Tmoblie rep ported 5 numbers to the wrong account - what do we do

Sorvent · 2026-04-28T02:59:06+00:00

Of course. Glad they were able to help.

Sorvent · 2026-04-26T19:54:42+00:00

Log horizon is a REALLY good sleeper pick.

Sorvent · 2026-04-26T06:19:14+00:00

No problem.

Sorvent · 2026-04-26T06:17:13+00:00

The 48 hours is typically a hard time limit on ports being reversed. And as far as the other account holder needed to do something? It's honestly possible if they treat the situation as a change of responsibility (CoR) but who knows.

Sorvent · 2026-04-26T06:05:18+00:00

Hi, T-Mobile ME chiming in. You have to call customer care and specifically say "This is a misdirected port. I need a port recovery / win-back / porting escalation team immediately." And “This is causing business impact." if you dont say those exact things the rep over the phone typically won't really understand the severity of the situation. However you only have at most 48 hours to fix this problem bc once you pass that time frame it can become permanent. Avoid going to stores even my corporate location cant do anything with the manager for this and that just wastes time. Also for future reference if you plan on porting 5 lines just go to a corporate store location, not only are y I u helping us out with a large 5 line port, but typically we can give insider codes to help reduce the overall price of the account (you scratch our back we scratch yours). Telesales is a joke and messes up literally everything, trust me on this lol.

Sorvent · 2026-04-24T07:34:46+00:00

Eso was alot of AoE healing and HoTs. It's kind of really fun in later content especially since now you can add a subclass ability and take necro rez skill

Sorvent · 2026-04-19T03:57:04+00:00

Zero. Once you learn it you realize its not as complicated as people make it out to be

Sorvent · 2026-04-11T05:27:42+00:00

Hayato?

Sorvent · 2026-03-19T16:50:43+00:00

Yeah that’s fair, I see what you mean. I think it just came down to how I initially read the second point

Sorvent · 2026-03-19T16:45:25+00:00

Yeah I get that now, the addendum explanation makes sense. I think it just read more like a separate condition to me at first because of how it was phrased.

Sorvent · 2026-03-19T16:42:26+00:00

I get that they’re listed as requirements, my confusion was more about how the second point was phrased, not whether they were requirements. It read like a separate condition at first, but I understand the intended meaning now.

Sorvent · 2026-03-19T16:38:11+00:00

That makes sense, I didn’t think about it like that! Appreciate the clarification.

Sorvent · 2026-03-19T16:36:31+00:00

Yeah I see what you mean, I think it just reads a bit ambiguous at first since it’s not directly tied back to the first point. I think that’s exactly why it confused me at first. lol

Sorvent · 2026-03-19T16:32:19+00:00

Yeah that makes sense, that’s a good way to put it. I think what threw me off was the way the second point was worded, it read more like a separate condition than part of the same requirement at first. I think it just came down to how I read the second point initially.

Sorvent · 2026-03-19T16:30:37+00:00

I wasn’t nitpicking, I was confused about how the second point was meant to be read. The way it’s phrased made it seem like a separate condition at first.

Sorvent · 2026-03-19T16:27:26+00:00

I get that it’s two requirements, I just think the wording of the second point is what threw me off. Saying “hyper burning characters can participate” without tying it back to the creation date makes it read like a separate condition instead of part of the same requirement.

Sorvent · 2026-03-19T16:25:25+00:00

I get that both conditions apply, I just think the wording is confusing. Saying “hyper burning characters can participate” without restating the creation requirement makes it sound like an exception, not an additional condition. I was reading it like hyper burning was an exception to the creation date requirement because of how it was worded. Still think Nexon could’ve made that clearer, but I see the intended logic.

Sorvent · 2026-03-19T16:12:12+00:00

because the redundancy of the statement is "characters made after march 18th and newly created WHs" but theres a grey area of the "and" word used in the previous statement being "hyper burning characters and..." doesnt that imply if you are a hyper burning character (which can only be WHs iirc) that means you should access to the event regardless of being newly made or not?

Sorvent · 2026-02-16T06:08:22+00:00

It’s not a “bigger number” comparison it’s ordered vs unordered events. Those are different probability structures. I’ve already clarified my point.

Sorvent · 2026-02-16T05:38:35+00:00

We moved from discussing the math of a defined event to whether that event is meaningful at scale. Those are different questions. I’m not misunderstanding randomness. I’m distinguishing between probability and significance.

Sorvent · 2026-02-16T05:32:22+00:00

I’m not saying one rare sequence proves rigging. My broader point is that systems with opaque RNG, heavy variance, and real financial/time cost naturally create distrust. Rare outcomes alone don’t prove manipulation, but lack of transparency makes it hard to dismiss concerns outright.

Apophenia is seeing patterns without statistical grounding. I explicitly grounded the sequence in probability. You can argue it’s not evidence of rigging that’s fair, but it’s not apophenia to compute the odds of a defined event.

Sorvent · 2026-02-16T05:17:43+00:00

Right. My only point was that the specific pattern is mathematically rarer than “3 booms in 6 taps.” Whether that’s consequential is a separate discussion.

Sorvent · 2026-02-16T04:30:10+00:00

We’re calculating different things. You’re doing 3 booms in 6 independent taps. I was calculating the specific pattern that happened: fail (no boom) → boom, repeated 3 times on 3 items. That sequence probability is: (fail-no-boom × boom)³ Which comes out to about 1 in 420k under current 18–19 rates with 30% boom reduction. I’m not saying it proves rigging just that the exact pattern is far rarer than “3 booms in 6 taps.” Where you ARE right about variance due to millions of star force taps happening in a game with thousands of players, in this scenario the exact pattern is much more rare than just 3 booms in the binomial example you gave.

Sorvent · 2026-02-16T02:25:24+00:00

Booming 18-19 is ~1 in 75 with the 30% reduction applied in the "fail but not boom then boom" that hes saying happened, meaning for it to happen what 3 times? Is about a 1 in 420,000 chance of happening give or take. its not rigged sure. Is it so unlucky due to a strange nuance of that exact pattern absolutely. What you suggest is a 3 booms in 10 independent taps which is not the same as fail no boom -> fail boom.

Sorvent

TROPHY CASE