Jump to content

Should I try to appeal the bans?


cranwell96

Was I beneficial to the tf2 community?  

110 members have voted

  1. 1. Do I deserve a third chance?

    • Yes
      65
    • No
      45
  2. 2. What do I contibute to the tf2 community?

    • Items people want to buy
      45
    • Generousity
      31
    • Helpful advice
      45
    • Good price suggestions
      36
    • Promoting other people/groups in the community
      20
    • Being Polite
      50
    • Something else
      41
  3. 3. Which of these did I do the least before I was banned?

    • Items people want to buy
      6
    • Generousity
      21
    • Helpful advice
      6
    • Good price suggestions
      8
    • Promoting other people/groups in the community
      19
    • Being Polite
      10
    • Something else
      40


Recommended Posts

 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.

 Couple of posts ago you didn't even understand how there's no time for background checks on the SCM if you want to be the one who "snags the deal". You actuallly agreed to how trying to get those deals is the reality of trading and find it inexcuseable if someone omits to check, as if you can have both at the same time on the SCM:

 

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. 

I'm sorry, but that's really anything but a "very good understanding". That's not even getting the most basic conundrum every trader is faced with on the SCM now: "Buy immediately, or wait and check and risk losing the deal in the process".

 

Well, I'd rather give guys like G What space to discuss what we can do to keep trading sites from forcing us into unfavourable choices like that instead of arguing with you. Sorry, but I'll ignore your posts from now on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 Couple of posts ago you didn't even understand how there's no time for background checks on the SCM if you want to be the one who "snags the deal". You actuallly agreed to how trying to get those deals is the reality of trading and find it inexcuseable if someone omits to check, as if you can have both at the same time on the SCM:

 

I'm sorry, but that's really anything but a "very good understanding". That's not even getting the most basic conundrum every trader is faced with on the SCM now: "Buy immediately, or wait and check and risk losing the deal in the process".

 

Well, I'd rather give guys like G What space to discuss what we can do to keep trading sites from forcing us into unfavourable choices like that instead of arguing with you. Sorry, but I'll ignore your posts from now on.

Hang on there, NickFury.  I never said that I didn't understand how there's no time for background checks, and the part of my post which you quoted certainly doesn't say that.  What I said was that I don't see how trying to get a deal quickly is an excuse for foregoing a background check on the seller.  That's very different.

 

I understand that in that scenario, you're likely facing two options.  You either do that background check and risk losing the trade to somebody faster than you, or you chose not to do the check and risk trading with a scammer.  Or I guess you could do what cranwell did and do the trade even after knowing that it's a scammer.  The responsibility is yours, and you should not be excused simply for wanting to blindly snag the deal before someone else.

 

So anyway, what you're trying to say is that you think not wanting to risk losing a trade is an adequate excuse for taking the risk of dealing with a scammer?  Correct?  And that since people do this, it's somehow a reason to be leniant, correct?  Tell me if I am wrong.  If you're not saying this, we really have nothing to argue about.  We both agree that people need to take the responsibility to do background checks no matter what the circumstances are.  But if instead I am right and that is what you're saying, then of course I wholeheartedly disagree.  You are responsible for doing checks on the people you trade with, no matter what.  Trying to snag a cheap deal faster than someone else is not an excuse.  I don't care if you lose the trade or not.  It's not an excuse to be irresponsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Hang on there, NickFury.  I never said that I didn't understand how there's no time for background checks, and the part of my post which you quoted certainly doesn't say that.  What I said was that I don't see how trying to get a deal quickly is an excuse for foregoing a background check on the seller.  That's very different.

 

I understand that in that scenario, you're likely facing two options.  You either do that background check and risk losing the trade to somebody faster than you, or you chose not to do the check and risk trading with a scammer.  Or I guess you could do what cranwell did and do the trade even after knowing that it's a scammer.  The responsibility is yours, and you should not be excused simply for wanting to blindly snag the deal before someone else.

 

So anyway, what you're trying to say is that you think not wanting to risk losing a trade is an adequate excuse for taking the risk of dealing with a scammer?  Correct?  And that since people do this, it's somehow a reason to be leniant, correct?  Tell me if I am wrong.  If you're not saying this, we really have nothing to argue about.  We both agree that people need to take the responsibility to do background checks no matter what the circumstances are.  But if instead I am right and that is what you're saying, then of course I wholeheartedly disagree.  You are responsible for doing checks on the people you trade with, no matter what.  Trying to snag a cheap deal faster than someone else is not an excuse.  I don't care if you lose the trade or not.  It's not an excuse to be irresponsible.

 

You're refusing to see this openly minded. Like I have said it before, say this to you again.... I quoted myself to you before and will do so again...

 

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

 

People won't do background checks on S.C.M thats the harsh truth and sites like Outpost, Bazaar, Backpack have to deal with it. I can tell for sure almost all S.C.M users 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. If you have problem with that, you can't do nothing but just deal with it until or unless you have solid proof that the person bought the item knowingly(knowing that he is buying from a scammer/hijacker) and intentionally (Like Cranwell), you can't do anything.

 

S.C.M is crowded with people and things like that will happen forever until Valve themselves shuts Steam down which is not in our lifetime of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that in that scenario, you're likely facing two options.  You either do that background check and risk losing the trade to somebody faster than you, or you chose not to do the check and risk trading with a scammer.  Or I guess you could do what cranwell did and do the trade even after knowing that it's a scammer.  The responsibility is yours, and you should not be excused simply for wanting to blindly snag the deal before someone else.

One last time, saying "the responsiblilty is yours", is your judgement. Trading with scammers is morally wrong, yes, but noone claims otherwise. I realize you don't get the difference between your opinion and trading practises, but I'm discussing the latter, not the first. Noone here is contesting that trading with scammers is wrong. What I'm saying is that change needs to be communicated. We were in a time where being first to buy something on the SCM was ok, that simply implies that any kind of background check, and any kind of responsibility towards scammers was secondary. ...and, of course, noone had an issue with that, since making profit is exactly what we traders want to do, until one day someone actually had an issue with it. It is that sudden change of rules I'm debating, and the severity of the punishment that came with it. Those rules affect us all and for that alone, any one of us deserved to know before bans were handed out.

 

I realize you just want discuss your opinions of responsibility, and I'm sure there's a time and place for that, but it really shouldn't be here. Once again, this discussion isn't simply about what you think a trader's responsibility is. That just happens to be your opinion. It doesn't affect anything we traders do. What matters is how we traders can do our business day by day. What we have to check, and what we can ignore for our own interests, and those rules are put forth by trading sites and the examples they set. That's the stuff that forces us to look twice to make sure that Level 1 guy is really the unboxer and not an alt, and it's what shapes how we have to go about our trades every single time. That's the stuff I came to discuss here, instead you're wasting this opportunity to actually give us traders some room to do our thing with a page-long discussion of your ideals of responsibility. That's no different that a prisoner interrupting a discussion about better treatment by talking about the quality of the chains all day. Good on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're refusing to see this openly minded. Like I have said it before, say this to you again.... I quoted myself to you before and will do so again...

 

 

People won't do background checks on S.C.M thats the harsh truth and sites like Outpost, Bazaar, Backpack have to deal with it. I can tell for sure almost all S.C.M users 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. If you have problem with that, you can't do nothing but just deal with it until or unless you have solid proof that the person bought the item knowingly(knowing that he is buying from a scammer/hijacker) and intentionally (Like Cranwell), you can't do anything.

 

S.C.M is crowded with people and things like that will happen forever until Valve themselves shuts Steam down which is not in our lifetime of course.

 

 

I'm not denying that it happens.  I'm saying people should not be given a free pass if that's the choice they continue to make.

 

One last time, saying "the responsiblilty is yours", is your judgement. Trading with scammers is morally wrong, yes, but noone claims otherwise. I realize you don't get the difference between your opinion and trading practises, but I'm discussing the latter, not the first. Noone here is contesting that trading with scammers is wrong. What I'm saying is that change needs to be communicated. We were in a time where being first to buy something on the SCM was ok, that simply implies that any kind of background check, and any kind of responsibility towards scammers was secondary. ...and, of course, noone had an issue with that, since making profit is exactly what we traders want to do, until one day someone actually had an issue with it. It is that sudden change of rules I'm debating, and the severity of the punishment that came with it. Those rules affect us all and for that alone, any one of us deserved to know before bans were handed out.

 

I realize you just want discuss your opinions of responsibility, and I'm sure there's a time and place for that, but it really shouldn't be here. Once again, this discussion isn't simply about what you think a trader's responsibility is. That just happens to be your opinion. It doesn't affect anything we traders do. What matters is how we traders can do our business day by day. What we have to check, and what we can ignore for our own interests, and those rules are put forth by trading sites and the examples they set. That's the stuff that forces us to look twice to make sure that Level 1 guy is really the unboxer and not an alt, and it's what shapes how we have to go about our trades every single time. That's the stuff I came to discuss here, instead you're wasting this opportunity to actually give us traders some room to do our thing with a page-long discussion of your ideals of responsibility. That's no different that a prisoner interrupting a discussion about better treatment by talking about the quality of the chains all day. Good on you.

 

See above.  It's not just my opinion, it's a brute fact that it's your responsibility.  You have the choice to make that blind leap.  Nobody can make you do it.  You should be prepared to accept any potential negative consequences if you're dealing with scammers.  You're the one that makes the choice to take the risk.

 

Nobody is twisting your arm.  You're acting like there is no choice.  There is a choice.  Be adult enough to own up to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, for the simple fact that SCM should not be regulated by anyone other than Valve.

 

It should not matter who is selling or buying on SCM since it is Valves officially sanctioned marketplace. One should not have to worry about abiding by arbitrary rules set by the trading community when engaging in the SCM, especially when since there might be deals that shows up where you must act now and think later.

 

That being said, trading websites WILL inevitably try to regulate it (I knew this situation would eventually crop up) and you must abide by their rules if you want to be a part of the TF2 trading community.

 

That is why I suggest that pack up, dust yourself off, and move to CS:GO trading. TF2 has become a mind numbing bureaucracy of rules and regulations and is not worth the effort anymore.

 

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.

 

Would you mind explaining this a little better? While some of TF2's general trading rules are stupid, I at least see why they're needed. Trying to get things to change would probably involve a major reform of the whole system, and who exactly wants to do that? SteamRep has already strangled itself by managing to be completely irrelevant with boatloads of backlogged reports, so that would be a waste of time.

 

If Outpost were to do the same, it would have to slack off as well. As annoying as some of the mods there may be, at least they do their jobs, even crappily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick question: Has Outpost implemented specific rules on their page regarding the SCM yet?

Why would they? If they did, they won't have as many people to ban.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick question: Has Outpost implemented specific rules on their page regarding the SCM yet?

Nup. Well they can't anyways there isn't a way of policing the official site if anything them trying to police it would lead to valve getting pissed off. Not to mention background checks are pretty damn hard.

 

But then again I've seen people trade scammers regularly via scm and what tends to happen is it raises a lot of red flags and some people stalk all their past trades finds dirt and get them banned anyways.

 

Again, Cranwell wasn't banned for buying a scammed hat off scm, he was banned because he knowingly traded with a marked scammer through which medium is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...