looking to resell etc.

The real truth is that some sellers don't want to be held responsible if THEIR worker, who in these scenarios is the true OO and creator of the account decides to SQ and/or recover. People can deny it all they want, but the success rate of an account making it to completion is MUCH higher if it is made by the worker, especially when the worker is from a 3rd world country. If you aren't willing to be responsible if your worker scams or the OO scams, you shouldn't be "reselling" the account in the first place. In theory, you aren't an account creator/seller, you're an account reseller.

I sold 300 accounts without TOS, ensuring I can recover if any issues happen and out of those 300 sales I only once had an issue where an account was banned right after sale and because no TOS, I was required to refund. It almost never happens, but I guess 1 out of 1,000 account sales from "legit" account sellers, and when I say legit people who have been doing it for 5+ years..

I personally think requiring more than 30 days should be required for account dealers, and no offense Corby, I think the way you do things has an extremely high risk rate for any buyer. Offering zero insurance because accounts are made by workers is setting your buyers up for a disaster. If RuneshitMetrix can recover 100+ accounts, imagine the worker you have that has made 100+ builds for you and all of a sudden one day decides to say fuck it. That person is a random person none of us but you know and won't be held responsible, and neither will you.

Thats a scary thing.

 

?? I offer 30 days of insurance and I try to recover every account requested as locked. As I said in my original post the only accounts I am advocating being able to not force a minimum 30 day warranty on are accounts specifically made to be goldfarm botted on.

 

Yeah I get it for bot ready accounts etc but I'm saying for non-bot ready accounts I feel as though a longer than 30 day requirement is needed, especially when people aren't building accounts themselves and instead are outsourcing work and that outsourced work is essentially trusting someone else to be the OO/make the account/finish the build. That is a MUCH bigger issue than people worrying about post-bans from bot ready accounts during the insurance period.

There is extreme risk if one of your biggest providers to you decides to turn rogue, hundreds of accounts would be recovered and because that 30 day window passed, no one is held responsible.. seems wrong.

Maybe requiring that if you aren't OO of an account your selling is being RESOLD, you hold responsibility for over a year, or longer.

"Trying" to recover the account really means nothing if your worker made the build on his IP and you really didn't touch it other than to log in to check the build once it was finished or to get pictures.

 

Its a fine line because I have plenty of customers who buy my accounts and then go to someone else to get additional work done. I have issues recovering my unregistered email accounts and I dont like having to refund for locked or banned accounts after they have been owned for so long since history has shown it to be very unlikely to be the fault of me or my workers and more the fault of botting or hiring additional services.