Chargebacks - This has to stop

Discussion in 'Other/Uncategorized Suggestions Archive' started by Frederic, Dec 12, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frederic
    Offline

    Frederic Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2016
    Messages:
    1,147
    IGN:
    derf128
    Now it's starting on the Website as well

    IM BACK | Skyblock Forums

    From a customer POV the actual "scam" is by the Website owner himself. Forcing players to buy premium / rank / perks / kits when they got maliciously chargebacked, when buycraft themselves proposes ways to prevent such situations, makes the players double victims. You shouldn't get banned either when your "gift" got chargebacked. Just remove the perks. IRL this is called "reservation of proprietary rights"

    Feature Spotlight: Player checks for fraud protection
    Feature Spotlight: Better Control Over Chargeback Bans

    Another way of gaining money would really be to try and Keep the Players on the Server. I don't think this is the right way.
     
  2. Krissy
    Offline

    Krissy Stray Kids everywhere all around the world Administrator Discord Administrator Premium Premium

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    18,061
    I wish that with chargebacks users were allowed to be unbanned so long as their rank is adjusted to reflect the amount charged back or what was charged back. But only for the forums.

    Because that could backfire in game because if a user buys the pig spawners, sells them, then hides the profits, then charges back they could essentially gain free items. If you don't unban them if they cannot front the items then that would mean everyone would get the same treatment. So an innocent user who bought a lot of stone with their money for the spawners and charges back because their parents didn't want them spending that money would stay banned until the chargeback is lifted.

    The issue with the top idea is this would eliminate gifting ranks. This might cost the server more than the chargebacks do. Majority of the chargebacks are done by users who play the server anyway.

    One idea is to implement a confirmation type approach where users must accept the donation or gift before it is delivered to them. This way it is completely the responsibility of the player if they accept, and, stops random chargebacks. This would be something Leeeroieee would specialise in.

    I don't think its a quick and easy fix but I do agree that something does need to be done about it.
     
  3. Frederic
    Offline

    Frederic Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2016
    Messages:
    1,147
    IGN:
    derf128
    I see the Problem with the items, but you cannot make the beneficiant responsible for his gift being unrightfully obtained (other than taking the gift away, which is seemingly impossible).

    But then again, if there is an IP check on Buycraft, you could theoretically ban systematically ONLY the Player who chargebacked (and all of his alts) and not the receipient of the rank (if not the same Player). This would solve the whole issue at once. And I would bet at once noone would maliciously chargeback anymore.
     
  4. Krissy
    Offline

    Krissy Stray Kids everywhere all around the world Administrator Discord Administrator Premium Premium

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    18,061
    Since gifting is primarily a forums system it makes more sense on the forums to not ban the user.

    Buycraft is a little different because while you could say you are gifting a player, it isn't explicitly stated. I don't think Buycraft does have an IP check system where the owner can view IP's. But it would be fairly easy to use a VPN to bypass because you don't actually need to be online to donate for someone.

    The things to do imo is
    a) Make gift chargebacks should not equal a ban
    b) Find a way to avoid random chargebacks
    I think messing with the bans is only a temporary fix to a larger issue that should be resolved soon for the sake of the server not losing so much money.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page