[Resolved]IHateQuesting ~ max main purchase

Apparently this situation wouldn't have occurred if Probemas hadn't posted claiming they were the original owner in the first place.

Probemas should be able to recover the account, but it's actually owned by one of their workers Jason so I've been told. We don't know who has hold of the account right now, but it's possible that skate22 or any other person were able to gain access to it. It's uncertain as to whether Ruben purposefully changed the account information so he could pursue a refund, but that literally sounds ridiculous. The reason why I said Probemas would have to pay $300 is because I was told he frequently sold maxed main accounts for $300-400 and it was purchased by Ruben for $300. The only thing left out here that's not being considered so much is the amount of profit Ruben has already made from the account by renting it out. Roughly 125-150 accounts at 2m per hour used... Wouldn't be surprised if he had already made over 1B OSRS from renting the account...

Yes, it is a shit situation indeed.

 

i feel like probemas cant really be held accountable for an account that's been sold four times... if he can recover it, great, but he should never be at risk for being banned if he doesn't refund the guy who bought it from the guy who bought it from the guy he sold it to

 

I've reviewed this case and trying to remain as neutral as possible considering I work for Ruben, but even I don't think Probemas is responsible in this scenario.

 

I agree with SueprF. Probemas shouldn't be liable if the account has been resold numerous times.

 

Instead of adding opinions on who you don't think is to blame for whatever reason, perhaps you can provide an opinion on what is needed for a resolution.

 

I don't really feel anyone is at fault, per se. iHQ sold the account with good intentions, probemas couldn't control what has gone on with the account after being sold, and ruben bought the account to use to simply make money (which is his right since it was now his account). I believe the best way to go about this is to be gentleman and split it equally. Probemas pays 1/3, iHQ pays 1/3, and ruben is out the last 1/3. None of them could really control this outcome, and it's unfair to place the burden on one party.

 

Hello again everyone,


First and foremost, I would like to address some arguments voiced in this topic. I can see continuous usage of “I thought” and “I figured”, whereas I am certain that “ifs” and “buts” should not take prevalence over the facts.


1) I did post that I was the original owner the account. This statement is true and valid. I also specifically did not post any additional information, as I was not providing any guarantees due to the account being re-sold. The fact that it was interpreted and “felt like” this information was to “deem the account safe” is a personal interpretation rather than a fact.

2) I can see personal opinions of affected parties (such as “I don’t personally think it was...” yet) absolutely no factual data or evidence suggesting otherwise. There also seems little to none effort put into the investigation of the issue.


As I have stated previously, I do offer a guarantee for the customers who buy an account directly from me – provided the account has only those two owners, so as not to have more people with the access to account recovery.

In this particular case, the account that was bought directly from me was put on sale for half the original price – which should have caused initial concern in the first place. Nevertheless, the risk was taken and it was multiplied even further by re-selling the same account to the fourth owner for the sake of profit.


For some reason, I did not find any explicit mentions of a fact which I personally find quite important (only some vague hedges with self-justifications). The initial cost of the account in mention was 250m 07; it has been later purchased for 140 USD (!) and sold to Ruben for 300 USD (!!!). At this point, the account was re-sold for profit, used for profit, and I am the party that had no benefit of it.


I often get offers from people who purchased accounts from me to sell it back for a ridiculously cheap price. Even though I was the original owner and the creator of the account, I never even entertain a thought of buying it back. After the first sale is conducted, an account cannot be considered 100% safe after any future re-sales, because the initial (first) buyer always has a chance to recover the account even without the account creation data. In this particular case, Skate22 himself wanted to sell back the account before making a topic on Sythe, and I could have bought it to re-sell for 300$ again (like IHQ did) just for the sake of profit, but knowing that I cannot guarantee a 100% security, I never even consider buying back such accounts. I also never participated in account re-sales for exact same reason as I would never put the reputation of a safe accounts trader on stake and jeopardize it simply for the sake of 150$ quick profit. This was what IHQ did; he took the risk and suffered the consequences. Why do I have to pay for the damages caused by IHQ’s poor risk management for the sake of a profitable deal and for his stance on account re-sale being 100% safe just because I was the account creator? It is very naïve to think that a situation with fast and large profit comes with no strings attached.


Change of owners is a serious ground to treat the security of the account as being compromised, and I firmly believe IHQ was fully aware of it. According to the posts here, Ruben was notified of that, and I see numerous mentions of IHQ allegedly taking full responsibility should anything happen to the account. Even if there is no proof of that provided, there is also no proof to the claims of IHQ stating that “it is Probemas’s fault since this is his acc”: this is based purely on his own speculations that my posts about being the original creator serves as some sort of security warrant for future re-sales (I have addressed this statement earlier). In the light of recent events, it appears that the reason for the price of the account being that low is becoming clear.


I co-operated to the fullest extent of my abilities when the account was locked for the first time, arranging the submission of all the necessary data, and it was unlocked. When the account was locked the second time, I did the same – but this time, the appeal was denied. I am confident that the main reasons of it are the consequences of the actions which lead to the risk multiplication and security breach of the account, and of which I had no part of.


To summarize:


1) In the light of the facts posted in this topic, I believe that the reason of end-customer dissatisfaction is the security breach of the account that resulted in account usage and re-sales, for which I am not liable.

2) IHQ, as the third owner of the account, was aware of this during the purchase of the account and its re-sale. I never made any statements providing the guarantee for the re-sales. Facts, not opinions of “what meant what”, should be brought for judgment.

3) Account which was sold for half its price was a serious fact to consider. Re-selling the same account which was not bought from the original owner to someone else multiplied this risk. I do not hold myself liable for damages occurred due to the poor risk-management of a third party.

4) I co-operated to the fullest extent of my abilities in this matter. It yielded results the first time I tried to help; second time, the claim was denied even though the same data was used. This gives ground to speculate that someone else was interfering; someone with sufficient data and access to it.

5) Since IHQ claims to be the affected party as well (even though some information could use a bit of explicitly), the evidence (account prices, denial of the second claim, and no contribution to the resolution of the issue) suggests that Skate22 is responsible for the damages and therefore should cover it. Due to the fact that there is a precedent (see previous post) on Sythe of similar situations, A-B-C trades should be treated in the reversed order when there is a case of customer dissatisfaction. I did my best to resolve the issue, but I do not hold myself liable for the security breaches caused by a third party.


With all due respect, gentlemen, please see reason - if you buy a pre-owned car which had numerous owners, and then suddenly experience problems with it, you do not rush to the car manufacturer with complaints, especially when there were unauthorized fixings that resulted in the breach of contract and warranty being null and void.


Best regards,

Probemas

 

Sythe rules
How to better ensure a safe trade:
Take screenshots of everything during the trade in case it gets recovered.
[*]Trade only with trusted members.
[*]Look up the email address/login name of the account in this thread to see if it's a previously hacked account.
[*]Always use a middleman to add an extra level of security.
[*]Only buy an account if you have good reason to believe the seller is the original owner and agrees to unlock it, if necessary.

 

The fact is that if you are the original owner as you repeatedly claim you are, you should at no time have any problem recovering the account, even if hundreds of people have received solely rental information. It is always the original account creator's responsibility to recover the account at any time needed, if you can't do that then you have to provide a full refund and furthermore if you don't want to assume this responsibility, then simply don't sell accounts.

You have stated numerous times that you are the original owner, you should have absolutely 0 problem recovering the account through jagex's systems. Please do so or provide a refund, it's really that simple. There can't exist a situation where you sell an account, are somehow unable to recover it, and then get to just keep the full amount of the sale afterward, that's exceedingly unfair to your buyer.

As with many other situations, we should take this to a vote if this continues to be a point of controversy but the rule is written for OO to assume liability at all times to avoid this controversy

 

Hi,

I've addressed this already, but let me repeat myself.

I am aware that original owner assists in the account recovery. However, the account recovery was compromised due to the actions of third parties, namely due to the account being resold at least two times, one of which was simple profit hunting (whereas demands have been made to refund the poor risk management of the damaged party based on the alleged statements that never took place - account was bought for 140$ and then resold for 300$, as Skate22, the only possible party who had more chances than anyone to recover the account, has mysteriously dissapeared - wonder why there are no comments from IHQ on that).

I participated in the account recovery and it was recovered at first (confirming the statement of having 0 problems recovering the account), whereas the second appeal was denied. Knowing how Jagex recovery works, appeals do not get declined without a serious reason. It is widely known that a first buyer will always have a chance to recover the account - even Sythe account selling safety policy claims that an account should be bought from the original owner for maximum security. The situation was caused by neglecting Sythe account selling safety policy and security breach caused by the re-sales of the account over which I had absolutely no control. Therefore, I believe that causing damages by taking an unnecessary risk and then demanding a refund not just for it, but for the easy profit which seems to have motivated the purchase in the first place, seems unfair - there can't exist a situation where an account changes its ownership numerous times with each time increasing the possibility of account recovery by one of the owners (as the research shows) and at the end of the day the owner is still responsible for all the damages in spite of having no control over such events.

Best regards,

Probemas

 

Thank you. And yes, I agree.

I spoke with @Dunworry on Skype last night and felt this needs to be voted on by staff as there doesn't seem to be a unified voice among us currently... as well as disagreements between the parties involved in the report.

 

Staff discussion is under way.

We will make a decision on this matter as soon as we can.

Thank you.

 

Hi once again,


Seeing that there are people claiming I am not original owner, that the original owner always is able to do a recovery and that the recovery fails because I am trying to do it not from the original IP, I would like to clarify some things.


All the sold maxed mains, since I started selling them on 2015-04-21, were created and trained by my colleague, Jason. By saying that I am the original owner I mean that Probemas as a company is the original owner, of which I am the head representative in this case; I am pretty sure that won_gold and other owners of big companies that specialize in selling accounts do not level them personally, and transfer this task to a trusted member of their team. The statement of me being the original owner meant that I fully trust Jason (as much as I trust myself), as otherwise I would not have chosen him for this task, and should anything have happened to the account because of his actions, I would be willing to take full responsibility for it and refund if necessary. This case, however, is different.

http://www.sythe.org/threads/maxed-mains-for-sale-100-secure-guthans-boosting-moneymaker.1828703/

With the sales tarting from 2015-04, I have managed to find at least 7 vouches on my thread for successful trades. Not all the sales are accounted for as not all of them were vouched; overall, there were about 20 mains sold within a year. If locked account was caused by me or Jason, wouldn't all the buyers be facing problems with the accounts recently? There is absolutely no doubt that threads about Probemas recovering main account and etc would immediately start popping up, but up to this point there isn‘t a single one, except for this. Even though I am banned on sythe at the moment, that doesn‘t automatically make me a sketchy person or a scammer. Scamming was not the reason of my ban and I have never planned on scamquitting or doing any harm to my customers. I kept expanding my business successfully and preparing to appeal for a pardon on September.

The successful recovery attempt 3 months ago and the recent unsuccessful one were made by Jason, from his IP, which is the same IP that was used for account creation. The information used for recovery was exactly the same. Does any of you, by any chance, work at Jagex? If not, I am wondering what is the ground for the claim that OO will always have a chance to recover the account on. Here are the facts: the recovery attempt from OO is not working. If Jason/me helped IHQ 3 months ago to fix the issue with the account, why would I refuse to assist him now and send false information instead? Jason and I did all we could to recover the account but the recovery procedure is not working. We will keep sending recovery attempts and maybe eventually we will manage to recover the account and return it to Ruben, but for now the appeals are denied and no reason for declining the appeals is given. The account might be flagged suspicious because of the fact that it was being re-sold/rented numerous times, but I do not work for Jagex and do not know their reasons when dealing with each recovery appeal.

I also found some comments on the alternative thread about this topic that support the statement I am trying to make:

Punjabi3☬Grand Master☬



Probemas Acct fiasco

I sold an account which was resold multiple times by owners. I couldn't recover the account but one of the buyers was able to with the information he had, I still don't know why. I think you guys are overestimating the likely hood of original owners always being able to recover the account.

Andy SambergGuru

Probemas Acct fiasco

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.

Best regards,

Probemas

 

I'm not sure why you are claiming, "we will keep sending appeals"... You sent in one request and you yourself didn't reply to me on Skype, OR the group chat Ruben and myself made with you UNTIL this became a reported incident here on sythe and I contacted your live chat.


I myself had to contact your worker and ask for his help as he had no idea, please stop trying to make it seem like you're trying so hard.


Unless you are sitting in front of Jason watching him punch in the information you have no clue whether it'd be right or wrong.. I guess it wouldn't matter if he was next to you or 2,000 miles away as you have no clue what the actual information is because you didn't create anything regarding the account itself.

I've said it before, and I will say it again. I truly believe this account has become so contested due to the 125+ people having been on the account since Ruben has been renting it. (Ruben's own words).

The appeal from Jagex says all of the information is incorrect.. How could this be? It's reviewed by hand...

Edit: Your worker has now submitted two requests both denied.. You stated you aren't sure why it's being denied.. Hmm..... https://gyazo.com/ad0ceab6bdc71526dbb4d77fded90d78

 

After an extensive staff discussion, it has been decided no refund(s) will be issued from any party involved and the account to be considered a loss as a result of the rental service offered.

Case closed.

 

For the record if anyone involved is wondering why, you can send us a message and we'll give you some info.