Milz187 Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Hey, I'm trying to understand D0's marking and have asked a couple people about it. I seem to be getting a mix of people saying it's bullshit and others saying read SilentReapers explanation. Firstly to quote Albert Einstein and one of my favorite quotes "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" Can someone explain it to me simply? Is there another similar case like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♠Derpeh♤ Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 TL;DR It was apparent to the steamrep admin that Wayne was making decisions based off the idea that they had agreed in trading back each other's hats they win off each other on sweeps. d0 knew of this and didnt correct wayne that he technically didnt agree to the deal instead leading him on to bet more hats. As d0 didnt correct wayne that he didnt actually agree to the deal and decided to "troll wayne" into gambling away thousands worth in hats to him it was deemed markable.I tried basing my reply purely off the admin's response and tried to remove my own personal thoughts/take on the situation. Someone please correct me if im incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apo Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Wayne asked d0 to team up. Wayne believes d0 said yes. d0 allegedly believes that he did not agree to team up. Wayne then reported d0 for not honoring the team agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 Yeah that's my assumption of the TLDR version which I think opens a massive can of worms. Like with that logic and if that logic was followed through will the bellow cases be marked? If someone told me that they will give me an earbud for opening a crate, and then I opened a crate but they didn't give me the earbud can they be marked since I acted on it? This is a silly one but I hear it heaps in trade servers, someone says "I will suck your D___ for an unusual, If i gave them an unusual but they didn't follow through can they be marked? I've asked this to Reaper on SteamRep, i'll be interested to see his response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Дебра Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Yeah that's my assumption of the TLDR version which I think opens a massive can of worms. Like with that logic and if that logic was followed through will the bellow cases be marked? If someone told me that they will give me an earbud for opening a crate, and then I opened a crate but they didn't give me the earbud can they be marked since I acted on it? This is a silly one but I hear it heaps in trade servers, someone says "I will suck your D___ for an unusual, If i gave them an unusual but they didn't follow through can they be marked? I've asked this to Reaper on SteamRep, i'll be interested to see his response. Yeah those examples could actually get you marked with this logic. Basically saying ANY sort of lie or having someone misunderstand you in ANY way is scamming these days. With that logic you could also state that buying a duped hat when you thought it was clean is a scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♠Derpeh♤ Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 -snip- Imo those cases aren't really comparable, one is simply stating things and another is actively manipulating someone else on the basis of a false/misleading agreement to their advantage to get their items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 Yeah those examples could actually get you marked with this logic. Basically saying ANY sort of lie or having someone misunderstand you in ANY way is scamming these days. With that logic you could also state that buying a duped hat when you thought it was clean is a scam. That duped hat one is a great example as it's very common. I've in the past told people my hat is clean but it's then found out to be duped since a copy was in a private backpack but then moved. Imo those cases aren't really comparable, one is simply stating things and another is actively manipulating someone else on the basis of a false/misleading agreement to their advantage. The severity differs but the logic is still the same. Like an offer was made in all cases and not followed through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gren Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Yeah that's my assumption of the TLDR version which I think opens a massive can of worms. This is actually the question that should be asked first and foremost. It's not whether d0 or Wayne is right, it's whether SR was ever in an appropriate position to cast any sort of judgement on this case. Here are some actual facts: 1. Sweetstakes rules don't mention anything regarding collusion. Just based on this, any case revolving around collusion stands on shaky ground. 2. Manipulation is not explicitly against SR rules. If it were, 90% of traders would get marked. Everyone who's actively trading unusuals knows that manipulation attempts occur constantly. Mostly they're just mild (e.g. "bp is wrong, my hat is worth much more [when it really isn't]"). Sharking is also a form a manipulation (withholding information about a hat's potential value is manipulation) , yet SR has stated officially that it does not deal with sharking. 3. There was never an explicit agreement, SR even acknowledged that. They basically looked at the conversation as a whole and after some debate ruled that there was enough content that suggested that Wayne thought they had an agreement. But it was never outright stated in the conversation, this much they even acknowledge. This case should have been thrown out based on grounds that this simply doesn't clearly fall under SR's stated mandate. Yet, they issued a judgement anyway. This is a few inches short of fascism as far as I'm concerned. To be clear, I'm not in favour of Wayne or d0, my concern is based solely around the fact that SR can apparently just extend its reach into whatever areas they choose now, and in the process end people's trading careers. That's fucking BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apo Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 IMO Wayne should have struck down terms with d0 if he wanted to team up to make things as clear as possible. "So we're going to team up then? Split profits 50/50?" He never said anything to make it clear they were having a deal, he really should know better when trying to come up with an online agreement. I'm not saying anyone is or isn't at fault here, but there's precautions that need to be taken when coming up with agreements. One of them is making it clear what the agreement is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♠Derpeh♤ Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 That duped hat one is a great example as it's very common. I've in the past told people my hat is clean but it's then found out to be duped since a copy was in a private backpack but then moved. The severity differs but the logic is still the same. Like an offer was made in all cases and not followed through. The difference between a troll and a scammer is that a a troll would manipulate you so that you lose something and they find that funny. A scammer is basically a "troll" however they do it to benefit themselves and in this case lead someone on into gambling away thousands of dollars. The backing out of a deal and clean isnt really consider scamming since backing out is a normal part of trading. You can say something is clean when it's not but until you actively manipulate them into thinking it's clean (e.g. sending trade history of another hat) would you be considered a scammer. Tho the logic behind them is the same one is stating things the other is manipulating which is why i said you cant really compare. Imo i highly doubt any trader would "team up" risking thousands of dollars without an explicit agreement, both seemed to be just edging each other without explicitly going for an agreement so that if they lost they can get their hats back or if they won they can claim they never actually agreed and keep the winnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 http://forums.steamrep.com/threads/is-this-markable.100520/page-2 Here's their reply, I'm sure it's going to be locked soon but as they always do they try and divert away from the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 SNIP Agree with all you said, It seems like this rule was implemented to ban him. I'll like to know if there's been a recent case where someone has been banned for failure to follow through on an agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♠Derpeh♤ Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Agree with all you said, It seems like this rule was implemented to ban him. I'll like to know if there's been a recent case where someone has been banned for failure to follow through on an agreement. Repeating myself again, he wasnt banned for not following with an agreement. He was banned for manipulating and leading on someone into thinking they had agreed making one party gamble away thousands. SR even said that there was no explicit agreement however it was d0's actions of actively misleading/manipulating someone on to believe there was an agreement to win their items which was deemed to be markable. Not sure which part you're not understanding, you seem to be fixated on one sentence and refusing to read anything else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 Repeating myself again, he wasnt banned for not following with an agreement. He was banned for manipulating and leading on someone into thinking they had agreed making one party gamble away thousands. SR even said that there was no explicit agreement however it was d0's actions of actively misleading/manipulating someone on to believe there was an agreement to win their items which was deemed to be markable. Not sure which part you're not understanding, you seem to be fixated on one sentence and refusing to read anything else... I read that part, ok so your saying the marking was a result of D0 continuing to make Wayne feel like they had an agreement. So in the case that if someone said I will give you a bud if you open that crate and I said really will you and they said yes really... then I opened it and got no earbud. Does the fact that I asked a couple different times result in the person getting a ban? You can have your thoughts on it, I can have different thoughts but either way a can of worms has been opened. How do you identify what is a joke or a troll and what is not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Discovery Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Repeating myself again, he wasnt banned for not following with an agreement. He was banned for manipulating and leading on someone into thinking they had agreed making one party gamble away thousands. SR even said that there was no explicit agreement however it was d0's actions of actively misleading/manipulating someone on to believe there was an agreement to win their items which was deemed to be markable. Not sure which part you're not understanding, you seem to be fixated on one sentence and refusing to read anything else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♠Derpeh♤ Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 So in the case that if someone said I will give you a bud if you open that crate and I said really will you and they said yes really... then I opened it and got no earbud. Does the fact that I asked a couple different times result in the person getting a ban? You can have your thoughts on it, I can have different thoughts but either way a can of worms has been opened. How do you identify what is a joke or a troll and what is not? That does not involve any sort of manipulation he is simply stating that he would give them a earbud, simply stating something and manipulating are very different things. This is something which you still dont seem to get... I already answered your question about troll/joking. So repeating again a troll/joke basically a practical joke you play where you dont gain anything (except maybe laugher or you lose a friend) It can be a dumb/bad joke. What makes a "troll/joke" a scam is if you benefit from said joke/troll. Example: Case 1: I tell you to delete your unusual and ill pay you twice it's price, you do it and i laugh at you for being stupid. This trolling. Case 2: If i tell you to give me your unusual so i can delete it but i will give you twice the amount back and instead I keep the unusual instead that's scamming. Both are "trolling" both "break agreements" but in one case someone runs off with your unusual which is the difference between scamming and trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Modest Espeon Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 All you rich people make me laugh Also cry with shame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJCaseyD Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Were these two teaming up together in order to have some unfair advantage over other people? I'm just trying to understand all of this. If they were, I'm not sure how anyone can feel sorry for either one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael- Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 tl;dr the community would be better without both of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Baron™ Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 tl;dr the community would be better without both of them Do's a good guy...I've always found him to be honest and trust worthy...in the past he's sold high end unusual for me and i offered him 20% he still only took 10%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Interview - http://www.scribd.com/doc/265244855/d0-Interview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFFIRMATIVE Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 This is typical in a lot of forum fights. The climax between the two or more parties that sparked a fight was too vague, hence it resulted in a very subjective point of view from the perspective of an outside party that had no relation to the fight, which why people are having different opinions on every side. Pretty much the reason why jersey shore or the kardashians are popular. There are sides that think snooki was a skanky hippo for being so obnoxious hence why she got punched in the face, and there are sides that even if she is a bitch, she did not deserved that punch from that guy. In this case, the fact that the accused (d0) person refuses to give back the items leaves to the conclusion that he tried to manipulate to get them, but on the other hand the accused thought the accuser (wayne) was subconsciously aware that he would loose those items since he gave them to a Gambling machine. Now here's the conflicting factor and correct me if i am wrong: The accuser never stated an agreement to give the items back if one of them lost an item to the jackpot, he only stated an agreement if one of them wins the jackpot and he would keep the extra items that he won and giving back the borrowed ones. If that is the case, the accused would be in the right since he can justify that this was a gambling matter and the accuser should've been aware of the consequences of being involved in gambling, but the fact that he changes his profile name to "ScammedbySR" or "ScammedbyWayne" will obviously cause controversy and will instigate the admins to keep the ban because of how much of a drama queen he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.