Tendyies recovered account

[President]

@tendyies
1. Are you the original owner?
2. What information have you communicated in regard to this status to the buyer?

@CoinRS I added you on discord. President#0757(721431035023458465)

 

[tendyies]

why are you blackmailing me? regardless of my IRL situation, for the sake of argument even if that was true.. number one, what relevance does that have to this report?

Number two, why are you threatening me and blackmailing me legally or otherwise just to intermediate me and bully me just to make me close this report with intimidation rather than deal with it, you are clearly doing this as you know what you did to me and coin is wrong.

Pushed some buttons I see. Abe you’re throwing a lot of accusations around the air using words such as “blackmail, threatening” now rest assured I am doing neither as I fully intend to inform Sargent? (I think that’s his rank) Scott about some factoids, I’m not threatening you, a threat I perceive to be a bluff, and rest assured I am not bluffing.

It’s not me going out of my way to fuck you. But need I remind you, that you owe me money still? So instead of calling someone else a victim, look in the mirror and tell me what you see? Actually I’ll do it for you you’re looking at someone that’s facing potential indictments up to 20 years for what? For fraud over 5k perhaps???

Now I’m not gonna go into this unless people are curious, in which case feel free to head on over to

[redacted]

Or [redacted]

And ask for Doberman which I’ll be glad to tell a tale about a man forsake by allah and is now full of sadness and hatred.

 

[President]

Hello good friends, thank you for waiting. In this ruling I will first describe the facts, then I will address who has what claim, and finally I will conclude the ruling by addressing if there was a violation and the severity of it.

----
Facts

1. @tendyies sold a maxed main account for $200 to Abe. Abe sold this account to @CoinRS for $1000
(Tendyies → Abe → CoinRS)
2.1 @tendyies → Abe did not agree toToS
2.2 Abe → @CoinRS did agree to ToS
3. The account was later locked. Abe and Tendyies were unable to unlock the account.
4. @CoinRS never opened a report and wavered his right to be refunded by Abe

----
1. The first question is if Abe violated rule 3. of this sticky?

Because Abe failed to disclose that he is not the original owner of the account to Coin, he is liable for the $1000 that Coin paid him. Coin is within his right to claim this lump, consequently creating a debt of $1000.

2. The question is if rule 5. of this sticky was violated by Tendyies?

Because Tendyies and Abe did not agree to prior ToS, Tendyies has a recovery responsibility of two years. Abe invoked this right and Tendyies failed to recover the account. Consequently, Abe is owed a refund, meaning that Tendyies has to pay Abe $200 to restore the situation prior to the sale. Because Abe has a DNT-status with an outstanding debt, he is not eligible to collect this payment. Normally, the payment would then have to go to the community refund program. But given the nature of this transaction, I rule that Tendyies has to pay Coin $200 directly to offset part of the debt that Abe has.

Edit: because of the open debt that Abe has towards Tendyies, the debts are offset and Abe's open debt towards Tendyies was $410 and is now reduced to $210. Tendyies does not have to pay Coin.

----

We found evidence (which will be posted below) that Tendyies gave contradictive recovery information of the account in question to both users. In principle, the argument can be made that Tendyies does not wish for future resellers of this account to abuse this information. This argument does not stand, however. It must be considered that by giving contradictory recovery information, Tendyies is breaking at least one of the two following rules.
-In the case that Tendyies gave false information to Abe about the account: Tendyies misled his buyer and essentially gave his buyer an incomplete product on purpose. This means that he never fulfilled his end of the agreement and violated it.
-In the case that Tendyies gave false information to Coin about the account: Tendyies purposely neglected his duty to assist recovering the account as described in rule 5. of the mentioned sticky. Either of these rules are severe violations of Sythe rules/principles. Nevertheless, it must be mentioned that Tendyies showed to be cooperative during the period in which the report took place and went to ends to collect information. Therefore, only a TWC will be applied.

Thank you for reading, and I hope that you all have a good night