Ahhh!! Bad news!!!

[Seven]

I fixed this problem my own way. but there are ay too many IMVU super faithful here. Sorry. Love you all! And I will continue to post here in the FF under the name Xxundie. Hugs and kisses!!!

[Link4009]

/me wonders how its going

If his name is Xxundie on IMVU, its not going well since it doesn't exist when I try his homepage

[Seven]

Again, the problem hsa been fixed in my own way. Yes, the user xxundie is still banned, however, I am still alive and well on imvu.

[Maxis29]

any chane youll give us more details?  OwO

[Seven]

My new user name is ISevenI

Now you know, lol.



I'm gonna make some new forum banners

[Madi]

The fact is it's not incompetence on IMVU's part.
It's very important to keep your account secure.

But anyone can buy credits for anyone by giving credits or gifts.  That has nothing to do with it being secure.

[ephemral]

But anyone can buy credits for anyone by giving credits or gifts.  That has nothing to do with it being secure.

True, but that has nothing to do with this situation either.
Sorry if you misunderstood.

What happened was that Xxundie's sister made a purchase using his account.
Said purchase was made using a credit card without permission.
That caused the credit card owner to request their money back.
When a request is made for a return on a monetary transaction the account related to the sale
is suspended or disabled pending further investigation.

[Youngbull]

suspended or disabled pending further investigation.

so why did they not investigate? if that is a qoute from the TOS they are obligated to investigate, which they haven't. it's as i said, and this makes me doubt their credability as a business.
this is how it *should* work:
'something' happens,
they are alerted by an email,
they suspend the account,
they INVESTIGATE!!!,
they would find out it was all a misunderstanding (or not, if not: account banned),
account released,
money returned to the card and purchase canceled.
finito! besides, what they'd used on investigating, they'd easily earn back.

that would not only solve the problem for all parts, it would also make them look what is called 'professional', but they don't, cause they are too 'greedy'? that wounds their reputation a great bit.

i'm happy you'v solved it your way xxundie  
but i still think future events like these deserve investigation, we are after all customers, and have certain rights. right of eaquality for one.

[ephemral]

There was no misunderstanding here on IMVU's part.
They did enough investigation.  By agreeing to the T.O.S. he was responsible for keeping others out of his account.
Frankly the investigation would have found him and his sister to both be in violation of the T.O.S. if they new she was involved and had an account. And now that he's created a new account he could possibly have that one suspended as well.
Besides it's important to actually read and understand what you agree to.

If your IMVU account has been disabled due to one of the above events and you feel a reasonable misunderstanding has occurred, you may use our automated BILLING HELP REQUEST FORM to send us a detailed explanation of what took place.

finito! besides, what they'd used on investigating, they'd easily earn back.

What you fail to see is the fact that they loose possible profits.
The only way they make that back is by charging some one for the money they spend for investigating.
If they have to "earn" money back that was loss due to a customer's abuse of their services......
Just who is that fair to? Frankly we're lucky it's more costly for them to try to make customers pay them back money they spent
resolving a financial dispute arising from customer's abusing their services. That T.O.S. helps save both parties money.
Seven is only a victim of circumstance. That being forgetting to sign out. If he had it would be his sister in trouble not him.  

[Youngbull]

i can't see how forgetting to log out makes you an acomplice to crime, can you? not meaning to talking back on a mod, but this is clearly wrongly done to him. just because we sign the the TOS doesn't mean we haven't got customer rights.

lets say you go out to get your mail, by the time you're back you've been robbed, because you didn't lock your door. does that make you the criminal? does that mean you 'helped' the vilain? does that make you an acomplice? heck no! you shouldn't even have to lock your door to go to the mailbox. he leaves the computer without 'locking' his account and he gets banned for it. it *is* a misunderstanding, not from imvu's side but from the series of events.

and what i meant with earning back, is that people buy heaps of creds all the time, last time i bought creds i spent 256 Nok's on it, which is a lot! that just times maybe 4 or 5 should be enough to weight up the costs. they have never got a problem with earning. they got an endless amount of wares, and we buy it, all the time. that is a clear profit.
they didn't even contact him about it, THAT is lack of responcibility. if they had, they would propably know more of what they were facing. all conflicts have 2 sides, i believe that is what the legal system sais, and i believe that is what they fail to practice. they thought that 1 email was sufficient. what exactly does it cost them to contact a customer anyway? Not a dine! they do it all the time, either by private messages, email or w/e.

but heck with that, they can have their TOS and their 'reliable sources' i'm not gonna continue this. i'm getting upset at it. let them have their ways. just keep in mind how litle they care for their customers, their source of income.
they'v lost their status with this wolf.

[ephemral]

Yes, perhaps it is a good idea for you to take a break from this topic if it upsets you.
There's no need to worry about talking back here. That only applies to judgments and rulings.
This is just a discussion.

And for your point there.
It would be your fault, but not a crime. Unless you got the house by entering into a legally binding contract that stated you were to
lock your door when you left the house.

The thing is that you're not supposed to let other people use your account. That wasn't what was so bad.
What was so bad is the unlawful use of another person's credit card.
Just because they didn't maintain a communication with him doesn't mean they didn't investigate.
They likely confronted the credit card company as to why the cc holder wanted a charge back.
They would have learned about the fraudulent charge. If Seven's sister used Seven's card (assume he has one for this what if) and then Seven wanted his money back. Then his account would have only been suspended for a short time.
However, Seven's account made an unlawful purchase with a card that wasn't his. To them it's like he stole it.
And in this situation something was stolen.

Remember like I said a bit earlier if some one had hacked his account it would be different.

just because we sign the the TOS doesn't mean we haven't got customer rights.

This may come as a revelation to you, but just as with driving, the internet isn't a right it's a privilege.
No right was violated here. If you sign a legally binding contract that says if you do something;
and you know you are responsible for actions taken with your account,
and such and such can happen if it's done,
And you do that something or let it happen under your account,
and that such and such happens as a result...What's your problem?

Any way, it's in the past and Seven has dealt with it and moved on.

But with the earning part, you still don't see it quite right.
Just as with locking your door to keep what you have earned there are things that need to be done in this day and age.
Of coarse locking your door doesn't cost you money.
However, hiring people to protect your finances does. Sure in an ideal world you shouldn't be faced with that problem.
What you're saying is that the robber should be able to get away with your stuff just because you're getting more stuff anyway.
That stuff still doesn't belong to the robber.

[Youngbull]

What you're saying is that the robber should be able to get away with your stuff just because you're getting more stuff anyway.
That stuff still doesn't belong to the robber.

you don't seem to read what i write, i never said that, i'm saying they got the wrong person, and that they would easily earn back what they spent finding out if he truly is guilty. if i was anonimously to acuse you of murder(ofc i wouldn't), would you liked to be taken right to the life in prison without anything to say for yourself, or would you like for someone to find out that you're innocent and get you out of the mess?
it's the same here, he got unrightfully suspended. and they only cared to get evidence to 'prove' he did it, they didn't care to see what realy happened, they didn't care to get HIS side of the story.

only posted this to let you know you've been getting my points all wrong, you should try reading with open eyes.
there's two sides to everything, and both sides weight as much in any investigation. did they know this? seemingly not.
and the internet thing, i wasn't talking about the internet, which ofc is a priviledge. i was refering to a 'product', being a customer, either in RL or online gives you a certain right, and that is the right to be treated eaqual. if they treat every case like this they are bad business.

last words

[ephemral]

No no no.
I read what you wrote. I understood you fine. I see your side of it clearly.
Perhaps you don't see my side as clearly as I would like to convey.
Either way they did what was stated in their TOS. Perhaps you should read it more.

Seven was guilty by reason of contract.
Besides, the TOS clearly states what should be done in this case.
The burden of proof doesn't rest on their shoulders as much as it does his.
Unless he has contacted them through the help ticket system the matter is over.
No more investigation is needed. They know what is needed to be known.
If he wishes to clear his name he has the chance to do so.
If he doesn't then he's effectively admitting guilt and or taking responsibility.
His rights were not violated if he has done nothing to clear his name.
That contract is very important. His rights concerning the business side of this were limited
by his consent when he agreed to the TOS.

would you liked to be taken right to the life in prison without anything to say for yourself

Your point is moot. You're forgetting about the contract.

he got unrightfully suspended. and they only cared to get evidence to 'prove' he did it, they didn't care to see what realy happened, they didn't care to get HIS side of the story.

Wrong. His account was suspended in accordance with the terms of service agreement.
They do care. They provide a way for those that feel unjustly accused to render their account active once more.
After they take action they are waiting for the accused to speak their side. Not with bated breath though.

did they know this? seemingly not.

What's your point other than to state the obvious? Neither of us knows what IMVU knows on the matter.
So what's the point in asking a question that neither of us knows the answer to? You don't gain any ground in the discussion except
to plant your foot into uncertainty. Which by the way isn't a winning strategy.

i was refering to a 'product', being a customer

That was part of a single point. The internet analogy was used to help you see your own side of the issue.
Or rather how you are arguing the wrong point for your feelings. May haps I was in error to be so vague with you.  
He is being treated right. He still has recourse. It's not over unless his actions speak to that effect.
And creating another account to evade his original agreement to the TOS pretty much speaks a mouth full.
It's all about that agreement. He got what he agreed to. And he still has the recourse to resolve the issue.
Although to be right and not be in any bad standing he shouldn't have created another account.

Being that you have chosen to speak no more on the issue I'll accept that and hope that you can understand our disagreement on the matter.
I'll also speak no more on the issue unless some one else wishes that I help them understand what I have already stated.