High Number of Paypal Chargebacks This Month?

[Slavik]

One of our few charge backs for hosting we received, that we won too at that.. Has a pretty high post count in this community. I won't go into more detail then that until a mod gives the green light on name and shame as they aren't worth getting in trouble for here.

I'm sure your aware of how when those types of threads have been posted before, they boil down to he-said she-said arguements as posting PM's or emails is against the rules.

If a member has done chargebacks, drop us a ticket and we can note it down on their account, prolific users have been and will be removed.

 

[whynot]

If a member has done chargebacks, drop us a ticket and we can note it down on their account, prolific users have been and will be removed.

That's the way to do it.

 

[Shelley]

Or you can compile your own database of people using your resources at your disposal @Mike Edge and get the 3rd party community behind you so everyone has access to a database of thieves instead of a select few which is what slavik is proposing.

 

[RobParker]

If a member has done chargebacks, drop us a ticket and we can note it down on their account, prolific users have been and will be removed.

As in had their XF license revoked? If not I don't see how that helps anyone else as they have no access to that information...?

 

[Sheldon]

Hahahaha.

I still have a huge collection of IP's, emails, usernames, alts, websites, etc...

I like going through the list now when I see questions posted in certain areas.

 

[Luxus]

Chances are this will end up like the licensed/unlicensed users buying add-on's drama with Mike closing the thread and announcing a solution that hopefully makes everyone happy (e.g built-in payment processor for the RM).

 

[Anthony Parsons]

If a member has done chargebacks, drop us a ticket and we can note it down on their account, prolific users have been and will be removed.

IMHO, this is useless. As noted above, it gives a select few access to frauds, instead of who should have access, being developers and even the community at large. IMO, this is for developers to handle and not XF or its staff, as XF, like most softwares, pretty much distance themselves from third party developers for good reason. Allowing them to support themselves by naming them on a public list here isn't exactly unethical or such... and it gives everyone an idea of who is doing it.

Maybe the simple control is that XF staff control the names added, in that devs send them the details, the purchase, the chargeback, and repeated offence / mass offence for staff to then add the name to a public list or conclude there is not enough evidence (i.e. a one-off chargeback which the dev gets ****ty about of insignificant amount and the person provided a good reason for such). Not all chargebacks are illegitimate... or someone ripping someone off. Maybe thats a simple control mechanism.

Otherwise... maybe a dev should just start a page on a domain that devs can add to that list, then link it here. XF isn't then endorsing anything, as allowing a link isn't an endorsement of anything, it's a link to a valid issue for developers. Devs can include the page on their addon for who they won't sell to, or such.

 

[John]

Beyond doing the license verification procedure (that Mike so kindly created) and being proactive on the front end, yourself, there isn't much else that can or should be done. This is the individual developer's problem, not XF's. It's part of doing business in the real world. I, personally, know of several active members here that present one face in public but do other things when they think people aren't looking (or won't notice). Shaming them in public will hurt no one but yourself and XF. Just my 2 cents.

 

[RobParker]

this is for developers to handle and not XF or its staff

I disagree somewhat. Let's say Mike compiles a database and most devs end up using it. What if Mike then has a falling out with someone and so has the power to blacklist them.

From Slavik's post it seems there is some kind of blacklist that XF use themselves. That should be built into the license API but that brings the bigger question, will/can/should XF revoke a XF license if they find someone pirating a 3rd party addon.

 

[craigiri]

I was in business for 30+ years and fully understand the anger and frustration of theft, competition, protection of territory, etc.

BUT, when I finally got smart and looked back at, every minute I spent getting "even" with bad customers, vendors, competitors, etc. was wasted. It was energy that would have produced more revenue (and happiness) for my companies if I simply forged full speed ahead.

Take it for what it's worth. Revenge may be sweet, but a decent bank balance and financial security is sweeter. This is one reason why very large companies like Amazon, etc. are "no or few questions asked" in the returns department.

My concern for developers is that if they follow the wrong paths and take the wrong advice, they hurt themselves. Speaking for myself, I'd rather sell 200 units and have 10 stolen or returned than sell 100 and pat myself on the back for being so clever.

Again, it's easier to see in the rear view mirror. I now consult (free) for the kids of some of my peers who go into similar businesses and every time they call me with a "I'll get these folks for screwing me" rant, I tell them to forget about it and focus their energies on sales and customer service.

Been there, done that. When my veins were full of piss and vinegar I took a lot of revenge on my competitors...legal and fair, of course. But whether it did me any good? Probably not, except it sometimes made me feel better...

 

[ManagerJosh]

Never seen a chargeback processing fee

My experience with chargebacks was only in the real world with credit cards and it cost me little or nothing (as the merchant)....just the money charged back. I'm not sure of paypal policies, but it's hard to imagine they charge $20 per.

Also, again, they didn't lose the revenue if they never would have made the sale anyway. In other words, the sale itself is a fraud...just the same as when people use my cc# to sign up for a dating service in NZ.

https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/20-chargeback-fee.2654909/

 

[Slavik]

IMHO, this is useless. As noted above, it gives a select few access to frauds, instead of who should have access, being developers and even the community at large. IMO, this is for developers to handle and not XF or its staff, as XF, like most softwares, pretty much distance themselves from third party developers for good reason.

Your entirely right, it isn't up to us to enforce or moderate 3rd party sales, and I doubt it will ever become part of the mill.

However thats not to say we are completely oblivious to it, but at the same time we expect you guys to put some effort in and use due-dilligence.

 

[Mike Edge]

Or you can compile your own database of people using your resources at your disposal @Mike Edge and get the 3rd party community behind you so everyone has access to a database of thieves instead of a select few which is what slavik is proposing.

Yeap, agree. I even offered to host @Slavik project he mentioned for free so there wouldn't be the small fees he said it would have to cover hosting costs. Keeping it free is the best solution imo as even a few bucks is expensive to some dev's as they make so little on their products as it is.

I think also added should not only be charge backs, but people known to distribute to "null/warez" sites or known style rippers.

 

[Slavik]

Yeap, agree. I even offered to host @Slavik project he mentioned for free so there wouldn't be the small fees he said it would have to cover hosting costs. Keeping it free is the best solution imo as even a few bucks is expensive to some dev's as they make so little on their products as it is.

I think also added should not only be charge backs, but people known to distribute to "null/warez" sites or known style rippers.

Hosting isn't the issue, its the development of it, unless someone wants to do that for free?

 

[RobParker]

Your entirely right, it isn't up to us to enforce or moderate 3rd party sales, and I doubt it will ever become part of the mill.

However thats not to say we are completely oblivious to it, but at the same time we expect you guys to put some effort in and use due-dilligence.

Not sure if you missed my question but you said you took "action" against a few people. Did that include revoking their license (i.e. so the license token verification would now fail for them)?

 

[Sheldon]

I think also added should not only be charge backs, but people known to distribute to "null/warez" sites or known style rippers.

Careful, I was burned at the stake for maintaining such a list.

 

[Mike Edge]

Not sure if you missed my question but you said you took "action" against a few people. Did that include revoking their license (i.e. so the license token verification would now fail for them)?

Another question too along those lines @Slavik When someone sells off their last license second hand, so they no longer have any licenses on their account, does that revoke member only posting areas here too on the fly?

 

[Slavik]

Not sure if you missed my question but you said you took "action" against a few people. Did that include revoking their license (i.e. so the license token verification would now fail for them)?

I can't realy discuss what measures are taken im afraid.

 

[Slavik]

Another question too along those lines @Slavik When someone sells off their last license second hand, so they no longer have any licenses on their account, does that revoke member only posting areas here too on the fly?

It should do yes.

 

[RobParker]

I can't realy discuss what measures are taken im afraid.

Can you at least say if they'd now fail a token verification check?