A TOS DISPUTE with hostbrr, need help!

detavern

@tentor said:
Ignorance is now a "reasonable extent" lol

@detavern said:
My intention in uploading those screenshots was to show that I am open to communication

Yeah, so open that no ticket was made to clarify ToS clauses due to unreachable ToS page xD

If a supermarket forgets to put a “limit 1 per customer” sign on a product, and someone buys 2, you would normally say the store made a mistake in communication — not that the customer should have somehow known about a hidden rule in advance.

tentor

@detavern said:

@tentor said:
Ignorance is now a "reasonable extent" lol

@detavern said:
My intention in uploading those screenshots was to show that I am open to communication

Yeah, so open that no ticket was made to clarify ToS clauses due to unreachable ToS page xD

If a supermarket forgets to put a “limit 1 per customer” sign on a product, and someone buys 2, you would normally say the store made a mistake in communication — not that the customer should have somehow known about a hidden rule in advance.

Bad comparison - you've seen that ToS page is not working, yet you failed to ask provider for a latest ToS clauses.

detavern

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:
Ignorance is now a "reasonable extent" lol

No, my point is that customers can only reasonably follow terms that are actually visible and accessible to them. If a provider failed to properly display or communicate a rule, it is unfair to assume every customer should magically know it in advance.

You are saying it like account transfers are so much popular to be allowed amongst provider

I means that different providers have different policies, and customers rely on the provider’s published terms to know what is allowed or forbidden.

If a restriction is important, it should be clearly stated and visible. Customers are not expected to assume every unstated action is prohibited by default.

detavern

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:
Ignorance is now a "reasonable extent" lol

@detavern said:
My intention in uploading those screenshots was to show that I am open to communication

Yeah, so open that no ticket was made to clarify ToS clauses due to unreachable ToS page xD

If a supermarket forgets to put a “limit 1 per customer” sign on a product, and someone buys 2, you would normally say the store made a mistake in communication — not that the customer should have somehow known about a hidden rule in advance.

Bad comparison - you've seen that ToS page is not working, yet you failed to ask provider for a latest ToS clauses.

I checked the ToS page before the purchase and found it unavailable. In a normal customer-provider relationship, it is reasonable to expect the provider to make their own terms accessible, especially for important restrictions.

Customers should not be expected to individually contact support just to discover basic rules that should already be publicly available on the website.

tentor

@detavern said:

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:
Ignorance is now a "reasonable extent" lol

@detavern said:
My intention in uploading those screenshots was to show that I am open to communication

Yeah, so open that no ticket was made to clarify ToS clauses due to unreachable ToS page xD

If a supermarket forgets to put a “limit 1 per customer” sign on a product, and someone buys 2, you would normally say the store made a mistake in communication — not that the customer should have somehow known about a hidden rule in advance.

Bad comparison - you've seen that ToS page is not working, yet you failed to ask provider for a latest ToS clauses.

I checked the ToS page before the purchase and found it unavailable. In a normal customer-provider relationship, it is reasonable to expect the provider to make their own terms accessible, especially for important restrictions.

Customers should not be expected to individually contact support just to discover basic rules that should already be publicly available on the website.

Then don't complain when you violate the ToS in question

detavern

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:
Ignorance is now a "reasonable extent" lol

@detavern said:
My intention in uploading those screenshots was to show that I am open to communication

Yeah, so open that no ticket was made to clarify ToS clauses due to unreachable ToS page xD

If a supermarket forgets to put a “limit 1 per customer” sign on a product, and someone buys 2, you would normally say the store made a mistake in communication — not that the customer should have somehow known about a hidden rule in advance.

Bad comparison - you've seen that ToS page is not working, yet you failed to ask provider for a latest ToS clauses.

I checked the ToS page before the purchase and found it unavailable. In a normal customer-provider relationship, it is reasonable to expect the provider to make their own terms accessible, especially for important restrictions.

Customers should not be expected to individually contact support just to discover basic rules that should already be publicly available on the website.

Then don't complain when you violate the ToS in question

So, what is the logic here?

This also brings back my earlier question: if the ToS being inaccessible has no impact, then why did the provider go to the Wayback Machine to have those archives removed?

tentor

@detavern said:

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:
Ignorance is now a "reasonable extent" lol

@detavern said:
My intention in uploading those screenshots was to show that I am open to communication

Yeah, so open that no ticket was made to clarify ToS clauses due to unreachable ToS page xD

If a supermarket forgets to put a “limit 1 per customer” sign on a product, and someone buys 2, you would normally say the store made a mistake in communication — not that the customer should have somehow known about a hidden rule in advance.

Bad comparison - you've seen that ToS page is not working, yet you failed to ask provider for a latest ToS clauses.

I checked the ToS page before the purchase and found it unavailable. In a normal customer-provider relationship, it is reasonable to expect the provider to make their own terms accessible, especially for important restrictions.

Customers should not be expected to individually contact support just to discover basic rules that should already be publicly available on the website.

Then don't complain when you violate the ToS in question

So, what is the logic here?

If you haven't read ToS you still are responsible for following it. You could've asked provider to fix the page to let you read it, but instead you made a gamble and lost

detavern

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:
Ignorance is now a "reasonable extent" lol

@detavern said:
My intention in uploading those screenshots was to show that I am open to communication

Yeah, so open that no ticket was made to clarify ToS clauses due to unreachable ToS page xD

If a supermarket forgets to put a “limit 1 per customer” sign on a product, and someone buys 2, you would normally say the store made a mistake in communication — not that the customer should have somehow known about a hidden rule in advance.

Bad comparison - you've seen that ToS page is not working, yet you failed to ask provider for a latest ToS clauses.

I checked the ToS page before the purchase and found it unavailable. In a normal customer-provider relationship, it is reasonable to expect the provider to make their own terms accessible, especially for important restrictions.

Customers should not be expected to individually contact support just to discover basic rules that should already be publicly available on the website.

Then don't complain when you violate the ToS in question

He must have done it to increase his chances in a PayPal dispute, right? Doesn’t that essentially amount to admitting that he was at fault in the process?

mans_xd

op must have hard time studying logic

tentor

@detavern said:

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:
Ignorance is now a "reasonable extent" lol

@detavern said:
My intention in uploading those screenshots was to show that I am open to communication

Yeah, so open that no ticket was made to clarify ToS clauses due to unreachable ToS page xD

If a supermarket forgets to put a “limit 1 per customer” sign on a product, and someone buys 2, you would normally say the store made a mistake in communication — not that the customer should have somehow known about a hidden rule in advance.

Bad comparison - you've seen that ToS page is not working, yet you failed to ask provider for a latest ToS clauses.

I checked the ToS page before the purchase and found it unavailable. In a normal customer-provider relationship, it is reasonable to expect the provider to make their own terms accessible, especially for important restrictions.

Customers should not be expected to individually contact support just to discover basic rules that should already be publicly available on the website.

Then don't complain when you violate the ToS in question

He must have done it to increase his chances in a PayPal dispute, right? Doesn’t that essentially amount to admitting that he was at fault in the process?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

ss93

@detavern said:

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:
Ignorance is now a "reasonable extent" lol

@detavern said:
My intention in uploading those screenshots was to show that I am open to communication

Yeah, so open that no ticket was made to clarify ToS clauses due to unreachable ToS page xD

If a supermarket forgets to put a “limit 1 per customer” sign on a product, and someone buys 2, you would normally say the store made a mistake in communication — not that the customer should have somehow known about a hidden rule in advance.

Bad comparison - you've seen that ToS page is not working, yet you failed to ask provider for a latest ToS clauses.

I checked the ToS page before the purchase and found it unavailable. In a normal customer-provider relationship, it is reasonable to expect the provider to make their own terms accessible, especially for important restrictions.

Customers should not be expected to individually contact support just to discover basic rules that should already be publicly available on the website.

Then don't complain when you violate the ToS in question

He must have done it to increase his chances in a PayPal dispute, right? Doesn’t that essentially amount to admitting that he was at fault in the process?

Not really, no.

layer7

@JabJab said:
Holy shit @layer7 take a break. You made million of assumptions.
You have no idea, there are million of situations and ways this could unfold. Service was paid. Service is active. "Proper" account/e-mail did not asked for refund. What else do you want to do? I think he was even told to take it up with payment provider - the "proper" way at this point.

Hi,

i assumed what was presented as information from the provider.

And thats:

• provider believes in scam situation
• provider believes he is talking to the person who paid
• provider believes there is a quarrel between two entities ruining provider's quiet life
• provider believes its fine to keeping money from the scammed person while not providing service to the scammed person

and exactly this i commented. I do not see there any assumptions.

@yoshiki said:

@layer7 said:
So all in all, i am really sorry, but this way of handling that situation is for my personal taste beyond fishy.

You should definitely go ahead and contact the OP to offer the same server for no extra money. Maybe if you put your money where your mouth is the fishy taste will fade?

i do not understand why you feel offended?! I just commented based on presented information from the provider. As long as you will not find a logical flaw in my explanations, i assume ( now for real ) that there is no reason to be offended...

@labze said:
That's one take on it.

Thank you!

Up until OP opened the dispute I had no way to verify that he was the owner of the PayPal. He writes from a different email.

Yes, thats quiet unfortune that paypal will not show the clear sender address -- why ever they decided to do it like this.

I also can't verify what the deal was with the previous owner.

perfectly clear.

Maybe the account was never transferred and some other deal was made for him to pay his account. Then perhaps if I refunded the payment I'd be dealing with another person that would panic over his service was canceled due to non payment?

But you acknowledged the scam, if i didnt understand it wrong?!

And yes, you would simply suspend the account ( not delete it immediately of course ) and then someone will show up to pay for it. This one will own it.

A real problem will only come if you have suddenly two candidates who want to pay XD

But keeping up a situation where the one who paid and want access can not access the service is just no solution to this problem.

I've had multiple requests that one person wanted to pay for another so this isn't far fetched.

Why if the account was really transferred could the other person gain access to it again so easily and change email?

Something doesn't add up.

I dont know your system and what exactly happend. And i dont see a reason to disclose this in public to avoid making it more easy for others to manipulate your perception. If you doubt the story at some point or feel like something is fishy here, you are all right to handle this all very careful and doubt everything.

I stand by the hacking example. If the story is true then he lost access to his service due to poor account security. He paid for a service he intended to use but lost access as he let someone gain unauthorized access.

But in this described scenario, if i understood you correctly, then the guy who paid lost access to his account. Would it not be natural to reinstate the access?!

---

But at this point i assume ( for the 2nd time this time ) that there were several changes of the account data. And i assume that when you looked into the case it looks like a mess.

I anyway think that you make your life a bit too hard here.

• You have 2 entities fighting for the same account

Question A: Do BOTH want to pay?

Yes: Let the one party pay who was the original account owner. Refund the other if needed.

No: The paying party will make the race and get account ownership

In both situations you are paid. So it does not matter to you usually ( aside of f** tons of manual work ). So the next step would be to enforce 2FA or similar or think about something else to prevent this kind of situations.

And if no one wants to pay, then you would anyway just cancel the account and bye bye.

So no matter what the situation is, its clear, neat and no one can complain ( with you ).

detavern

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:
Ignorance is now a "reasonable extent" lol

@detavern said:
My intention in uploading those screenshots was to show that I am open to communication

Yeah, so open that no ticket was made to clarify ToS clauses due to unreachable ToS page xD

If a supermarket forgets to put a “limit 1 per customer” sign on a product, and someone buys 2, you would normally say the store made a mistake in communication — not that the customer should have somehow known about a hidden rule in advance.

Bad comparison - you've seen that ToS page is not working, yet you failed to ask provider for a latest ToS clauses.

I checked the ToS page before the purchase and found it unavailable. In a normal customer-provider relationship, it is reasonable to expect the provider to make their own terms accessible, especially for important restrictions.

Customers should not be expected to individually contact support just to discover basic rules that should already be publicly available on the website.

Then don't complain when you violate the ToS in question

He must have done it to increase his chances in a PayPal dispute, right? Doesn’t that essentially amount to admitting that he was at fault in the process?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

When a logical argument can’t be refuted, sarcasm is often used as a substitute for reasoning.

totally_not_banned

I think the main problem with transferring accounts by changing details has already been stated somewhere among the first couple pages. The receiving party simply never entered into a contractual relationship with the host. First and foremost because the host never agreed to enter into one. TOS page broken or not, that is the default, which should be obvious to anyone even remotely understanding how contracts work. No hair splitting or circular argument will change that.

tentor

@detavern said:

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:
Ignorance is now a "reasonable extent" lol

@detavern said:
My intention in uploading those screenshots was to show that I am open to communication

Yeah, so open that no ticket was made to clarify ToS clauses due to unreachable ToS page xD

If a supermarket forgets to put a “limit 1 per customer” sign on a product, and someone buys 2, you would normally say the store made a mistake in communication — not that the customer should have somehow known about a hidden rule in advance.

Bad comparison - you've seen that ToS page is not working, yet you failed to ask provider for a latest ToS clauses.

I checked the ToS page before the purchase and found it unavailable. In a normal customer-provider relationship, it is reasonable to expect the provider to make their own terms accessible, especially for important restrictions.

Customers should not be expected to individually contact support just to discover basic rules that should already be publicly available on the website.

Then don't complain when you violate the ToS in question

He must have done it to increase his chances in a PayPal dispute, right? Doesn’t that essentially amount to admitting that he was at fault in the process?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

When a logical argument can’t be refuted, sarcasm is often used as a substitute for reasoning.

Zero sarcasm, just rephrased your reply.

djn

I

@detavern said: Customers should not be expected to individually contact support just to discover basic rules that should already be publicly available on the website.

You was never a customer you didn't buy it from him.

AlteredParadox

OP is one of those people who will die on their hill and refuse to admit they're wrong, no matter how much logic is shown to them. Why does it seem like its always the MJJ threads that go like this?

detavern

@AlteredParadox said:
OP is one of those people who will die on their hill and refuse to admit they're wrong, no matter how much logic is shown to them. Why does it seem like its always the MJJ threads that go like this?

No

@totally_not_banned said:
I think the main problem with transferring accounts by changing details has already been stated somewhere among the first couple pages. The receiving party simply never entered into a contractual relationship with the host. First and foremost because the host never agreed to enter into one. TOS page broken or not, that is the default, which should be obvious to anyone even remotely understanding how contracts work. No hair splitting or circular argument will change that.

His summary makes sense, I would accept the point.

layer7

@detavern said:
When a logical argument can’t be refuted, sarcasm is often used as a substitute for reasoning.

Hi,

hrhr, there is another phrase:

Don't throw rocks while you are sitting is the glas house
( at least works in german language ^^; )

I can assure you that you are not giving a good picture in this whole messy story.

You and the old account owner are putting here work on the shoulders of the provider who has right nothing to do with this whole shit show.

You wrote yourself that you knew that its common not to allow account transfers just like that.

If i understood it correctly you decided to trade a special discounted account -- even more reason to assume that account/service transfers are not wanted.

But still you made the gamble. YOU made the gamble. You did not confirm with the TOS of the provider that this is possible and fine. It seems convenient to you that the TOS are not accessible so you have an excuse to make a big fuss.

I am sorry, but you really did all to dig your own hole. And now you try to drag the provider into it. That is not fine. And so you should not talk about logic and common sense. You freely ignored that yourself when creating this all mess you drive yourself into ( and dragging the provider into it too ).

You should consider taking a good portion of responsibility on you for this all as you are in fact the director who setup this whole ****

Unfortunately that does not automatically mean that its rightful to keep your money if you dont received anything for it -- which does not mean that you are innocent and a victim here by all means...

AlteredParadox

@detavern said: No

Yes

deafcon

@AlteredParadox said:

@detavern said: No

Yes

Llamas

detavern

@layer7 said:

@detavern said:
When a logical argument can’t be refuted, sarcasm is often used as a substitute for reasoning.

Hi,

hrhr, there is another phrase:

Don't throw rocks while you are sitting is the glas house
( at least works in german language ^^; )

I can assure you that you are not giving a good picture in this whole messy story.

You and the old account owner are putting here work on the shoulders of the provider who has right nothing to do with this whole shit show.

You wrote yourself that you knew that its common not to allow account transfers just like that.

If i understood it correctly you decided to trade a special discounted account -- even more reason to assume that account/service transfers are not wanted.

But still you made the gamble. YOU made the gamble. You did not confirm with the TOS of the provider that this is possible and fine. It seems convenient to you that the TOS are not accessible so you have an excuse to make a big fuss.

I am sorry, but you really did all to dig your own hole. And now you try to drag the provider into it. That is not fine. And so you should not talk about logic and common sense. You freely ignored that yourself when creating this all mess you drive yourself into ( and dragging the provider into it too ).

You should consider taking a good portion of responsibility on you for this all as you are in fact the director who setup this whole ****

Unfortunately that does not automatically mean that its rightful to keep your money if you dont received anything for it -- which does not mean that you are innocent and a victim here by all means...

Thanks for your explanations, I'm willing to take my portion of responsibility.

detavern

I am willing to accept the point that no contractual relationship was established.

In that case, the discussion around the ToS is no longer central. I also acknowledge my role in creating this situation.

If appropriate, I am open to returning the funds to the provider.

As I said, the funds is the most irrelevant part in this matter.

tentor

What was your point then?

ss93

@tentor said:
What was your point then?

yes

detavern

@tentor said:
What was your point then?

My next goal is to see the scammer held accountable.

To be fair, if I violated the ToS, the original owner must violate it too.
Then the account or the service should be suspended as well.

detavern

@tentor said:
What was your point then?

Meanwhile, I still believe the provider bears responsibility for escalating this matter further instead of treating a reasonable concern in a fair and measured way.

eliphas

@detavern said:
My next goal is to see the scammer held accountable.

If I violated the ToS, the original owner must violate it too.
Then the account or the service should be suspended as well.

weeeee
tell him to join here, fight fight

tentor

@detavern said:

@tentor said:
What was your point then?

Meanwhile, I still believe the provider bears responsibility for escalating this matter further instead of treating a reasonable concern in a fair and measured way.

Problem is, if you didn't participate in this transfer, this situation would not even arise. Can't point fingers if you are guilty.

At least this is what consensus here is. However, you are free to not agree with it.

detavern

@tentor said:

@detavern said:

@tentor said:
What was your point then?

Meanwhile, I still believe the provider bears responsibility for escalating this matter further instead of treating a reasonable concern in a fair and measured way.

Problem is, if you didn't participate in this transfer, this situation would not even arise. Can't point fingers if you are guilty.

At least this is what consensus here is. However, you are free to not agree with it.

I maintain my position. I believe I have already provided sufficient evidence in the ticket, and I can say responsibly that I have not hidden any relevant information.

From my perspective, the provider did not make a genuine attempt to resolve the issue. This does not align with the claim that the situation was simply due to an account hacked, as they suggested.