Sumskills Can't Recover an Account and Won't Refund

rslord69 · Jul 1, 2020

Seller's Sythe profile link: Sumskills
Vouches if they were exchanged: Sumskills' vouch thread
Original selling thread: [70+ Vouches] Sumskill's Exotic Account shop [Selling Rare accounts][Near Max Main]
Proof of payment: Imgur
Proof of contacting seller: Imgur
Discord ID + Unique Discord ID: Sumskills#6689 + 713396270793883741
Any other relevant trade screenshots: Imgur

I purchased an account from Sumskills and it was locked into recovery mode within a week of our trade. Sumskills and I agreed to a full refund if a week of unsuccessful recovery went by.

We worked with each other for a bit over a week trying different recovery methods, I even went as far to create a twitter account on Sumskills suggestion to reach out to Jagex directly, but we weren’t able to get it back.

The week was up June 27th, and it is now July 1st. Sumskills has failed to keep up his side of the bargain which is: full account recovery within a month of transfer or refund. I didn’t want to create this report, but Sumskills has been avoiding sitting down and hashing this thing out, so we are here now.

Please let me know if there is any additional details/screenshots I can provide.

Superfluous · Jul 1, 2020

@Sumskills
You owe @rslord69 either the account he lost access to or a full refund instead. Please help us out here and make things right. Thanks.

Sumskills · Jul 1, 2020

Attempting to come to a new agreement with him atm

rslord69 · Jul 2, 2020

A new agreement has not been reached, I am still requesting a full refund.

I will note: I am happy to continue working with Sumskills after the refund to try more account recovery tactics.

Sumskills · Jul 2, 2020

Unfortunately, we are unable to come to a mutual agreement and I am not in a financial position to give a refund atm. You may ban me for now.

Before I go, I have something that I want to put out there regarding the new rule in seller’s liability made in 2017. I initially reached out to mod Andy about this but was asked to contact an admin instead. I have then pmed both Sythe and Gen about this new rule but it has been weeks now without any reply. The following is what I pmed them both.

Hi Sythe/Gen, I am a user who mainly deals in the rs market and had recently came back to the site. I was notified that there had been a new rule regarding seller's liability for rs account sales that took place before 19 June 2017. The relevant post can be found here: (Changes and clarifications to the account market) ("post referred to").

I had reached out to a mod @Andy and he had promptly replied. However, I do not find his response satisfactory and he had referred me to contact an admin instead. Hence, I am pming you in hopes that you will be able to address my concerns with regards to the new rule.

My question is, how is the new rule for the account market fair or even necessary?

As seen in the post referred to, the previous position, prior to 19 June 2017, was that sellers are forever liable for the accounts they sell. Buyers and sellers when entering into a deal would have been assumed to have agreed to this rule.

However, the post referred to had implemented a new rule such that sellers are no longer liable for accounts sold prior to 19 June 2017. This new rule essentially negates seller's liability and clearly go against what buyers and sellers had between themselves agreed to. To this end, the rule should not have been implemented as 1. Increasing instability in Jagex recovery system should not be a valid reason and 2. Sellers are now able to recover accounts sold prior to 19 June 2017.

1. Increasing instability in Jagex recovery system should not be a valid reason
It appears that the main impetus for the new rule is the increasing instability in Jagex recovery system. While at first glance, such uncertainty may seem like a valid reason for the change, we should remember that what the rule seeks to affect is businesses. Buying and selling accounts is a business and with all business, there are always risks involved. These risks include changes to Jagex's recovery policy. The new rule is overly favourable to sellers. Sellers should have considered this risk when deciding whether or not to sell their accounts, and at what price to sell their accounts for.

In fact, in a similar vein, we see that sellers could have excluded liaiblity in their TOS (before 19 June 2017) and trusted sellers have always been charging a premium for their accounts.

a. Sellers could have excluded liability in their TOS (before 19 June 2017)
If I am not mistaken, before 19 June 2017, there were no rules preventing sellers from excluding their liability or limiting their liability to a fixed duration. Terms of sale can be fixed by the seller. An example can be seen here: ([Admin/OMM]Selling 2k total account, ex-mod OO[100% moneyback guarantee] ). Yet sales that took place before 19 June 2017 are treated differently. This makes it unfair given that, just as buyers entering into a transaction today would have a legitimate expectation that the seller will be liable forever unless otherwise specified, buyers that bought accounts before 19 June 2017 would similarly have entered into the transaction with the same legitimate expectation that the sellers will be responsible for any recoveries.

b. Trusted sellers charging a premium
Furthermore, it is commonplace that sellers who are highly vouched would charge a higher price for accounts that they sell. Similarly, a resold account whose original owner is a trusted seller is also able to resell the account for a higher price, compared to an account whose original owner is not "trusted". Very often, these trusted sellers would state in their terms that they will be responsible if the account has been recovered, whether or not they are the original owner. An example can be seen here: ([OMM][MOD][1400+ vouches]Video's Beast Account Shop[$500k+ traded]).

This means that some buyers had even paid a premium to buy an account from trusted sellers with the assurance that the trusted sellers will be obligated to refund them or assist them in getting the account back in the event that the account had been recovered. This further buttress the point that the new rule unfairly interferes with agreements, whether explicit or assumed, between the parties.

In a transaction, the buyer's obligations include having to pay the agreed sum and also to refrain from charging back if the payment method is via paypal. On the other hand, traditionally, the seller's obligations include handing over the account and the account details, to refrain from recovering the account and to assist the buyer in getting back the account if the account was lost. All obligations are crucial in a transaction yet regrettably, the obligation to assist the buyer in getting back the account is not given due weight. Given that the new rule absolves the seller's obligation to return the account, shouldn't part of the buyer's obligations be removed to mitigate the unfairness, especially when a substantial part of the purchase price was for the very obligation which the new rule had eliminated?

2. Sellers are now able to recover accounts sold prior to 19 June 2017
The new rule essentially absolves sellers of any liability for accounts sold prior to 19 June 2017. While it is stated that "(sellers/OO's are still not allowed to recover their own accounts)", the lack of an enforcement mechanism renders this rule in parentheses otiose. Furthermore, while the post referred to appears to distinguish seller's recovery liability from the obligation not to recover the accounts, they are practically speaking two sides of the same coin, making the statement rather contradictory. In fact, looking at the replies on the thread, there are queries made by other members that were, unfortunately, left unanswered.

It is hoped that the new rule can be abolished.

Please let me know if I have misinterpreted any parts of the post referred to. Would also appreciate it if the post referred to can be updated to include the queries made by other members.
Click to expand...

And although this should not matter, the original reason why I am against this new rule change is because I have accounts recovered from me and I was told that the seller is no longer responsible. (Frankz - account recovered)

Unfortunately, this instance is yet another example of how the new rule is unfair to account buyers like myself. Having originally purchased the account in question from another Sythe user, the said Sythe user is no longer responsible to unlock the account for me, yet I am liable to the new buyer.

I guess it is goodbye for now and I hope everyone stays safe.

Superfluous · Jul 2, 2020

DNT'd - hopefully you can sort things out on your end soon.

As for your pm, you do raise a few good points; if we were seeing a slew of old account recoveries (re: #2) I could see us rethinking the rule, but since that hasn't happened I don't see the need. It remains the case that you had a pre-rule account recovered from you and are now being asked to recover/refund an account post-rule. Once you are able to refund @rslord69 you may Request a Pardon.

Log in or Sign up

Sumskills Can't Recover an Account and Won't Refund

rslord69 Newcomer

Superfluous Rainbet.com Casino & Sportsbook

Sumskills Guru

rslord69 Newcomer

Sumskills Guru

Superfluous Rainbet.com Casino & Sportsbook

Log in or Sign up

Sumskills Can't Recover an Account and Won't Refund

Thread Tools

rslord69 Newcomer

Superfluous Rainbet.com Casino & Sportsbook

Sumskills Guru

rslord69 Newcomer

Sumskills Guru

Superfluous Rainbet.com Casino & Sportsbook

Useful Searches