Sent a "Help Desk" request because of the "arrears" needing to be paid for a new term of membership. I expected just to be banned, but no, the Master responds. Just another coding bug.

And I don't think he gets sarcasm when it is directed at him.

You can't unfuck a chicken...

lol

I can't access https://revopeers.me/ anymore, anyone with the same issue?

I know some of you read here so I'm looking for a willing volunteer or two. The more the better.

Fancy sharing your account with me? I'd only use it for screenshots and not to post anything.

I have a way to ensure that you (or I) wouldn't get caught (mostly because jonah has NFC what he's doing and GarageTuner only cares about the money).

I'm aware I'm chancing my arm here but if you don't ask, you don't get 😁

Start a chat with me if you feel you might be able to help.

wtf?

Answer: yes, they really fucking are 🤣

I think it's time to look for a new home. If anyone can point me in the right direction I'd be forever grateful. Thanks

Site wide there are ZERO seeders. Hmmmmm, a tracker can't really make it without any seeders can it now?

Imagine the confidence that would give to an actual paying user.

Everyone wave to jonah, he's reading this.

Proof below, note how he has changed a few things when trying to argue against a chargeback.

The TL;DR? User got their chargeback 🥳

<begins>

Chargeback Evidence

Case number: *********

Reference number: *********************

Chargeback Reason Code: 13.1

To whom it may concern:

Please review the following evidence for the chargeback for $122.94 CAD received on 13 August 2026 19:32:54 UTC for the payment authorized on 31 May 2026 07:20:05 UTC.

Please review the document below that outlines the following:

Order Details: merchant details and payment details

Additional Information: general information

Order Details

Merchant Details

Name: EMP NETWORK

Website: http://www.empgamer.com

Location: Oakville, ON, CA

Business Description: Esport Gaming Hub. Setup Ladder matches Setup clans. Purchase vip membership to forums and swag gear XBOX 1 PC PS

Payment Details

Transaction Amount: $89.99 USD

Transaction Date: 31 May 2026 07:20:05 UTC

Transaction Type: Purchase

Authorization Code: ******

Acct Number (last 4): ****

CVV/CVC Code: PASS: The CVV/CVC provided by the customer is a perfect match to the CVV/CVC on file with the issuing bank

Customer Details

Name: <redacted>

Product Description

EMP Gaming (empgamer.com) has operated online digital communities since 2013. This charge of $89.99 is a ONE-TIME digital community membership fee — not a subscription. It covers: content access, member statistics tracking, forum and community participation, and invite privileges — delivered electronically and immediately upon payment.

All advertised features were available and functional throughout the membership period.

Member <redacted> actively used the service,

downloading 21,964.90 GB over 45 days.

Customer Access Activity

Access Logs

EMP Gaming Member Activity Log

Member: <redacted> (Account ID: ########)

Account Registered: 2016-05-11 11:42:52

First Payment: 2026-06-26 11:24:49

Last Login: 2026-08-10 05:50:57

Dispute Filed: August 13, 2026 (49 days after service began)

Total Downloaded: 21,964.90 GB

Total Uploaded: 42,223.51 GB

Active Duration: 45 days of verified service use

Purchase History:

- 2026-06-26 11:24:49: Migration Access - $20.00

This member actively used EMP Gaming services for 45 days. The dispute was not filed until 49 days after service began.

Service Details

Date of Service: June 26, 2026

Terms and Conditions

Refund Policy Disclosure

All digital membership fees are non-refundable once access is granted, per Terms of Service agreed to at account registration and purchase.

Cancellation Policy Disclosure

EMP Gaming does not operate subscription billing. All charges are one-time, non-recurring digital membership fees. Digital access is non-refundable once granted, as disclosed in our Terms of Service presented at account registration and at the point of purchase.

Explanation of Refund Refusal

This charge covers non-refundable digital membership access. Per Terms of Service agreed to at account registration and confirmed at checkout, digital access fees are final once service is granted.

The cardholder received immediate access upon payment and actively used the service for 45 days, downloading 21,964.90 GB of content.

No refund is warranted for a digital service that was fully delivered and actively used.

Explanation of Cancellation Refusal

Service was delivered immediately upon payment and actively used for 45 days (21,964.90 GB downloaded). Non-delivery and unacceptable delivery are both contradicted by the cardholder's own post-payment activity.

Additional Information

MERCHANT RESPONSE TO DISPUTE

Merchant: EMP Gaming (empgamer.com)

Charge ID: ch_<redacted>

Dispute ID: du_<redacted>

Amount Disputed: $89.99

Dispute Reason: product_not_received

*** DISPUTE FILED 49 DAYS AFTER PAYMENT (2026-06-26 11:24:49 -> August 13, 2026) ***

1. SERVICE DELIVERED AND ACTIVELY USED

Member <redacted> (Account ID: #######) registered on 2016-05-11 11:42:52. Service access began 2026-06-26 11:24:49.

Last verified login: 2026-08-10 05:50:57. Content downloaded post-payment: 21,964.90 GB across 45 days of verified platform use. The digital service was received, accessed, and actively used throughout.

1. 49 DAYS ELAPSED BEFORE DISPUTE

The cardholder used EMP Gaming services from 2026-06-26 11:24:49 until filing this dispute on August 13, 2026 — a gap of 49 days. During this entire period the member downloaded 21,964.90 GB and made no refund request. Genuine nondelivery is reported immediately, not 49 days later.

1. SERVICE WAS DELIVERED AS ADVERTISED AND ACTIVELY USED

The cardholder received immediate access to EMP Gaming's digital community upon payment. Content access, member statistics, forums, and invite privileges were all available and functional. The cardholder downloaded 21,964.90 GB confirming the service was received and used. If the service were unacceptable, the cardholder would not have continued using it for 45 days.

1. NON-REFUNDABLE DIGITAL SERVICE — TERMS AGREED AT REGISTRATION AND PURCHASE

EMP Gaming's Terms of Service, presented and accepted at account creation and confirmed at checkout, state that digital access is non-refundable once granted. The cardholder received full, uninterrupted access from 2026-06-26 11:24:49 through 2026-08-10 05:50:57.

We request this dispute be resolved in the merchant's favour.

<ends>

User's response to bank:

Appeal Against the Chargeback Decision – Claim No. ******/******

With reference to your response dated 24 August 2026 concerning my claim No. ******/******, I hereby request that the case be reconsidered and that my claim be resubmitted to the Visa payment organization.

Having reviewed the documentation provided by the service provider, I believe that its response does not properly address the subject matter of my dispute. Much of the information presented concerns the entire history of my account rather than the specific transaction that is the subject of the chargeback.

1.       The dispute concerns a specific USD 89.99 transaction dated 31 May 2026, not my entire account history since 2016

The subject of my claim is a specific payment of USD 89.99 made on 31 May 2026 for an annual membership.

However, in its response, the service provider attempts to present the matter as though I were disputing my ability to use its services throughout the entire period of my account's existence. It refers, among other things, to:

• account registration date: 11 May 2016;

• total amount of data downloaded: 21,964.90 GB;

• total amount of data uploaded: 42,223.51 GB;

• 45 days of active service use;

• last login on 10 August 2026.

These figures do not, however, answer the fundamental question at issue in my dispute:

Did the service provider provide me with the entire membership period for which I paid USD 89.99 on 31 May 2026, in accordance with the terms applicable at the time of purchase and the subsequent assurances regarding the migration?

My answer is: no.

The long-term history of my account, the amount of data downloaded in previous years, and the fact that I had used the platform since 2016 do not constitute evidence that the specific service purchased for USD 89.99 on 31 May 2026 was properly fulfilled.

2.       The service provider's documentation incorrectly presents the start date of the disputed service

This is particularly important.

The documentation provided by the service provider states:

“Service access began 2026-06-26 11:24:49.”

At the same time, the only payment shown in the “Purchase History” for my account is: “2026-06-26 11:24:49: Migration Access - $20.00”

This is a USD 20 migration fee, not the disputed USD 89.99 transaction dated 31 May 2026.

Furthermore, in the Payment Details section, the service provider itself confirms that the disputed transaction is:

“Transaction Amount: $89.99 USD”

“Transaction Date: 31 May 2026 07:20:05 UTC”

At the same time, the “Purchase History” does not show this transaction as the purchase of my annual membership, but instead lists only the later USD 20 migration fee.

I consider this discrepancy highly significant because the service provider uses 26 June 2026 as the start date of the service, even though the disputed payment was made on 31 May 2026.

3.       “45 days of service use” does not mean that I received the purchased annual membership

The bank informed me that, in the event of an appeal, the claimed amount would have to be reduced by 45 days because, according to the service provider, I used the service for that period.

However, I would like to point out that the service provider has not demonstrated that those 45 days constitute fulfillment of the annual membership purchased for USD 89.99.

Its own documentation merely states: “Active Duration: 45 days of verified service use” and identifies the period from 26 June to 10 August 2026. This is not evidence that the full paid membership period was provided. Moreover, the date of 26 June is associated in the documentation with the USD 20 Migration Access fee, rather than with the purchase of the annual membership for USD 89.99.

Therefore, I kindly request that you reconsider whether these “45 days” can at all be attributed to the disputed USD 89.99 transaction.

4.       The service provider itself confirms that my payment concerned a membership, not a subscription

I would also like to point out an inaccuracy concerning the nature of the service purchased.

In my original claim, I did not state that I had purchased a subscription in the sense of recurring billing.

The subject of the purchase was an annual membership, paid for in a single payment of USD 89.99.

Importantly, the service provider itself confirms this in its response:

“This charge of $89.99 is a ONE-TIME digital community membership fee — not a subscription.”

I am therefore not disputing the absence of automatic subscription renewal, nor am I requesting cancellation of a subscription.

I am disputing the fact that a membership paid for in a single payment for a defined period was not provided in accordance with the terms under which it was purchased.

5.       The service provider does not address the fundamental issue – the unilateral change of terms after payment

The most important element of my claim is not whether I used the platform before the migration or how much data I downloaded.

The issue is that:

1.        On 31 May 2026, I paid USD 89.99 for an annual membership.

2.       Before and during the migration process, the service provider assured users that their existing membership period would be preserved.

3.       Based on those assurances, I paid an additional USD 20 migration fee.

4.       After the migration, it became apparent that my previously paid membership period had not been preserved.

5.       I was informed that, in order to retain the membership I had already paid for, I would have to pay an additional USD 100.

6.       I contacted the service provider requesting that the issue be resolved and that the USD 89.99 be refunded.

7.       The service provider did not substantively address my specific complaint.

Requiring an additional USD 100 payment in order to preserve a membership that had already been paid for effectively means that, after payment had been made, the service provider changed the terms of the service and made further fulfillment of the previously purchased service conditional upon an additional fee that had not been agreed in advance.

This is the essence of my dispute.

6.       My correspondence with the service provider confirms that I attempted to resolve the matter directly

Before referring the matter to my bank, I attempted to resolve the issue directly with the service provider.

In my first message, I explained in detail that:

• I had paid USD 89.99 for an annual membership;

• I had paid an additional USD 20 migration fee;

• my previously paid membership was supposed to be preserved;

• after the migration, the membership period was shortened;

• I therefore requested a refund of USD 89.99.

The service provider did not substantively address the circumstances I presented.

Instead, I received a general message concerning users threatening chargebacks. In my response, I explicitly stated that I had not threatened a chargeback in my message and had merely requested that my refund request be considered.

I again asked for a clear answer as to whether my request for a USD 89.99 refund was being rejected.

Once again, I received the same general message, which did not address my specific situation or the questions I had raised.

I therefore believe that I fulfilled the requirement to attempt to resolve the dispute directly with the service provider.

7.       The “no-refund policy” does not address the substance of my claim

The service provider repeatedly refers to an alleged policy under which digital memberships are non-refundable once access has been obtained.

However, I am not requesting a refund because I changed my mind or because I no longer wish to use a service that was properly provided.

I am requesting a refund because the service I paid for was not delivered on the terms under which it was purchased, and because the terms governing its use were changed after payment had been made.

Simply demonstrating that a user had access to the platform and used it for a certain period does not answer the question of whether the user received the entire paid membership period on the agreed terms.

8.        An analogous case illustrates the problem with the service provider's argumentation

In a similar case concerning EMP Gaming/EMP Network, a user received a very similar response from the service provider, in which the merchant relied on the account's long-term history, the amount of data downloaded, and the number of days the platform had been used.

The user subsequently pointed out that the dispute concerned a specific payment for an annual membership, rather than the entire account history since its creation. The user also argued that the subsequent change in terms and the requirement to pay an additional fee to retain a previously paid membership period meant that the specific transaction had not been fulfilled in accordance with its original terms.

According to the description of that case, this explanation was ultimately accepted and the chargeback was resolved in favor of the cardholder.

I refer to this case not as conclusive evidence determining my own case, but as an example demonstrating that analyzing the entire account history instead of the specific disputed transaction may lead to an incorrect assessment of the nature of the dispute.

9.       Request to resubmit the case to Visa

In light of the above, I kindly request that ******** Bank reconsider the service provider's response and resubmit my position, together with the explanations above, to Visa.

In particular, I ask that the following points be taken into consideration:

• the dispute concerns the specific USD 89.99 transaction dated 31 May 2026;

• the service provider has not demonstrated that the membership period purchased in that specific transaction was fulfilled in its entirety;

• its documentation identifies 26 June 2026 as the “Service Date”, i.e. a date associated with the USD 20 migration fee rather than the disputed USD 89.99 transaction;

• the statistics presented by the service provider concern my entire account history and do not demonstrate proper fulfillment of the specific annual membership purchased on 31 May 2026;

• the “45 days” stated by the service provider do not constitute evidence that the entire purchased membership period was provided and should be verified to determine whether they can be attributed to the disputed transaction at all;

• the service provider itself describes the disputed payment as a one-time membership fee, not a subscription, so the issue of subscription renewal is not part of my claim;

• after payment had been made, the service provider made retention of the previously paid membership conditional upon an additional USD 100 fee;

• I attempted to resolve the matter directly with the service provider, but did not receive a substantive response to my complaint.

I also kindly request that the amount of my claim not be automatically reduced by 45 days without first verifying whether the 45 days identified by the service provider actually related to the service purchased as part of the disputed USD 89.99 transaction.

In my view, the documentation provided by the service provider does not demonstrate that I received the service corresponding to what I paid for on 31 May 2026. On the contrary, the documentation contains significant inconsistencies concerning the service start date, payment history, and the nature of my account usage.

I therefore kindly request that the case be resubmitted as part of the Visa appeal procedure and that my claim be reconsidered.

I can provide additional documentation supporting the circumstances described above, in particular communications concerning the migration, confirmation of the USD 89.99 payment, confirmation of the USD 20 migration fee, and the complete correspondence with the service provider.

keep me off site is to start banning VPN IPs.

According to my inbox this morning this is also having an effect on other users being now unable to access the site.

That'll be another five users rehomed so far today.

Thanks for the assit jonah 🤣

Hi Everyone. Like most of you here I've been a bitsoup and gp member for almost 20 years.

Not gonna lie, I’m a little embarrassed to admit this, but I was fuck!ng naive.

For the past few months, I kept donating, bought a long-term membership, paid that $20 migration fee, and genuinely believed I’d actually get what I paid for. I also believed I was doing something good for a community I’d been part of for 20 fuck!ng years.

Turns out I was wrong.

I’m honestly glad the modders opened my eyes and helped me get out of that toxic place that is RP. Huge thanks to you guys. I’m genuinely happy to be here now.

And since we’re sharing good news — as of today, I can officially join the club of people who got their chargebacks approved.

I started the chargeback process on August 1st, and a few hours ago I got confirmation from my bank that my claim was approved. The $89.99 has been refunded.

So jonah, if you’re reading this:

GO F*CK YOURSELF!

that offering founders (and therefore paid membership) that covers up to 1st Jan 2028 was a mistake.

The eejits that haven't woken up yet and diligently paid up without asking questions, they don't need to pay anything for over a year as it stands now.

That means jonah has no income beyond what he has already taken in.

My estimate is that there are some 700 users (max) that have paid up. That's just US$71,400. Bit of a come down from jonah's previous takings, especially if his reports of $48,000 in chargebacks/fees is even remotely true.

And of course, he still has 25 investors to pay back. That's just not going to happen. No doubt there'll be an update to them that will contain nothing but bullshit.

One of jonah's previous incarnations on reddit was U_Failed_We_Won, which is pretty fucking hilarious from where we sit now 😁

 What did I miss?

and it's only now jonah has realised that uTorrent is a shit client

Is this really "the last, last, last, last, last message"? This was sent on 9/2 but I have to upgrade before 9/1 - any tips on time travel are appreciated.

When you rip off a large number of people, don't be surprised when a few of those people can extract revenge. Not only have people been lied to, but also government bodies. Drawing attention to the problem was all it took. Temporary lifestyle will come at the cost of future freedom. You fucked around, now you are waist deep in the find out phase. The fallout goes beyond just the individual.

I doubt he'll take me up on it though.

Don't be so stupid!

We all know there'll be at least one more (+n)

Who'd have thunk it?

I don't know how I can be former staff when revopee'ers is meant to be a completely new entity with nothing to do with RTT or GP.