LiTCoins Account Recovery (Divica OO)

Sure, there is no proof that RobbR couldn't recover the account. Maybe he wanted it back, saw if he could get away with it, but made so much off the items on the account that he could easily refund the amount paid and keep the account, plus the amount he sold it for.
In the same way, there is no proof that Divica is faking it. Jagex's system is decent, as the OO of a proper account you can recover it ANYTIME. If you play from it on your IP, that is literally it.
As I said before, she maybe recovered it, then put a random email to see if she could scam further, but as she saw I noticed it and now fakes appeals. No evidence of this
So, as the OO, how is she not liable? By your logic, RobbR is not liable because Hattez is not his customer. Should I seek out Jagex for the refund?

 

Obviously that is a possibility but if hattez was able to prove wealth relatively close to when the account was recovered, we would then rediscuss what he was responsible to refund. If furbo never received any info to recover the acc, he wouldn't have been able to - leaving Rob as the odd one out.

She is liable to refund LiTCoins. You should seek out LiTCoins for a refund.

 

Done with moderators evading questions..

@video Divica is the OO of the account. She cannot recover it. She gave out info to the first buyer, and according to your mods, this frees her of any liability of being the OO and any responsibility of recovering the account. One Divica representative stated on this thread the account will be recovered for me at any time I wish, another said I can ask for 'help' at any time. May I ask your opinion.

 

I did answer your questions. You just don't agree with me.

 

No, all mods have evaded the questions that they are struggling to reason with. You need not reply, as I feel that video will handle this. You are not responding to why Divica, as the OO, and who stated she will recover anytime, but cannot, regardless if she gave out info, is not liable. This ruling has never been done on a report. This means that I am out of the account that Divica said she can recover. ?

 

I did respond. She IS liable. LiTCoins is also liable. There's an order of who refunds who though.

 

Personally I think that due to the account changing hands repeatedly, divica simply can't be responsible if something happens because jagex will just deny appeals like we are seeing here. In an ideal world they would be able to recover it back at any time but if the account changes hands and someone else holds onto it for some period of time jagex may think they are the new owner. If you are going to agree to buy an account that has changed hands multiple times like this then I believe you accept the risk of something like this happening.

I can't see anything here that's divica's fault or divica doing something wrong, the user who sold you the account was the one who scammed you, the rest is just unfortunate results of Jagex's unpublished policies on account ownership and recovering.

My two cents anyway

 

If you deem LiTCoins the hacker, is the order not for me to be refunded before him..?
Even if not, I bought it, I would be the legitimate owner, so why would the order be him refunded first?

I genuinely disagree and it isn't to milk money from Divica. We could deem no refund and I would rather you deal with how this ruling came to be as I believe you are opening up scamming opportunities as in my previous replies if you rule this way, and I'm not sure how you guys accept this. It was only changed hands twice. Other cases were 5+ times.
Jagex recovery system really doesn't work that way. It is prioritized as OO over anyone else. You can test the system if you wish. I will even give u my accs if u want me to test it.

 

You're not understanding my hypothetical examples correctly. They were presented to hopefully give some insight on how I think refunds should or shouldn't happen.

Obviously if LiTCoins is the hacker, he will not be refunded. Me saying Divica is liable to refund LiTCoins is in a situation where LiTCoins reports Divica to identify her as the one who has recovered the account. This has not happened.

 

From a sticky http://i.imgur.com/fdkYqsx.png
Last line 'Likewise, a new owner of an account will almost certainly not be able to recover the account, even if he gets all of the recovery information perfectly.'
Under this pretense in a sticky thread I don't see how we are able to say that now if info is given you won't be liable. People can read this and assume that all is g, but an account from a trusted OO, even if it's 'almost certainly' it still gives you 'security, no?

In any sense he wouldn't be able to prove this. Literally no way to get evidence.

 

It clearly isn't though since divica can't recover their own account. Jagex's system is flawed and this certainly isn't the first time the account's creator has been unable to recover the account. Jagex has also openly spoken of a policy where if they think the account changed hands then that person becomes the new owner in their system.

Personally I think we should amend/clarify our rules to prevent this situation because Jagex's system does not necessarily prioritize OO recoveries and it's unreasonable to hold an OO infinitely responsible for an account

 

And as I said, if you think no refund under current rules, but you are amending them now, that's ok. Under current rules, which the report is before anything new, Divica is responsible if she promises recovery but can't provide it. No matter what, in my opinion, but if you rule against ok.
I'm not sure where Jagex said this. Account selling is not allowed by their rules. They recover based on the original creation of the account, no other way to do it.

 

So Divica sold the account to LitCoins who sold the account to Zac. It seems logical that if Zac wants some sort of refund from Divica or LitCoins, Zac needs some sort of agreement with them. Clearly Zac has an agreement with Litcoins, but does he have an agreement with Divica?

The correspondence between Zac and Divica, from what I can piece together so far is:

• Divica confirms that they sold the account to LitCoins
• Divica saying to let them know if Zac "need any help with the account"

Was there any other correspondence that would suggest that Divica would owe you a refund or would be able to recover the account for you? @Zac

 

K I have no idea why that is struck through...

 

Initially, on this thread, I stated I would rather a refund than the account because it is clearly unsafe. This was ruled against by Yankiee, but I did have the option to have it recovered.
This post http://i.imgur.com/WYNQvli.png Divica representative, 'we will also recover the account for you, as many times as you need, we have no problem doing that'
Another: http://i.imgur.com/9S0Yqc1.png Although it says 'try' I don't see how you can state this but then have it denied and assume no responsibility
So technically, I can ask Divica to attempt to recover it everyday.. The only assumption I am taking is that if the recovery is denied multiple times, there should be a refund.

 

The correspondence must be before you purchased the account from LitCoins. Do you have any from then?

 

Jagex, your account recovery system is incredibly flawed. Enough is enough, fix your broken system. • /r/2007scape

There is a list here of examples of failed recoveries by their owners and a jmod replies saying that they themselves make mistakes and that a large number of accounts are sold/transferred

 

No, just the offer to recover. In other cases, how come this was not asked/required?
From their thread: http://i.imgur.com/Ab46TYN.png , I mean it doesn't say anything about refunds, but I thought via sythe rules it's safe to assume if they can't recover, they would be liable for a refund whether they state it or not..

Fair, but from this 'We only accept recovery requests where we are certain that the person attempting recovery is the owner, and for this reason it also make sense to allow a new pass and authenticator to be set, after all it is their account.' I don't think it is clear if they mean the person who bought it, or the original creator.
They are mainly talking about hackings from my understanding, and explicitly state that there are only a few mistakes that cause hacks.

 

Ok, so in my mind there are two possible ways you could be entitled to something. The first is whether you have a contract/agreement with Divica, which requires a quid pro quo. You don't have one, since you offered them nothing in exchange for anything.

The second way is via estoppel. The basic elements are that Divica makes a promise/representation to you, that promise/representation induces something in your mind, you reasonably relied on that promise/representation to purchase LitCoins account, you suffer detriment from your reliance on that promise/representation when purchasing LitCoins account, and it would be unconscionable for Divica to go back on their promise/representation.

In asking for correspondence between you and Divica before you purchased the account, I would be looking for some sort of promise or representation. As you say, all there is, is an offer to recover. Divica clearly has attempted to recover your account for you, pursuant to that promise. They haven't made any further promises, and so I don't see a compelling reason that they should refund you or compensate you for the account.


As to your second question, account recoveries are very factually driven and hard to resolve. This is how I would personally go about trying to analyze a case such as this, and certainly something I would recommend we do in the future. It's just my 2c as to how to resolve this present case.

In summary, I don't think Divica owes you any refund/compensation because they made no promises to do so.

 

The point is that jagex does their best to identify someone as the creator when looking at recoveries but they admit they make mistakes and for that reason divica can't be indefinitely responsible for their accounts.

I think we need to make a rule change/clarification that account owners are only responsible for sales they make directly. Any secondhand sales would not be their responsibility. Whoever you buy an account from, regardless who the OO is, that person is the one responsible. I'd like to put this proposed change up to a staff/community vote as well