Chargeback before opening a scam report = Invalid scam report

[Ajdin]

Hi there,

I've seen this issue pop up now and then. People tend to open a PayPal dispute/chargeback and open a scam report afterwards.

I think a scam report should be the first step to resolving a possible scam.

If a user chargebacks anyways, he'll be guilty as our rules clearly will state that a scam report should be opened first.

I'd like to hear some opinions on this. A scam report can usually be resolved through the scam report itself first before the scam actually happens. A ban doesn't usually happen as you can see in the scam reports archive. Most of them just get closed.

I feel like this extra filter could prevent the few scam reports that happen due to chargebacks fairly easily.

Thanks!

 

[Chearful]

M6Gaming

 

[Ajdin]

Ninja1, why did you disagree? Are you possibly abusing this so far to scam people?

 

[M6Gaming]

I would have to agree.

If you chargeback before posting a Scam Report, or chargeback the second you post a Scam Report without reaching a final conclusion with me the Report should be declined.

Because then you are basically allowing PayPal to review your case, if you are sad about the outcome of the dispute - You should contact them, not post here.

However, if you win the Scam Report. And the Member you reported does not refund your payment, you would be allowed to chargeback. Keeps it clean and simple.

 

[Shattered]

I like when people complain that they have been scammed, but they haven't lost anything.

 

[Mumzel]

I mean if they open a chargeback dispute it just means the user is a bit more effective in getting his money back. If he already got his money back then I believe you should just close the scam report if it is done, simple.

 

[Mumzel]

No, don't accuse me.

The reason I disagreed is because of this scenario:

User A scams user B
User B chargebacks
User B opens a scam report 2 hours later
User B's scam report gets denied.
User A is still an active MCM member, rubbing his hands in anticipation of his next scam.

+1 scammer.

Yeah but why would it get denied?

 

[Jam]

No, don't accuse me.

The reason I disagreed is because of this scenario:

User A scams user B
User B chargebacks
User B opens a scam report 2 hours later
User B's scam report gets denied.
User A is still an active MCM member, rubbing his hands in anticipation of his next scam.

+1 scammer.

Havent thought of this. Im for both...

 

[Ivain]

I have to agree with ninja, in most cases. Charging back money after you've been scammed is something a lot of people do as a first reaction. And if the scam report gets denied due to things like lack of proof, people still want their money back.
Sometimes, you don't want to wait for the scam report to be confirmed and then resolved.

That said, while I do not think it should make it invalid, I do agree a user charging back before opening a scam report should influence said scam report.
So if it's a bit of a gray area, where neither party is obviously guilty, the chargeback beforehand should count against said user.

And, of course, they can no longer claim the service they paid for.

Example:
User A buys optifine cape from User B.
Deal goes fine, at first.
User A's optifine cape then gets removed by User B.
User A charges back, as a first reaction.

User A then opens a scam report. This scam report is still valid, because User B still scammed.
However, User A can no longer expect to receive back the cape from User B. All the scam report is about now is determining who is guilty.
If User B is guilty, they get banned.
If User B is innocent, but for whatever reason DOES possess the cape (maybe User A charged back BEFORE the cape got removed?), User A may be suspect. User B could open a scam report in return, or M6 could decide User A is guilty right there. User B does not lose anything from that, in theory, but it does expose a scam, which it would not have if the report had been ignored.

If User B is innocent, but does not have the cape, they can open a counter-scam report or work it out in the current one. This could result in User A needing to re-send the payment, depending on the cause of the cape vanishing (if they attached it to an account that is compromised for whatever reason, User B is not at fault and therefore still deserves their money).

As Ninja said, we cannot afford to simply invalidate scam reports because a chargeback by the one submitting it already took place.
Scam Reports have the MAIN function of detecting and removing scammers. Getting people their money or product back is their secondary function.

While still important, this should not take precedence, and anything that impedes the primary function in favor of the second should not be implemented.

 

[tjrgg]

Honestly, I'm not sure about this.

a) If a user was scammed, it is their right to use any means necessary to try and get their money back. We aren't a consumer protection organization or a seller protection organization and we cannot force a user not to chargeback on another user just because they didn't open a scam report. Honestly, scam reports mean nothing to me, so if I were to get scammed anything serious, I wouldn't sit around and wait for a scam report.

b) Let's just say we add a rule that requires scam reports to be submitted before chargeback. That does nothing to prevent someone from charging back even if the resolver finds the user didn't scam. This isn't a court of law and a Scam Resolver is not a judge. Therefore, their decision is not binding on anyone and the user is free to act however they wish. The transaction was between two parties, neither of which include MC-Market.

 

[Ivain]

Honestly, I'm not sure about this.

a) If a user was scammed, it is their right to use any means necessary to try and get their money back. We aren't a consumer protection organization or a seller protection organization and we cannot force a user not to chargeback on another user just because they didn't open a scam report. Honestly, scam reports mean nothing to me, so if I were to get scammed anything serious, I wouldn't sit around and wait for a scam report.

b) Let's just say we add a rule that requires scam reports to be submitted before chargeback. That does nothing to prevent someone from charging back even if the resolver finds the user didn't scam. This isn't a court of law and a Scam Resolver is not a judge. Therefore, their decision is not binding on anyone and the user is free to act however they wish. The transaction was between two parties, neither of which include MC-Market.

Rule A is not a perspective I'd considered in-depth yet, but it's also valid.