Probemas Acct fiasco

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

Like I said before, it's sketchy that Probemas claims to have recovered the account once, then is unable to again and the reasoning for that is inaccurate information and not anything else

 

[Admires]

the original owner shouldn't be held liable if the account has been resold numerous times, especially for a profit. a rule should be added saying that if an account is resold, the original owner has no liability. the burden shouldn't fall on probemas in this situation.

 

[iHateQuesting]

the original owner shouldn't be held liable if the account has been resold numerous times, especially for a profit. a rule should be added saying that if an account is resold, the original owner has no liability. the burden shouldn't fall on probemas in this situation.

The original owner wasn't probemas.. he lied about who was the owner until I needed help.. he should have never sold this.

 

I still think All parties should be equally liable here, including probemas for the OO situation.

 

5) Ruben
4) IHQ
3) Some people
2) Probemas
1) OO

The people in the middle already bought & sold and they should be completely out of it.

OO is required to recover the account for them, if they can't the Probemas is liable as they trusted the OO and the OO wasn't co-operating.

End result is OO is the only one who can reliably have ownership of the account and Ruben is out of money. OO's actions are the responsibility of Probemas' and so Probemas should refund Ruben if the OO can't provide proof that the account is unrecoverable.

It's not like Jagex are saying there are too many recoveries. They're saying whoever is trying to recover it isn't the OO.

That makes everyone even right? I can't see why IHQ should be liable for reselling an account when Probemas is co-operating many owners before IHQ.

 

sounds like there are problemas with probemas

are you serious

 

[Program]

I think it comes down to the fact that if Probemas sent in the same recovery as last time when it worked and it doesn't work then the cause is obviously the whoring of the account that has occurred. Which means Probemas has zero fault in loss of the account and should assume no liability as he fulfilled his obligation.

 

I think it comes down to the fact that if Probemas sent in the same recovery as last time when it worked and it doesn't work then the cause is obviously the whoring of the account that has occurred. Which means Probemas has zero fault in loss of the account and should assume no liability as he fulfilled his obligation.

Or maybe he lyin' and the original owner went walkies so any recoveries Probemas tries to send won't work out cause he doesn't know anything.

 

1) OO &
2) Probemas ( somewhere - both agreed to hide the truth about who OO is)
3) skate? ( where this kid at? - seems sketch bag)
4) IHQ (as a previous owner who I think bought the account dirt cheap should know better)
5) Ruben ( whored out the acc too much and should know of acc risks to prevent chances of this happening - instead he feels he needs a refund of acc?)

OO and Probemas should be liable based on false pretence?, we don't know if probemas is lying about acc recovery. Considering OO works worked for probemas, probemas takes the blame. Probemas (I believe) claims he is still OO. ? part liability.

IHQ seemingly bought account too cheap, should of seen risks, and risks in general of acc buying. When did IHQ learn of OO etc? When Ruben had acc issues? If IHQ is at fault for anything he should be partly liable.

Ruben should know of risks, over use of acc could possibly be reason OO can't get it back, if Ruben is at fault for anything he should be partly liable ( or face a partial loss) is what Ruben paid for the account equal to what Probemas sold it originally ? If not then probemas should not be liable to pay more then in its entirety ( he never earned that amount so why should he pay it all? Etc)

@TeamTofu this is how I see it.

 

1) OO &
2) Probemas ( somewhere - both agreed to hide the truth about who OO is)
3) skate? ( where this kid at? - seems sketch bag)
4) IHQ (as a previous owner who I think bought the account dirt cheap should know better)
5) Ruben ( whored out the acc too much and should know of acc risks to prevent chances of this happening - instead he feels he needs a refund of acc?)

OO and Probemas should be liable based on false pretence?, we don't know if probemas is lying about acc recovery. Considering OO works worked for probemas, probemas takes the blame. Probemas (I believe) claims he is still OO. ? part liability.

IHQ seemingly bought account too cheap, should of seen risks, and risks in general of acc buying. When did IHQ learn of OO etc? When Ruben had acc issues? If IHQ is at fault for anything he should be partly liable.

Ruben should know of risks, over use of acc could possibly be reason OO can't get it back, if Ruben is at fault for anything he should be partly liable ( or face a partial loss) is what Ruben paid for the account equal to what Probemas sold it originally ? If not then probemas should not be liable to pay more then in its entirety ( he never earned that amount so why should he pay it all? Etc)

@TeamTofu this is how I see it.

Check this:

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

If that's legit then the only reason this is fucked up at all is because Probemas claims to be OO, but isn't and the person who is refuses to co-operate.

 

[JSand]

Check this:



If that's legit then the only reason this is fucked up at all is because Probemas claims to be OO, but isn't and the person who is refuses to co-operate.

According to probemas, his worker Jason is the OO and he still works for him. I wouldn't believe a damn thing Jagex says about recovery attempts, for all we know that's an automated response just like ban appeals.

It comes down to this, there is very little reason in my opinion for probemas to lie about the account recovery attempt. If they were able to recovery it once, why would they not try and recovery it again as a courtesy? If it's being declined and there's nothing the OO can do then why is it his problem? The account has been whored out for months. If Jagex sees a bunch of password changes because Of account rentals and then someone else tries to recovery it, they probably already flagged the account and will auto deny attempts. Maybe Jason can try tweeting or emailing support to see what they say

 

According to probemas, his worker Jason is the OO and he still works for him. I wouldn't believe a damn thing Jagex says about recovery attempts, for all we know that's an automated response just like ban appeals.

It comes down to this, there is very little reason in my opinion for probemas to lie about the account recovery attempt. If they were able to recovery it once, why would they not try and recovery it again as a courtesy? If it's being declined and there's nothing the OO can do then why is it his problem? The account has been whored out for months. If Jagex sees a bunch of password changes because Of account rentals and then someone else tries to recovery it, they probably already flagged the account and will auto deny attempts. Maybe Jason can try tweeting or emailing support to see what they say

You get those automated responses if your recovery attempt was so bad that you got almost nothing correct. If you match at least a few of the things on their system it'll be passed on to an actual Jagex employee to look over.

Meaning whoever is submitting those recovery attempts isn't passing the automated checks that they passed before, and information like your first password doesn't change.

 

[JSand]

You get those automated responses if your recovery attempt was so bad that you got almost nothing correct. If you match at least a few of the things on their system it'll be passed on to an actual Jagex employee to look over.

Meaning whoever is submitting those recovery attempts isn't passing the automated checks that they passed before, and information like your first password doesn't change.

How do you know that? That's literally all conjecture. We don't work for Jagex, we're using experience to dictate our opinions but the fact of the matter is we don't truly know when they send those messages or even if someone actually goes through manually for recovery attempts. I highly doubt a Jagex mod goes through every single recovery attempt.

Jagex changes there shit all the time, best solution for now is to get a hold of a mod on Twitter or something to see exactly why it's being declined. I bet they detect the account was sold so they've flagged it and it's being declined automatically.

 

How do you know that? That's literally all conjecture. We don't work for Jagex, we're using experience to dictate our opinions but the fact of the matter is we don't truly know when they send those messages or even if someone actually goes through manually for recovery attempts. I highly doubt a Jagex mod goes through every single recovery attempt.

Jagex changes there shit all the time, best solution for now is to get a hold of a mod on Twitter or something to see exactly why it's being declined. I bet they detect the account was sold so they've flagged it and it's being declined automatically.

From a Jmod in the support team on Reddit when I was questioning him about a few things on how they handled an account I used to own and how the OO keeps getting away with recovering & reselling it whenever he needs some cash.

By the logic of the above Probemas should have received a warning if that's the case. If there was a warning and Probemas didn't say anything about it.... Zzz

^ General post about returning to the OO, nothing has changed since then.

Completely agree that they should send a tweet about it as that can't hurt at all. I don't think Jagex are lying about anything though.

 

[JSand]

I spent a couple of minutes looking through reddit, found 3 topics about people saying they're the OO and recovery is being denied.

Here's 1: https://m.reddit.com/r/runescape/comments/2orcuz/recovery_denied_within_10_seconds/

Look at all the details he provided and it was still denied.

This one is kinda funny since it's a streamer

https://m.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/440zxj/grazywarrior_trying_to_recover_his_account_on/

 

[iHateQuesting]

I spent a couple of minutes looking through reddit, found 3 topics about people saying they're the OO and recovery is being denied.

Here's 1: https://m.reddit.com/r/runescape/comments/2orcuz/recovery_denied_within_10_seconds/

Look at all the details he provided and it was still denied.

The recoveries, whoever is submitting are taking hours for replies (which tells me its not an automated response) and is stated on the reply an employee hand reviewed the case.

The issue here is, Ruben has handed out all the info 125+ times... If i was Jagex i would probably shut the account down/flag it, which seems to be the case. The issue here is, we don't know if Jason just took the account back trying to get lucky, or that Ruben simply moved it over as he's changed the password 100+ times and having it for months looking as the original owner... Maybe we should have ruben try and recover it?

The account was used recklessly and has faced the consequences, I don't see the point in refunding him $300 when he's made $1k+ off the account and is now sad it's having issues..

 

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'.

good I hope he doesnt refund you. You're a straight up piece of shit scamming cunt. If anyone on this world deserves cancer it's you.

 

The recoveries, whoever is submitting are taking hours for replies (which tells me its not an automated response) and is stated on the reply an employee hand reviewed the case.

The issue here is, Ruben has handed out all the info 125+ times... If i was Jagex i would probably shut the account down/flag it, which seems to be the case. The issue here is, we don't know if Jason just took the account back trying to get lucky, or that Ruben simply moved it over as he's changed the password 100+ times and having it for months looking as the original owner... Maybe we should have ruben try and recover it?

The account was used recklessly and has faced the consequences, I don't see the point in refunding him $300 when he's made $1k+ off the account and is now sad it's having issues..

You sold him the account an you're responsible. Glad karma's coming back to fuck you

 

[Syed]

lol why are people siding with IHQ? this nigga made profit off of the sale its not like he was sitting there getting assblasted

if he cant recover it and you stupid fucks on staff want to say it's my boy probemas' fault then at the very least this guy should pay back the profit he made on the account.

if i sold an account and 7 years and 24 resales later, the 25th guy came up to me and told me to recover i'd tell him to kill himself

just because there's less years and sales in between doesn't change the premise. what if probemas' moved houses and wasn't able to recover it?

you can't just not assume any risk and still profit off of it...

 

[JSand]

The recoveries, whoever is submitting are taking hours for replies (which tells me its not an automated response) and is stated on the reply an employee hand reviewed the case.

The issue here is, Ruben has handed out all the info 125+ times... If i was Jagex i would probably shut the account down/flag it, which seems to be the case. The issue here is, we don't know if Jason just took the account back trying to get lucky, or that Ruben simply moved it over as he's changed the password 100+ times and having it for months looking as the original owner... Maybe we should have ruben try and recover it?

The account was used recklessly and has faced the consequences, I don't see the point in refunding him $300 when he's made $1k+ off the account and is now sad it's having issues..

Well then the best scenario in this case is for no one to get anything back.