DR Resolved Baobab vs WealthyStealthy

I'm confused about the chain of evidence here.

WealthyStealthy's sales thread specifically identifies a different TG account as their only TG contact and warns against imposters.

The TG account "Jack" was apparently found on another forum under the same username.

What independently confirms that WealthyStealthy from BHW controls the other forum account and the associated TG account?

Or more directly, if I received a DM here, and they subsequently contacted "Stavro" on a completely different forum and got scammed, would that transaction qualify for a DR against me on BHW?

I can't comment on WealthyStealthy's innocence or guilt, I'm just unsure how this case was deemed to have started on BHW.

The only apparent BHW connection is a July DM identifying him as "Jack", while the transaction occurred through a different TG account found on another forum. Was the 'Jack' TG address shared in later replies not shown here?

How does that establish that the transaction started on BHW, especially when his sales thread explicitly warns against imposter TG accounts?

Stavro said:

I'm confused about the chain of evidence here.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, the way this case unfolded was enough to do all of our heads in. This is one of the reasons why Disputes can take up an inordinate amount of time, just trying to gather and piece together all of the evidence. And honestly, this is also why we have the Dispute Procedures in place and run them the way we do. If we didn't, we'd be spending even more time trying to chase everything down when we need to also be working on other things (like turning off post count in the transactional forums).

WealthyStealthy's sales thread specifically identifies a different TG account as their only TG contact and warns against imposters.

The TG account "Jack" was apparently found on another forum under the same username.

What independently confirms that WealthyStealthy from BHW controls the other forum account and the associated TG account?

Click to expand...

Correct, WealthyStealthy had their TG in their sales thread. Then they switched the buyer to a different TG at some point, something that sellers are not allowed to do here on BHW. What's in their thread is what they should be using, full stop. So that was a piece of the puzzle that we had to try to figure out.

However, the other forums information is at best supporting evidence. Just like with Telegram, Whatsapp, emails, website tickets, etc, anything that happens off forum has to support what we have on forum.

Or more directly, if I received a DM here, and they subsequently contacted "Stavro" on a completely different forum and got scammed, would that transaction qualify for a DR against me on BHW?

Click to expand...

And this is why it is exactly why we have always had the rule that there has to be engagement with the seller to be eligible for dispute. First, we're not the internet police. It really doesn't matter what community you're in, that community can only control what goes on within the boundaries it controls. What you, the buyer or seller does in other parts of the internet may add pieces to the puzzle but they will never be the piece that starts the puzzle. This is why we boarder on manic about the engagement rule.

I know it sucks when brand new users are posting in someone's sales thread because they jumped the gun and decided to go straight to TG or elsewhere and couldn't take 30 seconds to post in the seller's thread or get them seller to DM them to establish that this sale came from BHW. But this is why we do it.

I can't comment on WealthyStealthy's innocence or guilt, I'm just unsure how this case was deemed to have started on BHW.

The only apparent BHW connection is a July DM identifying him as "Jack", while the transaction occurred through a different TG account found on another forum. Was the 'Jack' TG address shared in later replies not shown here?

How does that establish that the transaction started on BHW, especially when his sales thread explicitly warns against imposter TG accounts?

Click to expand...

At risk of sounding like a broken record here, as both myself and the team has commented, there is a lot that isn't public. In this case it's the entire DM chain. There was enough engagement with the seller to satisfy us that this particular sale started in BHW. Plus the OP also shared some evidence that didn't make it live.

And that's the thing with Disputes. Not everything makes it live for various reasons. I've said it before, as well as several team members, there is A LOT of information about users and accounts that just isn't public. When all of this information starts coming together, then the entire story becomes a lot clearer.

I hope that this answers some questions about this case. We didn't ban him just because of 1 thing he said in a DM. There was a lot of information that we already had that suddenly made a lot of sense as well that decided the outcome of this Dispute.

PetraAnn said:

Then they switched the buyer to a different TG at some point, something that sellers are not allowed to do here on BHW.

Click to expand...

I figured that was the case, thanks for the clarification. The public evidence made it look like the switch came solely from the other forum. If it happened through the seller's official TG or via DM, that makes a lot more sense.

And I wasn't trying to imply anything about the outcome, it was just a hard to follow mess all around.

I can't imagine what sort of stuff you guys go through behind the scenes in these threads, thanks for taking the time to explain.

Stavro said:

I figured that was the case, thanks for the clarification. The public evidence made it look like the switch came solely from the other forum. If it happened through the seller's official TG or via DM, that makes a lot more sense.

And I wasn't trying to imply anything about the outcome, it was just a hard to follow mess all around.

I can't imagine what sort of stuff you guys go through behind the scenes in these threads, thanks for taking the time to explain.

Click to expand...

I was just trying to walk through the logic of how the outcome came about. It's not something I've really done in the past, but might try to do more often for some of the cases that aren't as clear cut.

This one didn't make it to #1 in messiest evidence, but its made it into the top 10 for sure.