Beezmans Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) Like this post if you support a few months back this happened http://osbot.org/forum/topic/76653-dispute-against-decode/page-2?hl=beezmans in short this is what happened hired decode services to complete questing/training put 50m+ in gear across 3 accounts i give worker info and he starts worker messages me few days later saying holy shit items are gone i log on (breaking the t.o.s) i change password (breaking the t.o.s) worker then finds out that his osbot/skype were compromised i lose the dispute and my 50m-100m in gear b/c i broke the t.o.s I hold no grudge towards decode or the hacker it was a minor inconvenience for me but i am looking out for those who could lose it all potentially on a minor mistake or stupid mistake such as i did. my question is should buyers have a certain level of protection when in the osbot market and using a service? if you believe so like this post! Edited March 28, 2016 by Beezmans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alek Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Who is giving you the protection? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 imo any refund at all would be instantly voided due to you breaking T.O.S but idrk but let's say buyer protection was applied here, who do you think would've been liable to refund you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beezmans Posted March 28, 2016 Author Share Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) Who is giving you the protection? first off great question Alek! the owner of service should be held accountable in certain cases such as the one i gave as a example. I understand its a rare example but the t.o.s is all the way there to protect owner of any negligence. why wont it protect a person such as me of hiring him? Edited March 28, 2016 by Beezmans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 first off great question Alek! the owner of service should be held accountable in certain cases such as the one i gave as a example. I understand its a rare example but the t.o.s is all the way there to protect owner of any negligence. why wont it protect a person such as me of hiring him? it's very simple really, if you'd adhered to the T.O.S there'd have been negligence on his behalf and he'd have had to refund you in some way, so in essence you broke your own buyer protection :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beezmans Posted March 28, 2016 Author Share Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) it's very simple really, if you'd adhered to the T.O.S there'd have been negligence on his behalf and he'd have had to refund you in some way, so in essence you broke your own buyer protection I understand that but this couldve happened to anyone. my thought process was very clear they allowed a non-worker on account therefore breaking the t.o.s which means there in wrongdoing. I believed the t.o.s to be void the second a non-worker had taken my items off the account. if a worker doesnt have items to complete a service is the service still existent? to me its a clear answer Edited March 28, 2016 by Beezmans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sib Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 You could use a middle man.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Maldesto Posted March 28, 2016 Administrator Share Posted March 28, 2016 There is a protection it is called tos. Which you broke and admitted you were compromised/hacked. T.o.s you agreed to is there to protect you. Nothing else will be added or removed. If you don't break a tos you get refunded that is what protects the buyer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liverare Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Assuming this is true, you lost 100M to no fault of your own; you should hold a grudge! Decode service should have cancelled the order straight away and compensated you for your losses, because it was the Decode worker who was at fault. How can a worker tell you that you got hacked and not expect you to log in and find out for yourself, and then to change the password straight away?! If the password remained the same the hacker would still be able to login. There aught to be buyers protection. The staff should require all service providers to cancel orders and fully refund and compensate customers in your situation. Be the change: put together all the proof and make a fuss over it. Other potential customers may be deterred from paying for another service without there being some liability on the service provider's side. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acerd Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 no support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unversable Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Assuming this is true, you lost 100M to no fault of your own; you should hold a grudge! Decode service should have cancelled the order straight away and compensated you for your losses, because it was the Decode worker who was at fault. How can a worker tell you that you got hacked and not expect you to log in and find out for yourself, and then to change the password straight away?! If the password remained the same the hacker would still be able to login. There aught to be buyers protection. The staff should require all service providers to cancel orders and fully refund and compensate customers in your situation. Be the change: put together all the proof and make a fuss over it. Other potential customers may be deterred from paying for another service without there being some liability on the service provider's side. I agree, who cares about the TOS once someone else already logged on your account and broke it? I mean, it seems like a real shit excuse for not wanting to own up to your own blame. I personally won't use his service if they don't understand an instance like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beezmans Posted March 29, 2016 Author Share Posted March 29, 2016 (edited) Assuming this is true, you lost 100M to no fault of your own; you should hold a grudge! Decode service should have cancelled the order straight away and compensated you for your losses, because it was the Decode worker who was at fault. How can a worker tell you that you got hacked and not expect you to log in and find out for yourself, and then to change the password straight away?! If the password remained the same the hacker would still be able to login. There aught to be buyers protection. The staff should require all service providers to cancel orders and fully refund and compensate customers in your situation. Be the change: put together all the proof and make a fuss over it. Other potential customers may be deterred from paying for another service without there being some liability on the service provider's side. You worded it better then i could've There is a protection it is called tos. Which you broke and admitted you were compromised/hacked. T.o.s you agreed to is there to protect you. Nothing else will be added or removed. If you don't break a tos you get refunded that is what protects the buyer no i never admitted to being compromised i said another worker had previous issues with hackings as well we then solved it very simply i had miss told him the password on skype and he couldnt log on for 1 day cause i was afk i informed decode of this due to the fact im a fair individual and didnt want him paying up incase it was b/c my skype was compromised which ended up not being compromised. Edited March 29, 2016 by Beezmans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nike Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Yeah mald your full shit, and retard thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotchabruh19933 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Giving my opinion on this flawed TOS. Why should the owner of the account keep his account vulnerable AFTER it was hacked? The worst case scenario after the hack would be for the hacker to purposefully get the account banned. After the account ban, how would the service owner refund? It will be impossible for both parties to agree to a price tag on an account that may have taken months/years to build. Beezmans should not have been punished for securing his account after his items have been stolen by a trusted service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ownu1hit99 Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 honestly yes I would just recoment using a middleman is no foolproof way for buyer and seller protection honestly because end of the day it just comes down to trust and calculated risks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
