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!

 

[Mumzel]

I think that these conditions apply:

You do not chargeback until a Scam Resolver instructs you to do so or the user is banned
If you do chargeback, you cannot open a Scam Report unless the dispute is in the sellers favor.

You can open a chargeback for a service (ie. Hosting), but the seller can make a Scam Report against you.

You should be able to open a chargeback as well as a scam report um...

 

[Sloth]

I'm not the biggest fan of this idea. I feel like in some scenarios this could work, yet there are many scenarios where this would simply be a massive waste of time. Let's just pretend I've been scammed by a user. I abide by this new rule and open a scam report before I chargeback. The user begins to stall and bicker/argue to buy himself some time to either scam more people or try and get away with his scam. With that being said, let's just say the scam report takes a day to be accepted, then a week to be rapped up, maybe even longer than a week. Once I win I can finally chargeback my money and wait for a couple more days/weeks for PayPal to deal with the situation. From this I might get my money back, yet there's a chance I lose the dispute and have wasted weeks on something that could have been resolved sooner. I'd much rather take my chances charging back and not opening a scam report if it meant I could reach a conclusion or get my money back sooner.

 

[Ivain]

The thing that worries me in general is the notion of 'invalidating' scam reports.
All scam reports should be properly evaluated. They are all meant to detect possible scammers (even if that is not the thought of the person opening them). Therefore all that are not completely preposterous should be considered.
If a scam report is filtered out because the person making it has already issued or even won a chargeback, a potential scammer may remain active in the community without detection. That is something we cannot risk.

 

[Sloth]

The thing that worries me in general is the notion of 'invalidating' scam reports.
All scam reports should be properly evaluated. They are all meant to detect possible scammers (even if that is not the thought of the person opening them). Therefore all that are not completely preposterous should be considered.
If a scam report is filtered out because the person making it has already issued or even won a chargeback, a potential scammer may remain active in the community without detection. That is something we cannot risk.

Yeah we keep making exceptions to everything as if they are special. We have Agree ratings for suggestions only, people want posts to be invalid in the suggestions section, and now we want to invalidate scam reports because a user wants their scammed money back. Ratings are ratings, posts are posts, and scams are scams. We don't need more scammers in our community.

 

[SoldierAlex]

I don't think a scam report should become invalid for reasons that Ivain already stated. However, M6Gaming should ask anyone who opens a scam report to not chargeback until the dispute has been settled. I think many more issues would be brought about with this rule being implemented than anything new actually being accomplished.

 

[tjrgg]

I think this is a case by case thing.

MC-Market as an entity can't force you to not chargeback on a user. I mean, do we consider that breaking the rules and ban you if you do? You're just going to continue with the chargeback, are you not? So, I fail to see how this would actually resolve anyone's problem.

I think that this is something that should be decided on a case-by-case basis. If a user feels scammed, let them chargeback. That is their right and the financial institutions will deal with it. What we can do is evaluate whether or not the chargeback in and of itself was a scam if a scam did not actually occur.

So, what I'm basically saying is this: deal with one problem at a time.

i) A buyer feels scammed by a seller
a) Buyer opens scam report
b) Buyer charges back.
ii) Scam report case is reviewed and decided.
a) If Seller is found guilty, no problem. Seller is banned and Buyer continues with his/her chargeback.
b) If Seller is found not guilty, then Seller can now open a scam report on the Buyer for charging back. That case would then be evaluated and reviewed independently, as it should be, in my opinion.