Auto Ban Chargebacks

[Landon]

THE PROBLEM:
Users can chargeback payments to resources, and yet they can still purchase that resource. This adds an unnecessary stress to the Seller, as they have to worry about PayPal chargeback fees if they lose, as well as providing PayPal solid proof the user downloaded. Which is not possible, as you can't see if the user downloaded, you can only see if the user purchased. 90% of the time, you will lose the chargeback.

THE SOLUTION:
Users who chargeback payments on resources should be automatically banned. This way they cannot grab essentially free resources. How can we do this? Selly has a feature where it blacklists chargebacks, so it's gotta be possible using the PayPal API or something.

PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS:
"The user might have accidentally purchased"
It's a very thorough process when purchasing. Clicking 'Buy Now', logging in, and then confirming the payment. You cannot accidentally do that.

"Just open a Scam Report"
Right now, there's already too long of a wait for M6 to respond to high priority scam reports. No need to add an unnecessary amount of scam reports for him to read.

"The user didn't expect what he purchased"
Justis manually verifies and approves all resources. So off the bat, we know the resource is good enough to be on the MC-Market resource page. Then, there are descriptions, videos, and images of what you are buying. No excuse to 'not know what it was'.

I don't get why people who chargeback should still be allowed to be on MC-Market.
They should be treated the same as Scammers. The implementation of this suggestion would solve a very big issue on MC-Market.

 

[Landon]

Disagree? State your reasoning why, and I'll come with a rebuttal.[DOUBLEPOST=1510627136][/DOUBLEPOST]Dahyun
Reasoning to the disagree?

 

[Geek]

This already happens via scam report? M6’s line is not long at all. He is more than able to keep up.

 

[Landon]

This already happens via scam report? M6’s line is not long at all. He is more than able to keep up.

My scam report took 3 days to be looked at. That's 3 days too long.

 

[Justis]

"The user didn't expect what he purchased"
Justis manually verifies and approves all resources. So off the bat, we know the resource is good enough to be on the MC-Market resource page. Then, there are descriptions, videos, and images of what you are buying. No excuse to 'not know what it was'.

I don't get why people who chargeback should still be allowed to be on MC-Market.
They should be treated the same as Scammers. The implementation of this suggestion would solve a very big issue on MC-Market.

I need to correct you there.
I approve only the first version, also, it is possible that I miss something.
Often times, a resource will later be reported by some private developer or server owner who has proof that the resource is using their content without right and claiming it as their own.
Not to mention the possibility that an author passes all checks with the first version, but violates our rules or changes the resource completely on the second and deletes the first version.
I'm only here to ensure the resource is on the correct track.
They still require moderation after approval. Hence the report button still being there.

We can't necessarily differentiate the difference between a refund or a chargeback either.
I'm not certain if it's possible with the PayPal API, but I do know that our current addon can't tell the difference.
If that's the case, banning someone would be as simple as refunding them for your resource.

There are always the cases where the author tells the user to charge back as well.

Put simply, this is not a reliable system that you've suggested with far too many special cases.
The simplest and easiest solution for everyone is just to proceed with your transactions, and if you've been scammed, file a scam report.

If you want to prevent someone from purchasing/downloading your resource entirely, give them a license and disable it. You can do this via www.mc-market.org/resources/market-place-dashboard/manage-licenses

 

[Ally]

This already happens via scam report? M6’s line is not long at all. He is more than able to keep up.

When you post a scam report, it needs to be approved before it goes public. That time takes too long. As well as the replies, as M6 has to thoroughly understand a situation.

 

[Landon]

We can't necessarily differentiate the difference between a refund or a chargeback either.
I'm not certain if it's possible with the PayPal API, but I do know that our current addon can't tell the difference.
If that's the case, banning someone would be as simple as refunding them for your resource.

There are always the cases where the author tells the user to charge back as well.

If the author needs to refund, he can send a manual refund and revoke the license.
But, in the cases of the author doing something malicious with the resource, users can appeal bans. Will take the same amount of time for a Scam Report to be looked at.

*shrug*

 

[Geek]

So how would this work with BTC. Not everyone pays through PP. Also MCM doesn’t hook into PP last I️ checked so unless you’re in resources in which case I️ can maybe see this happening. But that’s a lot of stuff to develop for something that m6 was given the job todo. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

 

[Landon]

So how would this work with BTC. Not everyone pays through PP. Also MCM doesn’t hook into PP last I️ checked so unless you’re in resources in which case I️ can maybe see this happening. But that’s a lot of stuff to develop for something that m6 was given the job todo. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

This suggestion is for Resources. Not just normal chargebacks.

 

[Geek]

MC-Market doesn't accept Bitcoin.

For services the seller can. (I️ have a feeling youre just talking about resources in which case I️ need to go kms)

 

[Landon]

For services the seller can. (I️ have a feeling youre just talking about resources in which case I️ need to go kms)

Read my edited post.

 

[Geek]

Read my edited post.

Kill my self. I️ agree with this then. Apologies. Since I️ was a dumbass I’ll go ahead and look into this and see what I️ can get into.

 

[Max]

I don't even care for the plugins section, but this is an excellent idea and we need it. Agreed.

 

[Turtle]

For services the seller can. (I️ have a feeling youre just talking about resources in which case I️ need to go kms)

you can't even chargeback with bitcoin lol

 

[Ivain]

Yeah, I gotta agree on this. If people feel like they've been scammed with a resource, they should open a scam report on that user if they refuse to cooperate, and if that scam report is resolved with the resource creator being banned, you can let the person that got scammed with the resource charge back without repercussions.
This way, people won't be tempted to charge back immediately. I've been getting more chargebacks on my non-exclusives lately, for absolutely bogus reasons that they never bothered to contact me about. Most of the MCM ones end up cooperating (perhaps in fear of a scam report + ban), but it would be great if it was discouraged this strongly.
Even if it's not an instant permaban (some people might be hesitant about that), it should still be 20+ warning points, for a long-term suspension.

Since there is no way to blacklist someone from purchasing resources, afaik (sadly, Sellfy does not appear to have a method either), discouraging people from ever charging back on resources is very valuable. If this was implemented, I'd move all my products small enough to become a resource to MCM, and even if I still have them on sellfy I'd still prefer the MCM sales.

 

[3l0Ofd8QrqJ]

I think it's a good idea but perhaps too harsh. There are always gonna be exceptions such as the user somehow reading the wrong resource and managing to switch tabs and buy a different one or, as Justis saying, the poster of the resource making an illegitimate update.

Maybe an immediate two week suspension until the issue is resolved or something.

Other than this I really like the concept.

 

[Ivain]

I think it's a good idea but perhaps too harsh. There are always gonna be exceptions such as the user somehow reading the wrong resource and managing to switch tabs and buy a different one or, as Justis saying, the poster of the resource making an illegitimate update.

Maybe an immediate two week suspension until the issue is resolved or something.

Other than this I really like the concept.

In such a case, contacting the seller would be the best thing to do before a chargeback. If they refuse to help/refund, THAT would be the point where a chargeback would be fitting. I strongly loathe the concept of charging back as soon as you find anything wrong, it creates so much stress for no reason, and it basically says "I'm not willing to work with the creator of this resource to solve my problem". And it very much can be solved, that's the beauty of digital products.
If I bought a game and it turns out to have a very annoying bug, do I immediately ask for a refund? Not really, I first see what the devs have to say about it. If they aren't fixing it or fixing might take a long time, THAT is the point to get the refund/chargeback.

 

[3l0Ofd8QrqJ]

In such a case, contacting the seller would be the best thing to do before a chargeback. If they refuse to help/refund, THAT would be the point where a chargeback would be fitting. I strongly loathe the concept of charging back as soon as you find anything wrong, it creates so much stress for no reason, and it basically says "I'm not willing to work with the creator of this resource to solve my problem". And it very much can be solved, that's the beauty of digital products.
If I bought a game and it turns out to have a very annoying bug, do I immediately ask for a refund? Not really, I first see what the devs have to say about it. If they aren't fixing it or fixing might take a long time, THAT is the point to get the refund/chargeback.

My examples were cases where a refund would almost definitely be the final outcome which is the same as a chargeback, that's the whole purpose of them, for a user to get their money back after an accidental or purchase they weren't satisfied with to the extent they have to chargeback. They are also called disputes on PayPal for a reason - because you have to discuss the issue with the seller there and they will respond if they want to sort it out.

On your topic of a game, I disagree again, most people, if they don't like a game, refund straight away, that's why steam has the time limit in place, it forces them to decide early on.

 

[Ivain]

My examples were cases where a refund would almost definitely be the final outcome which is the same as a chargeback, that's the whole purpose of them, for a user to get their money back after an accidental or purchase they weren't satisfied with to the extent they have to chargeback. They are also called disputes on PayPal for a reason - because you have to discuss the issue with the seller there and they will respond if they want to sort it out.

On your topic of a game, I disagree again, most people, if they don't like a game, refund straight away, that's why steam has the time limit in place, it forces them to decide early on.

So basically, the idea is that if you dont like something, you immediately charge back before even ATTEMPTING to contact the seller?
I guess you never really get stressed out by having random people charge back. If only there was an option to blacklist certain people from buying.

What I'm saying is that the entire concept of charging back before attempting to even get help is shit. My analogy might have been poor - buying software from, say, adobe, might be a better comparison, but the main concept of someone charging back as soon as they make a mistake is simply shit. It's a good thing MCM does not have sales fees, or else it would cause a loss no matter what.
In the start of november, I had a chargeback for one of my sellfy products. It says in the sellfy order that he reversed payment the minute that he downloaded the map (the map WAS downloaded, so it was not a mistaken purchase). In the chargeback, he claimed it was not as described, but escalated to paypal as soon as I reacted by asking him to show me where it was 'not as described'. That was 2 weeks ago. I have now found another way to contact him, but it's already been escalated into a paypal only claim, and in 2 days time I won't have the option to refund even if I wanted to.

Charging back as first action implies that you believe the creator is attempting to scam you, as opposed to there being an honest mistake or misunderstanding. If I COULD blacklist people from buying my resources, I would immediately blacklist anyone who charges back as first move. It's honestly insulting, implying you have 0 faith in anyone's honesty. I know there's plenty of shady people on this site, but you could at least give a person a chance before assuming the worst.[DOUBLEPOST=1510681990][/DOUBLEPOST]Now that I've read Justis' post, I would also like to amend my agreement. instead of using an automated system, it should be manual. Perhaps auto-submitting a report?

However, I would still very much like to see the culture of charging back as first move to be discourage strongly.