Probemas Acct fiasco

We need to do this hunger games style.

 

I don't know much about rentals, acc sales etc. Or specification of this report... just curious, is Probemas using this method of http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/Account_Help_Contact_Us account recovery ?
Or
http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/Reset_your_password/With_a_registered_email_address

Or if email is changed all hopes lost? ?

*just saying I don't want to know, just putting options of help out there*

Anyways I was under the assumption that multiple ips' on an account would automatically trigger a ban, considering I have seen it happen before with minor amount of hands being changed. Also curious as to why these acc's don't get banned instantly.

And I don't know what rules state on these specific cases, but I agree using the example Probemas gave about the car. Manufacturers make guns, sells to company, worker sells to dodgey customer, dodgey customer kills someone. (If this is an acceptable argument) who's to blame for the death of victim? The manufacturers or dodgey customer? Where is the chain of causation and why isn't the person (B), (C) & (D) in Probemas situation at fault for causing a break in the chain of causation.


If anything just like in the yesterday mishap @Shin, both parties had fault, right? Hence why null/void. Different circumstances, but hopefully can understand the precedence in an opposite term/situation. If staff find all parties at fault, all should be held liable. (This should include probemas if worker/OO issue has set false pretence etc)

Someone tell me if im chatting utter crap.

 

idk what this means but wow blows is gay is all i have to say about the current situation

 

5char/thread

 

so probemas recovered the account before and was denied a second time? a bit fishy..

 

Why is this case any different from any other account recovery case? No one 100% knows who recovered or has the account. IHQ could have recovered it, ruben could be lying, skate could have it, probemas could have it, or some random idiot who got lucky with a keylogger or something could have it. From looking at past reports of accounts being recovered, no matter if they were a newcomer or a $1k donor, if they buy an account and resell it, it's their choice to do so but they are now taking responsibility if something goes wrong. There's been plenty of people who have bought accounts and had gotten them recovered. In those situations the last seller was always held responsible for repayment. This case should not be any different.

 

You're missing the part where Probemas isn't the actual original owner (how it was sold) so we don't know what's going on nor should he have sold it putting Ruben or I in this situation.

Yeah, and now when you ask him to help he tells you this isn't his responsibility and it's a "favor" for him to assist.. He also mentioned he doesn't care how the mods rule it as he 'more than likely won't be refunding anyone'.

 

But how do we know if you didnt recover it yourself? (im not saying you did, but anything is a possibility)

Why should we put the blame on him right away? I understand that he claimed to be the Original Owner (still not sure if he is or isnt) but buying and reselling acc's is always risky, and these past account recovery reports all had the same out come. The last seller of the acc has to pay back. We have to keep these report conclusions consistent.

 

Except it's a whole different scenario when a reputable member claims original owner and isn't original owner lol..

 

If that's the case, then that's not between ruben and IHQ. That's between IHQ and Probemas. If we want to keep the recovery reports consistent than IHQ should refund Ruben. Once that is handled it should then become the case of IHQ and Probemas on getting the acc back.

 

I was given no information on the account other than the email change and the password that i sent to my email by resetting the password.

My argument is, if Probemas was the actual Original owner than i wouldn't feel it's right to stick him with the issues of the account being recovered.

However, he isn't the original owner and therefore we have no way of knowing if the Original owner isn't just messing with the account hoping to get lucky as he knows it was passed to reputable members.

When Probemas made his post he was allowing the current seller to use his reputation and almost "verifying" the trade was going to be legitimate and he was willing to back it, however on his replies in report a scammer it's almost like he knew there would be issues and that we should have known..


I think it's best to let probemas' worker eventually recover the account and return it to ruben.

If this happens again re-address it.

Just a few weeks ago Ruben was banned on sythe for not returning a website deposit that he had claimed to be coding when the current client left him and came to me. Ruben then removes me from Skype and now 2 weeks later the account suddenly has issues...

Maybe it had something to do with the 200 people logging in, or maybe he just moved the email over. I was told rentals usually don't last but a few months. (the same amount of time ruben has had it) He could still be jealous he was fired for the coding job and it was passed to me. When i mentioned to ruben about letting probemas recover it and restore it he kept shooting it down saying he didn't want it.


"he can recover it but i want a refund i don't want it"....

If probemas hadn't listed this as his, Ruben or I would have never bought it.

 

(a) - original owner
(b) - 2nd owner
(c) - 3rd owner
(d) - 4th owner

4th owner needs to recover the account, 3rd owner contacts 2nd owner, 2nd owner (apparently not around) would need to contact the original owner, and the original owner would recover the account. If it's out of the original owners hands as say (account gets banned for account sharing/selling) then he wouldn't be responsible, but I don't see how the original owner is exempt in this case.

If original owner can't recover account, he would need to reimburse the 2nd owner, the 2nd owner needs to reimburse the 3rd owner, and the 3rd owner needs to reimburse the 4th owner

It's common sense

 

That being said they can skip myself and the 2nd owner and given Ruben his $300 back directly seeing as skate paid more than that for the account, I don't see an issue. Probemas sold it as his when it wasn't.... I'm not sure why there is a debate, a member lied and tried to be lazy and get a nice sale using his reputation. When people buy from Probemas they want him to be the creator.. it takes 10 minutes to setup an email address and make 1-2 passwords and link your credit card to help secure yourself as the OO.

 

For the sake of saving time, that would be the case

It shouldn't be one

 

Dave and Shin both told me that's how it should go down, however..... multiple mods commented on the thread saying Probemas shouldn't be liable (clearly they missed the part where he didn't own the account to begin with and can't control it himself)... So now they're discussing it or something.

 

welp, seeing the denial recovery attempt email should wrap this whole thing up, wonder if that was requested

 

I was given access to the email to check for the recovery, I can see multiple denials in the inbox even during the time Ruben owned it and didn't request assistance....

 

What was the diagnosis? Usually tells you if not enough information was given to determine x is the original owner of the account, this is pretty much a dead giveaway that probemas isn't the original owner

 

I think they should have a rock paper scissors contest to decide whos responsible for the account

 

The response literally says all the information is inaccurate..
https://gyazo.com/aee1ead82749f5599d40840a3ab80e0f