Automatically remove resource from purchases on chargeback

[BGHDDevelopment]

Hello!

Recently I had a user chargeback right after downloading my resource. This happened 3 times. I also noticed that the license was still active in the seller dashboard after he chargedbacked.

I am suggesting that after a user chargebacks on a resource it automatically removes there license.

 

[Mick]

Justis I remember in the past having a discussion about why we should not automatically punish users for charging back because there often can be legitimate reasons, but I'd like to hear your feedback on this since it is directly concerning the product purchased.

 

[Justis]

Justis I remember in the past having a discussion about why we should not automatically punish users for charging back because there often can be legitimate reasons, but I'd like to hear your feedback on this since it is directly concerning the product purchased.

Chargebacks are not always unwarranted.
Sometimes the resource author themselves will tell the buyer to create a chargeback because they can’t issue a refund and either can’t or don’t want to handle getting the product to the buyer. Other times the seller will be completely inactive and the product either isn’t working or wasn’t delivered so they create a chargeback. It's essentially the "punish first, ask questions later" argument, and it’s a bad idea. Ask questions, then issue the appropriate punishment.

That said, in any situation in which a chargeback is appropriate, even if no punishment is delivered, the buyer will still be giving up usage rights to the product that they’re charging back on, so automatically removing their license shouldn’t be a problem.
The resource author can always re-apply their license if they have a different mutual agreement.

 

[Mick]

If only MCM had an ForumAPI like spigot... we could put code in the plugin directly to restrain access to users that attempted scam by charging back and to limit resources being leaked.

We have an API planned for the future

Chargebacks are not always unwarranted.
Sometimes the resource author themselves will tell the buyer to create a chargeback because they can’t issue a refund and either can’t or don’t want to handle getting the product to the buyer. Other times the seller will be completely inactive and the product either isn’t working or wasn’t delivered so they create a chargeback. It's essentially the "punish first, ask questions later" argument, and it’s a bad idea. Ask questions, then issue the appropriate punishment.

That said, in any situation in which a chargeback is appropriate, even if no punishment is delivered, the buyer will still be giving up usage rights to the product that they’re charging back on, so automatically removing their license shouldn’t be a problem.
The resource author can always re-apply their license if they have a different mutual agreement.

fair enough. Thank you sir.

I’ll move this to pending