LiTCoins Account Recovery (Divica OO)

What about all of the thousands of scam reports in which the OO's were held reliable for resales in which the account was recovered. Divica could possibly have the account now and just be giving in fake information for these next recovery appeals. They should be treated no differently then the average user.

 

You're focussing a bit too much on the what if arguments. The difference in a lot of the cases is that account information isn't provided. The buyer is given an email change and a password.

We know @Divica provided LIT the correct information because LIT clearly recovered the account back. This was also confirmed by @Zac so there is clear evidence that LIT recovered the account hence scammed not Divica.

If its already been acknowledged that Divica isn't responsible for the scam than it seems foolish to hold Divica responsible for a refund. I stated in a previous post that once the account was sold to LIT (and became LIT's property), Divica had 0 control over what he would do with the account. Divica terms are that no refunds are provided because account information is given.

Divica may be the OO but it's already been proven without doubt that LIT was responsible for the scam. Does it really sound right saying even though the OO didn't scam, because they're the OO they will have to give a refund based on a assumption based argument?

As for the argument about Divica could be giving fake information for the next recovery appeals, this currently has no way near enough evidence to be considered a serious possibility.

If Divica didn't provide account information then a refund would have been required without a doubt.

You cant compare this case to most of the ones you're referring to because there are differences.

 

No idea how you came to this. Sythe rules > Divica's ToS in your own words. Three of her representatives offered recovery at any time any situation. Recovery failed 6x in a row.

Also in regards to LiT clearly being the scammer. I told you three times now it was dumb luck that I found that LiT was responsible. It is in no way different than you thinking it is a random hacker, as in other cases it is treated that way. In other cases, people couldn't prove this so you made the OO refund without any proof that it was the OO who recovered.

If i lose access to the account, Divica is responsible to get it back, no matter what. Those are your sites rules, and how every other case like this is handled.

 

Most products/services are sold based on TOS of the seller not Sythe rules. Sellers have to follow the Sythe rules which they do or they get banned (LIT).

In a post write down your arguments for why Divica should refund you despite clear evidence and understanding she wasn't responsible for the account being lost..

 

Now you're basing it off of "Divica terms are that no refunds are provided because account information is given."

Then why aren't other sellers "Terms" valid who sell accounts? If a newcomer came along and gave all his information upon selling the account to someone, and then that person sells the account, WE STILL HELD THE OO RELIABLE FOR RECOVERY and not the man in the middle. Example: In the case of Ruben Eason and IHQ regarding a maxed main account, the account was "recovered". With all the commotion on that thread at a certain point they decided that PROMBEMAS, the OO would, be reliable for recovery or to PAY BACK $300. The reason this was thrown out the windows was because of Ruben Hosting a Maxed Main rental in which the account was used some much on so many different locations.

ALL IN ALL WE NEED A FUCKING SET IN STONE RULE FOR ACCOUNT RECOVERIES. WE CANT FLIP FLOP.

 

As a moderator it is a joke that you haven't read my previous posts as to why Divica is to refund.

1. Rija confirming that she will 'help' with the account if I need. This is easily assumed as recovery. I'm not asking her if the account is a boy or a girl. http://i.imgur.com/p2i66L2.png
Chloe says in her own words, 'we will not refund as we can recover it anytime, as many times as you need' http://i.imgur.com/8OLkBxn.png

2. 6 times the recovery has failed. You saying the ToS of the seller triumphs sythe's rules is a joke, you yourself have clearly said in previous cases that Sythes rules> ToS. Divica has not explicitly broken sythe rules, but had said they can recover anytime, and is liable for those statements. Divica cannot recover the account I purchased under the pretense that the OO can recover at anytime, how is she not held liable for that?

3. Me stating this again is a joke. All previous cases that are similar to this, the OO is responsible if they can't recover. Whether or not I proved LiTCoins is the one reliable, that is irrelevant. Tell me how it is different to any random hacking. Divica has to recover if she said she would, but can't.

As Execlont said, if you rule this way, you have to change Sythe rules, and at this point of time, rules say that Divica is responsible as OO.

Also you've misunderstood why we are bringing up 'if' and 'maybe' situations. We aren't accusing Divica of said action, we are trying to tell you that if you rule in this way, you are opening up new scam options for other users. You can't change opinions just because Divica is trusted.

 

Your first point -

1. The account was recovered. As LIT has the same account information Jagex are most likely denying appeals by Divica. They probably figure the location of LIT has been on the account a lot longer than Divica hence just deny Divica's appeal.

2. TOS of seller triumphs sythes rules? no one said that and since you want to play around with words I wont even respond. Besides, you're repeating your first point about recovery again.

3. OO are without doubt responsible but the major reason for that is because no account information is provided. This means ONLY OO can recover the account. However, here another person has all the information which is causing problems.

The fact that its long established that LIT scammed you and you're chasing divica for a refund shows the bad faith you're operating in.

I still don't think Divica should refund..

You're talking about Divica recovering the account but why would you even want to keep the account now? What is the logic in that? You're only doing this to try and get your money back....

 

You're seriously looking at a demotion if you think that any of your points are valid. Please don't be like Chloe and read what I write rather than assuming and making up information.
'You're only doing this to try and get your money back'
I'm the one controlling Jagex's recoveries, yes. I make it so they deny the appeal so I can get my money back.
'Why would I want to keep the account now?' Because I paid for it. I was not happy that I have to keep an account that is recoverable by someone else, but it is my right as said by all other mods. If Divica can't recover after promised by two people that she can, any time. I can't control Jagex's recovery system.
Your response to 1) Okay, READ what I write, I've only stated 8 times. I will be saying this for the 9th, because you are not reading. Why do you think that this is different to any other hacking? Divica still has to recover it, and if she can't why isn't she held responsible?
2) No-one has said that on this thread, nor did I say anyone has. You aren't reading. It is stated on a lot of reports, what people put in their ToS will be irrelevant if they can't honor what they have stated.
3) Whether or not info is given out does not matter, other people have been liable even if info is given out. Like I said in previous posts, if you go by this logic you are opening new opportunities for others to scam.

Bad faith? Once again, as every point of mine is, Divica's representatives said she will recover the account, so I ask her to, she cannot, whatchu want me to do?

I respect your opinion but please state why Divica is not responsible for not being able to recover, after two representatives state that they can. I feel that info is irrelevant in this situation, and as I stated before, people can use this to start new scams if you go by this route. I can sell an account, give fake info, recover, and say it was who I sold it to. Saying that I proved LiTcoins was the one who recovered, in my opinion, is irrelevant. The letters are blocked out by jagex, for all I could say, I could create an email i****@g** etc.

 

4th Jan 2017

 

I don't really understand how you and Azie can say that it's in good faith that Divica attempts to recover it. It wasn't like they stated, 'no we wont recover unless we feel like it', it is literally said by Chloe on this thread, they will not refund because they can recover the account any time, and will do so as many times as I request'. Her words not mine. On skype, the day I bought the account the representative said she will 'help'. I don't really get how that statement is debatable as to what it means. If she doesn't feel like helping, she doesn't have to?
So why aren't others considered about this 'transfer of ownership'? Just because they can't recover with details, which in no way is a thing people do, it is not a transfer of ownership?
Once again, waiting on the response about this causing new and more scams on sythe if you rule this way.
Bought the account on the 31st Jan, recovered on the 6th Feb.

 

It's clear that Lit coins recovered the account. He was given the recovery information and sold the account to you for less than a third of the price that he paid for it.

Considering this, it would be unfair to hold divica responsible and require him to pay for someone else scam.

 

I can't really be bothered again to ask for a proper opinion responding to my questions so whatever

If you think this is right, then you will need to change account sales rules, people should not be able to state in their thread 'OO is XXX trusted', and this means if any accounts that people sell are resold, they are free to fabricate evidence to recover their account and not be liable, easily. In the thread, it is not actually 100% clear that Lit is the one who recovered (but u went ahead and assumed because he recovered other accs, fair), Jagex uses i*****@o*** to protect info, so that's easy to fake.
Also I can state I am responsible for recoveries but if it fails I am free to walk because I handed the info to another person? Mint.

 

In discord http://i.imgur.com/1DRlzcm.png
You're basically saying that he is allowed to recover it, use a similar email to any of one of the owners, even after stating he takes responsibility for recovery, he has 0 liability if he pretends he can't recover it for the current owner.
6 times is a bit drastic but OO s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ is able to recover at any time.

 

We always follow a chain of refunds with account recoveries. LiTCoins owes you Zac, not Divica. Her agreement to recover the account when necessary was when she sold it to LiTCoins, not when LiTCoins resold the account.

Here's an example for you where all three of you are unbanned;
Your account was recovered. You go to LiTCoins asking, "Hey man, my acc was recovered. Can I get it back?" In this case, if LiTCoins doesn't want to be banned, he a) attempts to recover the account and/or b) requests Divica to recover the account if unable to do it himself. Divica then attempts to recover the account for LiTCoins. If unable, she then has to refund LiTCoins and LiTCoins has to refund you. Anyone who doesn't refund gets banned.

In this case, where LiTCoins has both obviously scammed and is already banned, we don't have his cooperation, leading to this question of who is responsible to pay who (or not).

You are not her customer and therefore she is not responsible to refund you even though she is OO. She is only responsible to refund LiTCoins. If Divica is lying here, then LiTCoins is welcome to report her but I don't see that happening. She was not the owner of the account when you bought the account. She may be OO but it is not her fault if a secondary owner decides to scam with her account.

tl;dr- I don't think Divica should be responsible to refund Zac.

 

So on this thread Account Recovery v15 Ft: RobbR
It was deemed instantly that RobbR was liable, not even once considered that furbo had anything to do with it. Video states, 'He claimed to be the OO so it's his responsibility to recover it if anything goes wrong. He needs to do so'
I really am not understanding the ruling you guys are trying to allude to. Divica cannot recover an account she claims to be the OO of, why am I not entitled to a refund? Just because in that case Furbo wasn't proven to be the hacker, he wasn't even looked at? Are you joking me? How is it different to a random hacking the account?
RobbR was banned within minutes of not being able to recover the acc. There is no proof he recovered it, no proof that Divica didn't recover it.

You guys have literally made up that if info was given to a buyer then then OO is no longer liable? cool.

 

Robr claimed to not have any account information which is odd if the account was recovered as he claimed to be the OO.

Divica provided LIT account information which was used to recover the account as already established. Divica also recovered before the account was recovered again.

Its pretty simple to detect the difference here.

Edit - will respond tomorrow if thread still open will be at work

 

'He claimed to be the OO so it's his responsibility to recover it if anything goes wrong. He needs to do so'
Pray tell why if Divica, as the OO, no matter who she gave info to, is not responsible.

Nothing has been established as to if LiTCoins is actually the one who recovered. It is my proof, and it isn't actually CLEAR evidence. The email could be anything. There is no proof that Divica didn't do this.

 

In that report, RobbR couldn't even recover the account.

Divica has already recovered it once and now is unable to due to LiTCoins recovering with the same info. Jagex will eventually perm lock/ban an account if more than one location recovers the acc with enough info to potentially identify them as OO. It indicates the acc has been sold/traded. In this case, this would happen eventually. So even if Divica was able to continue to recover the account with LiTCoins continuously recovering it back also, would Divica be required to refund you because LiTCoins scammed + got the acc perm locked?

Though that isn't a real situation due to Divica not being able to recover the account again, I still don't think Divica should be required to refund you. Bottom line is you were not her customer. She did recover the account for you once. LiTCoins recovered it again. She cannot recover it anymore. If she's lying or taking advantage of the situation, then LiTCoins needs to report her.

@video Input?