Should I try to appeal the bans?

[Klappar]

I think you should be banned but not permanently. Maybe because it was your second warning you should be banned for a few months. But permanently... this is just too much...

[=NickFury=]

These are all fair issues and issues I have with the way bans are handled in general. That's fine. But one thing I want to again emphasize is the difference between knowingly and unknowingly trading with a scammer. There is no grey area when you knowingly do it and there is proof of that. I still cannot understand how that can be justified in any way. You keep saying he should not be permanently banned. And that is where I have an issue. We have always been crystal clear about cases like this.

I absolutely agree that it's a huge factor, but it should be secondary to the fact that absolutely nothing was a bannable offense on the SCM till now. This first ban is as much a warning shot to everyone else as it is career-obliterating to cranwell, and that's not fair. He deserved to know as much as anyone that going through with that trade would get him permanently banned and when it comes to the SCM, really noone could tell with certainty. The SCM was "international waters" back then, and if there was evidence, it actually supported the "everything goes"-mentality. Truthfully, a lot of us perceived the SCM the same way he did, and again, having cranwell take a fall for something that was such a common understanding doesn't seem right. We're all as guilty or innocent for not knowing any better, none of us tried to urge any site to publically announce their stance either, so it shouldn't be ok with any of us to see him receive the full punishment for this shared misconception. In a sense, he just pushed the envelope far enough to force out a statement for all of us, and as his peers, that's really not something we should condemn too harshly.

[polar]

 

Having cranwell take a fall for something that was such a common understanding doesn't seem right. We're all as guilty or innocent for not knowing any better, none of us tried to urge any site to publically announce their stance either, so it shouldn't be ok with any of us to see him receive the full punishment for this shared misconception. In a sense, he just pushed the envelope far enough to force out a statement for all of us, and as his peers, that's really not something we should condemn too harshly.

 

 

All bans can be appealed. If Cranwell wishes to state his case, he is welcome to file one and we will consider lessening the ban.

[=NickFury=]

All bans can be appealed. If Cranwell wishes to state his case, he is welcome to file one and we will consider lessening the ban.

Appreciate it, polar. That's great to hear. Up to cranwell to pick you up on it, but it's really good to see there's room for discussion.

[The G What ™]

I do in fact check all unusual traders before trading with them. Beyond what Awesome pointed out, please look a little bit more thoroughly before pointing fingers, that history is hardly a complete one- the trader who was later marked wasn't even the one I had traded with.

 

http://www.tf2outpost.com/item/440,1479583714,249,5

 

Admittedly my unusual trades from two+ years back may not have been given as thorough as checks as I try to do now (there was a time where I had a good deal of faith in steamrep and I haven't exactly marked on my calendar when I learned they were no longer reasonably active), but I can say for a fact that I have always given a look at steamrep with the person I was trading with bare minimum and have turned down numerous unusual trades due to a mark/report on steamrep, a ban from outpost for scamming/fencing, or an account that looked fishy as an unusual trader. No, I'm not perfect. There's a couple of unusual trades I've done with users that I had thought looked perfectly fine from my checks but were revealed months later to be scammers/fences. Perhaps there were details I had overlooked that would have allowed me to avoid making the trade. But I do indeed check each and every user that I make an unusual trade to do my best to avoid trading with scammers/fences and I don't see how it's at all an unreasonable expectation.

 

Feel free to dig through as many of my unusuals or as much of my history as you want. I've always done the best I can to trade with integrity, I have nothing to hide and will happily answer to any questions you have.

I can accept and respect that. However, how do you know the second owner wasn't either a fence or an alt? It sure looks really fishy. Sorry if if I got a bit accusatory there, the main point I was trying to make is that so many hats have come from marked owners, and they simply wouldn't be traded around for you to buy if everyone got permabanned for touching them. 

 

 

This has not been stated anywhere. Knowingly trading with scammers is knowingly trading with scammers. People just haven't been banned for trading with scammers on SCM because they have never been reported. This is literally the first ever report I have gotten about someone trading with a scammer on SCM. Knowingly trading with scammers is clearcut.

 

The trouble we get into is how to deal with people who unknowingly trade with scammers. This is an issue that goes beyond SCM trades. Even in item trades I have seen highly variable bans (anywhere from just a warning to a 2 week ban for first time offenses). What are reasonable expectations of traders? Do we require that the person just check SR? That website is practically defunct now. What about outpost / bp.tf bans with proof showing the person is a scammer? What about pending reports on SR? What about a check of the person's profile to see if it's an alt? What about situations where the person traded with a person who traded with a scammer or a person 2-3 sellers down from the scammer? Do we start progressively banning people down the line? These are issues not just of SCM but of trading as a whole. We haven't figured it out yet in item trades and we are far from figuring it out in something like SCM trades where you start dealing with a multitude of alts. But that doesn't necessarily mean that SCM should be treated any differently.

 

What we have here is a rare case where the proof was provided in an SCM trade. It was so blatantly obvious what happened. I don't see how anyone could handle this case any differently.

 

And to get to your main point, if you have to ask yourself whether it's okay to trade with a person, you probably shouldn't. There are reasons we try to keep people from trading with scammers. And those reasons don't change whether the trade is for keys or for steam wallet funds.

And all of these issues are really what we should be discussing. Rather than publicly shaming and witch hunting. With SR being dead, I'd love to see the rest of the community deal with this in a reasonable way. 

 

I still disagree with anyone being banned for anything that happened on the SCM. It had nothing to do with any third party website, and it is in my opinion outside anyone's bounds to ban him for something that didn't happen under their jurisdiction. But that's just me. 

[Heated Bread]

 

I absolutely agree that it's a huge factor, but it should be secondary to the fact that absolutely nothing was a bannable offense on the SCM till now. This first ban is as much a warning shot to everyone else as it is career-obliterating to cranwell, and that's not fair. He deserved to know as much as anyone that going through with that trade would get him permanently banned and when it comes to the SCM, really noone could tell with certainty. The SCM was "international waters" back then, and if there was evidence, it actually supported the "everything goes"-mentality. Truthfully, a lot of us perceived the SCM the same way he did, and again, having cranwell take a fall for something that was such a common understanding doesn't seem right. We're all as guilty or innocent for not knowing any better, none of us tried to urge any site to publically announce their stance either, so it shouldn't be ok with any of us to see him receive the full punishment for this shared misconception. In a sense, he just pushed the envelope far enough to force out a statement for all of us, and as his peers, that's really not something we should condemn too harshly.

 

 

That is nothing but a complete misrepresentation of the facts.  It's bizarre that you and a few others continue to insist that the community market is/was somehow out of the bounds of the rules.  You have pointed to literally nothing to support that claim.  You guys just keep repeating it over and over again as if nobody has refuted it.

 

Here, I'll even help you, since none of you have addressed this: if a scammer buys something from me on the community market, I can't control that and therefore I should not be held responsible for it (unless there is proof that I arranged for the scammer to buy it from me on the community market).  Once I post an item on the market, the trade is automated from that point forward.  Anyone who wants to buy it can do so, and there is no option for me to refuse a trade from someone once they click to buy my item.  There is your exception.  However, that is NOT what happened with cranwell, and it does not mean that the community market itself is somehow an exception.

 

If I buy from a scammer who has posted their item on the community market and I can see who the seller is, that is definitely within my control, and I should be held accountable for it provided that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate my guilt.  And that's exactly what happened here.  The evidence is crystal clear that cranwell knew that the hat was coming from a marked scammer and he bought it anyway.

 

The community market itself is not now and was NEVER an exception to the rule that one should not trade with scammers.  Period.  End of discussion.  You guys are only insisting that it is based on the fact that there haven't been any bans handed out over community market trades until now.  Well guess what?  There's always a first time.

[=NickFury=]

If I buy from a scammer who has posted their item on the community market and I can see who the seller is, that is definitely within my control, and I should be held accountable for it provided that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate my guilt. 

That should is crucial there. It's your judgement. It's not a rule we can do business with on a daily basis, not even a recommendation from someone with authority, it's just your opinion. You can't expect any trader to work with that day in and day out and that's the unfair part of it. If you want traders to subscribe to your ideals, that you should at least tell them before you permanently ban someone for going against them. ...but yea, that's just an opinion as well.

[Heated Bread]

That should is crucial there. It's your judgement. It's not a rule, we can do business with on a daily basis, not even a recommendation from someone with authority, it's just your opinion. You can't expect any trader to work with that day in and day out and that's the unfair part of it. If you want traders to subscribe to your ideals, that you should at least tell them before you permanently ban someone for going against them. ...but yea, that's just an opinion as well.

 

No, it is a rule.  It's an outpost rule, which is where he got the first ban from.  It says not to trade with scammers.  He did.  Twice.  The second time got him his ban.

 

Yes it's your choice to trade with whoever you want for whatever reason.  That's not being debated.

 

It seems like you're deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts here, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're just being passionate and getting mixed up.

[=NickFury=]

No, it is a rule.  It's an outpost rule, which is where he got the first ban from.  It says not to trade with scammers.  He did.  Twice.  The second time got him his ban.

You're truncating the facts. It's an Outpost rule that was never enforced when it came to purchases on the SCM. I get that hindsight is 20/20, but do you not see how antisocial it is to point fingers at the guy who ended up being the first ban for it, instead of asking why none of us got a warning first? Once again, if you hang yourself up on the knowingly trading with a marked scammer-part, you're not seeing the big picture. That's just what it took to force out the first absolutely consequential reaction from trading sites on the issue, and that's no way to let us all know that we need to check the people we buy from on the SCM from now on.

 

Can you really justify to yourself that cranwell needed to get banned forever so we all get that info? I sure don't think that's fair in any way.

[Heated Bread]

if you hang yourself up on the knowingly trading with a marked scammer-part, you're not seeing the big picture. That's just what it took to force out the first absolutely consequential reaction from trading sites on the issue, and that's no way to let us all know that we need to check the people we buy from on the SCM from now on.

 

What I'm getting here is that you think that because you and others felt that community market trades were exempt from the rules since there hadn't been a precedent yet, that cranwell deserves to get off the hook.

 

What if there had been a precedent and you just didn't know about it?  Would that change your mind?  What part of "don't trade with scammers" means that "unless it's on the community market" also applies?  What makes you even think that a precedent is required at all for what is just another case of someone getting busted for trading with a scammer?

 

Make me see it from your point of view.  Lead me to it logically, step by step.  But I should warn you: your interpretation of the rules is superseded by the outpost staff.  Ultimately it's their intent that matters.

[OverduePixels]

If I buy from a scammer who has posted their item on the community market and I can see who the seller is, that is definitely within my control, and I should be held accountable for it provided that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate my guilt.  And that's exactly what happened here.  The evidence is crystal clear that cranwell knew that the hat was coming from a marked scammer and he bought it anyway.

 

Not supporting Cranwell here because he himself was fully aware of whom he was trading with but I am gonna answer this statement of yours by quoting this :

 

The problem is almost the whole S.C.M users does not do that(do background checks). If people are going to get banned for that, might as well ban almost all S.C.M users, which is almost the whole Steam Community. I can say for sure almost every S.C.M user have bought and sold items from scammers/hijackers, of course not intentionally, they quickly trade in fear of someone snatching the deal before someone else does. It can't be stopped. Especially when people lurks around S.C.M and uses trade.tf live deals.

 

This is how it is going to work and sites like Outpost and Bazaar have to deal with it, if they want to keep their site up that is. If they find out that the user traded intentionally and fully was aware then they can do the ban just like they did with Cranwell because he was fully aware of the person he was trading with.

 

Edit : Forgot to add... It is well clearly explained here by Polar, if you knew who you were trading with and was fully aware and over all that you were warned beforehand, you deserve the ban. Simple as that. http://forums.backpack.tf/index.php?/topic/18341-should-i-be-unbanned/page-3&do=findComment&comment=204046

 

If you think realistically, none of the trading sites actually have authority to enforce rules on S.C.M , S.C.M is in the hands of Valve not third party websites, only Valve can enforce rules and such on S.C.M no one can. All of the sites we are using are third party websites. They are not from Valve or anything like that, however putting aside S.C.M .... Cranwell was well aware of whom he was trading with and in according to trading websites rules such as Outpost, Bazaar, Backpack if you knowingly trade with a scammer/scammer alt/hijacker/hijacker alt you are in deep trouble.. He knowingly traded with a scammer , I believe he was also cautioned by users here beforehand? And thus he was banned.  Simple as that.

[=NickFury=]

What I'm getting here is that you think that because you and others felt that community market trades were exempt from the rules since there hadn't been a precedent yet, that cranwell deserves to get off the hook.

 

What if there had been a precedent and you just didn't know about it?  Would that change your mind?  What part of "don't trade with scammers" means that "unless it's on the community market" also applies?

 

Make me see it from your point of view.  Lead me to it logically, step by step.

#1 No, that's not what I'm saying, but I do believe a shared misconception like that is should lessen the punishment. Would you sentence someone for the full duration if he sold drugs in the 60s? Of course not, you would account for the fact that the times were different and the understanding of the gravity of the offense wasn't the same.

 

#2 I really don't get why you're even trying to drill holes into my argument. What do you gain from being right and witchhunting cranwell? Do you support this kind of non-communication where something turns from ignored to career-destroying over night? Remember that this isn't about supporting scammers or not, first and foremost, this is about communicating rules that very much affect our daily business to us traders.

 

#3 I appreciate the interest to understand my train of thought, but my key concerns are already posted in this thread. Just read them please.

[Heated Bread]

If you think realistically, none of the trading sites actually have authority to enforce rules on S.C.M , S.C.M is in the hands of Valve not third party websites, only Valve can enforce rules and such on S.C.M no one can. All of the sites we are using are third party websites. They are not from Valve or anything like that, however putting aside S.C.M .... Cranwell was well aware of whom he was trading with and in according to trading websites rules such as Outpost, Bazaar, Backpack if you knowingly trade with a scammer/scammer alt/hijacker/hijacker alt you are in deep trouble, I guess mods and admins put aside the S.C.M thing and went with that rule of theirs. He knowingly traded with a scammer , I believe he was also cautioned by users here beforehand? And thus he was banned. 

 

They aren't trying to enforce rules on the community market.  They are trying to keep scammers and fences from using their site.  No trading actually takes place on outpost.  That's impossible.  Outpost is only for the advertising, indexing, and searching of trades that people want to do.  All actual trades take place off the site.  In that respect, the community market is no different to any other available method of trading.

[Heated Bread]

#1 No, that's not what I'm saying, but I do believe a shared misconception like that is should lessen the punishment. Would you sentence someone for the full duration if he sold drugs in the 60s? Of course not, you would account for the fact that the times were different and the understanding of the gravity of the offense wasn't the same.

 

#2 I really don't get why you're even trying to drill holes into my arguement. What do you gain from being right and witchhunting cranwell? Do you support this kind of non-communication where something turns from ignored to career-destroying over night?

 

#3 I appreciate the interest to understand my train of thought, but my key concerns are already posted in this thread. Just read them please.

 

in some cases I think it's fair to allow for some leeway if there is a benign misconception.  However, I do not see this as a benign misconception at all.  The misconception we're talking about is that it's okay for you to trade with a scammer as long as you do it in the community market.  That's not benign.

 

I'm not trying to drill holes in your argument (yet), I'm just trying to get you to make it coherently and logically so that I and anyone else can understand it and what the steps are.  I don't think you've presented your case adequately, so that's what I am trying to get you to do.

[Second Foundation]

 

EDIT: IMO, Outpost, SR, etc. will eventually strangle itself as more and more of TF2's most prolific and influential traders are being alienated and shutdown thus becoming their own downfall.

Totally agree. This is like animal farm after snowball leaves. As those of you who have read the book know, things go south from there

[buddhapest]

Totally agree. This is like animal farm after snowball leaves. As those of you who have read the book know, things go south from there

omg hyperbole!

 

yeah, this is exactly like Animal Farm - after cromwell's ban we're all going to get sent to the slaughterhouse.

 

hahahahahaah!

[=NickFury=]

in some cases I think it's fair to allow for some leeway if there is a benign misconception.  However, I do not see this as a benign misconception at all.  The misconception we're talking about is that it's okay for you to trade with a scammer as long as you do it in the community market.  That's not benign.

 

That shouldn't be a point of contention. I really feel like you omitting any realities of trading for the sake of your arguments all while forcing me to repeat myself and explain the most minute details and it's honestly making me want to ignore your posts.

 

Thing is, the understanding that you can buy anything of the SCM shouldn't really be something that needs that much explaining to any experienced trader, polar sure didn't need it. See, what's rubbing me the wrong way is that you're acting like trade.tf didn't exist and thrive over the fact that Outpost turned a blind eye on SCM trades. Truthfully, what else is Swag Inc's paid service but a delivery system for links to all those questionable deals on the SCM, giving people an edge to snipe them before anyone else does. There are absolutely no moral concerns tied to that, whether it's about cheating some kid out of a few hundred bucks (his fault, anyone who got the deal would gladly tell you) or buying off a serial killer. It's about speed and profit above anything else and easily half the people on this forum used the site without any sense of breaking any rules anywhere. It's definitely no coincidence that trade.tf grew big enough to charge 2 keys per month during a time when it seemed like there was absolutely no risk by making profit with it.

 

It's this very climate that I'm judging cranwell in. We had an entire (sub-)culture of traders who did nothing but snipe good deals off the SCM all day, who all shared the understanding that what they did wouldn't put their accounts on Outpost at risk. Now, reading this thread I sure realize it's very easy to take the moral high ground and proclaim what all of these profiteering traders did was wrong on some level anyways, how they broke the rules of Outpost and should've known better. Yea, most of them likely broke the rules at some point. Realistically, a lot of them bought stuff off marked scammers on the SCM and that, once again, ties back to the point I've been trying to make all along. Being fair means to condemn all or none of them, instead of singling one guy out to set an example.

[Heated Bread]

NickFury, if you had evidence that someone was either habitually buying from scammers on the community market, or evidence of a specific case where someone knowingly bought from a scammer on the community market, and you then took it to an outpost mod and they ignored it, that would be turning a blind eye.  And the interesting part is that's effectively what it seems like you're wanting them to do in this case.  Turn a blind eye.  

 

So here's what you're asserting as far as I can tell: that outpost mods had evidence that specific people were buying from scammers using the community market, and then chose to do nothing.  That would be a scandal.  If you could demonstrate that, I would definately want to know all about it.

 

If that's not what you're saying, then let me know.  If you're just saying that "everybody knows people buy from scammers off the market", then I'm afraid that's just not good enough to justify letting someone get away with it when there is such clear evidence, even if it is the first time that someone has been banned for it, at least as far as I am concerned.

 

Also I want to address something that bothers me.  When you call it a "reality of trading" that people want to snag cheap deals before anyone else gets to them, I agree.  That is a reality of trading.  I don't see how that could excuse ommitting a standard background check, though.  When someone trades with a scammer, would you say that's it's okay to let them get away with it "because it was cheap and I really wanted it"?  It bothers me because it seems very much like you're saying that people should not be held accountable for their actions when a deal is cheap.

[♠Derpeh♤]

I still disagree with anyone being banned for anything that happened on the SCM. It had nothing to do with any third party website, and it is in my opinion outside anyone's bounds to ban him for something that didn't happen under their jurisdiction. But that's just me.

 

The issue never had anything to do with scm. He wasn't banned because he bought from a marked scammer on scm he was banned because he knowingly bought from a marked scammer, through which medium is irrelevant.

 

Under your logic: Want to trade with a scammer tell him to put it on Scm and claim that it isn't bannable because it was on scm.

 

Again the issue has nothing to do with scm its to do with him knowingly buying from a marked scammer.

[=NickFury=]

NickFury, if you had evidence that someone was either habitually buying from scammers on the community market, or evidence of a specific case where someone knowingly bought from a scammer on the community market, and you then took it to an outpost mod and they ignored it, that would be turning a blind eye.  And the interesting part is that's effectively what it seems like you're wanting them to do in this case.  Turn a blind eye.  

That's two different definitions of "turning a blind eye" in one paragraph and neither is what I've been arguing for here. I get that you're hungry for a debate, but sorry, if you have to take what I say and try to spin it as ridiculously as that, then I won't give you the time of the day. For the record, I'm not asking anyone to turn a blind eye, quite the opposite. I'm asking them to open their eyes to the culture we had before the ban and to consider how things lead into each other when judging their peers. Instead of going A shot B. Shooting is bad, let's hang A. I'm asking people to consider the full story first. How that is asking to turn a blind eye is beyond me. It's in no way asking to pardon A completely.

 

Also I want to address something that bothers me.  When you call it a "reality of trading" that people want to snag cheap deals before anyone else gets to them, I agree.  That is a reality of trading.  I don't see how that could excuse ommitting a standard background check, though.  When someone trades with a scammer, would you say that's it's okay to let them get away with it "because it was cheap and I really wanted it"?  It bothers me because it seems very much like you're saying that people should not be held accountable for their actions when a deal is cheap.

Not sure if you really misunderstood me that badly or if you're just trolling, but both make any attempt at a reasonable reply seem futile. So I'm not even going to try. For anyone else (who likely knows this anyways): The couple of seconds tops to buy something on the SCM normally don't give you the luxury of making a background check. If it's a good deal, you usually either take it right there and then or it's gone. With deals on trading sites, however, you don't have that kind of pressure, so background checks aren't beyond anyone's capacity there. I trust everyone can realize how that's a fundamental difference, one that certainly contributed a lot to the way the SCM was understood. Well, not everyone, apparently...

[The G What ™]

The issue never had anything to do with scm. He wasn't banned because he bought from a marked scammer on scm he was banned because he knowingly bought from a marked scammer, through which medium is irrelevant.

 

Under your logic: Want to trade with a scammer tell him to put it on Scm and claim that it isn't bannable because it was on scm.

 

Again the issue has nothing to do with scm its to do with him knowingly buying from a marked scammer.

I never said I thought it was alright. I said I think banning someone for something that did not happen on your website or jurisdiction is wrong. 

 

I also pointed out to Vincent why I think the idea of "ban everyone that traded a scammer" is dumb, although I certainly do not support buying a scammed hat. 

 

But the way I see this, is that he bought a hat that didn't appear to be scammed off of Valve's own trading site, and he gets banned from all third party sites for that? Seems wrong to me. 

[Heated Bread]

That's two different definitions of "turning a blind eye" in one sentence and neither is what I've been arguing for here. I get that you're hungry for a debate, but sorry, if you have to take what I say and try to spin it as ridiculously as that, then I won't give you the time of the day. For the record, I'm not asking anyone to turn a blind eye, quite the opposite. I'm asking them to open their eyes to the culture we had before the ban and to consider how things lead into each other when judging their peers.

 

 

I'm not even going to honor that with a reply.

 

How is that 2 different definitions in one sentence?  Really, how?  Please tell me.  If I'm guilty of that, show me.  I'm open to being shown.  I really don't think I did that, but if I did, then I want to know. It's not my intent to be misleading to anyone.  And if I am mischaracterizing your posts, correct me.  Tell me what I am getting wrong.  Make me understand.

 

By  "the culture we had before the ban", you mean the common practice of buying cheap deals from scammers from the community market, correct?  If I'm wrong, tell me.  It seems like given the context of your posts, that's what you mean.  If that's the case, then what I am saying to you is that's not an adequate excuse.  I'm saying to you that just because a lot of people do it and just because nobody has been banned for it before, it doesn't then follow that these are good enough reasons to let someone off the hook for it.

[♠Derpeh♤]

I never said I thought it was alright. I said I think banning someone for something that did not happen on your website or jurisdiction is wrong. 

 

I also pointed out to Vincent why I think the idea of "ban everyone that traded a scammer" is dumb, although I certainly do not support buying a scammed hat. 

 

But the way I see this, is that he bought a hat that didn't appear to be scammed off of Valve's own trading site, and he gets banned from all third party sites for that? Seems wrong to me.

 

I am in total agreement with you on scm since its pretty hard to track scammers and history on scm which is where most user in this thread seem to be basing their arguments on.

 

Imo this is one of those clean cut cases since he knowingly traded (making a forum post asking, being advised not to trade...etc) Cranwell of all people would be highly familiar with site rules and he consequences yet still went through with it.

 

I personally would prefer "uncharted waters" since I am under the believe if you are dumb enough to get sharked/scammed/phished you probably deserve it and should learn from your mistakes.

 

This case might have went very differently if he didn't make that post incriminating himself. As much as I would like to support a great contributer to the site I don't see any reason to give an exception.

[=NickFury=]

By  "the culture we had before the ban", you mean the common practice of buying cheap deals from scammers from the community market, correct?  If I'm wrong, tell me.  It seems like given the context of your posts, that's what you mean.  If that's the case, then what I am saying to you is that's not an adequate excuse.  I'm saying to you that just because a lot of people do it and just because nobody has been banned for it before, it doesn't then follow that these are good enough reasons to let someone off the hook for it.

See, if you had ever used trade.tf to buy an unusual off the SCM, you'd know that there's just two options:

 

Either you allow a culture where being the fastest one to get the deal is permitted, or you want people to forfeit their shot at being first to make a background check instead. You can't have both, that's simply technically impossible. Before the ban, being first was fine is what I'm saying, with everything that implies. That doesn't mean I condone or support buying off scammers, but once again, you can't have both and matter of fact is that a site like trade.tf certainly supported the mentality of buying fast.

 

I'd really appreciate it if you could let people who have actual experience on the matter discuss this from here on out. You clearly don't know the most basic things about this subject. How about you pm me instead of cluttering up the thread with questions a couple of trades could've answered?

[Heated Bread]

See, if you had ever used trade.tf to buy an unusual off the SCM, you'd know that there's just two options:

 

Either you allow a culture where being the fastest one to get the deal is permitted, or you want people to forfeit their shot at being first to make a background check instead. You can't have both, that's simply technically impossible. Before the ban, being first was fine is what I'm saying, with everything that implies. That doesn't mean I condone or support buying off scammers, but once again, you can't have both and matter of fact is that a site like trade.tf certainly supported the mentality of buying fast.

 

I'd really appreciate it if you could let people who have actual experience on the matter discuss this from here on out. You clearly don't know the most basic things about this subject. How about you pm me instead of cluttering up the thread with questions a couple of trades could've answered?

 

I understand trade.tf.  I know what it is.  I've used it myself many times, just not to buy unusuals, and not to buy stuff off the community market.  I have a very good understanding of how it works.  I'm still not seeing how this is in any way justification to be leniant or to let someone off the hook.  You're not connecting the dots.