Turns out that you can be banned from outpost even when you no longer use it.

[Heated Bread]

...just for having a private profile.  Again, even if you don't use the site.

 

source: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/tf2outpost/discussions/0/622955136049367357/

 

I understand that it's their site and they are free to make the rules, but I am curious whether people think the practice of banning people who aren't even using the site is fair or reasonable?  Obviously if you read the thread, you know what I think.  So what about you?

 

edit: Just for clarity, I did NOT make this thread because I was banned.  I am NOT currently banned.  I also do NOT currently have a private profile.  I intend to make my profile private soon, at which point I will likely be banned.  I think this is stupid because the outpost rules do not, cannot, and should not attempt to govern people's actions when they aren't even actively using the site.  That's retarded.  At no point did I ever agree to that and the rules do not currently state it that way either.

 

In fact, the rules are for site usage.  Not site non-usage.  So if someone think it's justified "because you agreed to it", then I believe they are wrong.  I did not agree to that.

[Senpai Absol~]

It is not Reasonble.

Like, just let people allow their Proile private.

[puddingkip]

Yes. If you really didn't use the site you never would have logged in. You have however and now you're breaking their rules and as such a ban is warranted.

 

I'm pretty sure any private profile/bp ban can get lifted easily when you switch back to public

[dabaers]

You can just revert back when you want to use it

[Heated Bread]

Yes. If you really didn't use the site you never would have logged in. You have however and now you're breaking their rules and as such a ban is warranted.

 

I'm pretty sure any private profile/bp ban can get lifted easily when you switch back to public

 

No I'm not.  My profile is not currently private.  I am currently breaking no rules.  And as I see it, if someone is not using the site, then they are not breaking any rules by having a private backpack.  If they ARE using the site and they have a private backpack, that is definitely breaking the rules.

[TheVenomWithin]

Better safe to do it ahead of time then to go ahead and wait till your bp never becomes public. Besides, you can always just ask for it to get removed later on.

[Heated Bread]

IMHO if they intend to keep this policy, the rules should be changed to say "by the way, you can NEVER set your profile to private at any time from this point forward or else you will be banned even if you're no longer using the site when you do it."

 

The rules do not currently say this.  In fact, the rules are for site usage.  Not site non-usage.  So if someone think it's justified "because you agreed to it", then I believe they are wrong.  I did not agree to that.

[puddingkip]

No I'm not.  My profile is not currently private.  I am currently breaking no rules.  And as I see it, if someone is not using the site, then they are not breaking any rules by having a private backpack.  If they ARE using the site and they have a private backpack, that is definitely breaking the rules.

Oh I'm sorry I thought this whole situation was created by you being banned. My mistake.

And the rules are they way they are now for the sake of simplicity. This is 10 times easier to enforce and regulate than the version you proposed.

 

And op rules have been poorly formulated since the creation of outpost.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think there are many things wrong with how outpost is runned but I don't consider this to be one of them

[LaughingLollipop]

I think you missed the point.

 

Outpost has unreasonable rules and doesn't give a fuck.

[Rambro]

If you're not even using the site, why bitch about the rules? Makes you seem childish.

brb reading thread

[redpoemage]

So if someone stops using Outpost for a month, makes their backpack private, trades with a scammer, sells the stuff they they got from the scammer, then makes their backpack public again they should be able to start using Outpost again when they want to?

 

Eh...I don't really agree with that.

 

Note: Not saying you did any of this but make your backpack private, I was just using an example

[3v1lcl0n3]

So if someone stops using Outpost for a month, makes their backpack private, trades with a scammer, sells the stuff they they got from the scammer, then makes their backpack public again they should be able to start using Outpost again when they want to?

 

Eh...I don't really agree with that.

 

Note: Not saying you did any of this but make your backpack private, I was just using an example

 

 

or they could make an alt and well.... do the same stuff and wouldn't need to fear of being banned 

[Heated Bread]

So if someone stops using Outpost for a month, makes their backpack private, trades with a scammer, sells the stuff they they got from the scammer, then makes their backpack public again they should be able to start using Outpost again when they want to?

 

Eh...I don't really agree with that.

 

Note: Not saying you did any of this but make your backpack private, I was just using an example

 

So then you're saying that since someone might do that, then they should treat everyone as a scammer/fence even in the absence of proof and even when they're not using the site at all?  Even if someone were to do that, how is it justifiable for outpost to attempt to govern that which does not even take place on/with their site?  At that point they're saying that their rules not only apply to their site, but to everything outside of their site as well.  Not only is it unreasonable, but it's arrogantly and colossally overstepping their bounds.  And what's the point in the first place if you can just get the damn ban lifted later on simply by asking?  Aren't they just policing non-users for no reason and making more work for themselves?

[TurboNEET]

You really have a good point. I'd contact a TF2OP admin if I were you.

[Scott Bakula]

You really have a good point. I'd contact a TF2OP admin if I were you.

 

He did. See the topic linked in the first post to see how well that went.

[t0night]

i don't understand. why would you care about being banned if you're not using the site? if you are using the site, then you are subject to its rules. what am i missing here?

[person]

Outpost is shit

[Scott Bakula]

i don't understand. why would you care about being banned if you're not using the site? if you are using the site, then you are subject to its rules. what am i missing here?

 

Two main reasons:

1) If he ever gets back into trading, appealing the ban means several hurdles and hoops to jump through which will take time.

2) The stigma of a ban. If someone's got a ban, even for the most frivolous reasons, there will be people out there that will judge him (both openly and internally) for it, and/or just outright refuse to associate with him.

[scout608]

tl;dr version of this thread:

Yes. If you really didn't use the site you never would have logged in. You have however and now you're breaking their rules and as such a ban is warranted.

 

I'm pretty sure any private profile/bp ban can get lifted easily when you switch back to public

 

Outpost is shit

[Flaim]

Yes it is reasonable, in my opinion.  I don't see why anyone would want to have a private profile, unless they were trying to hide something, at which point its obvious.

[cranwell96]

http://www.tf2outpost.com/user/76561197976968076

 

Reminder that you can't just appeal whenever you want.

[Usurper_King?]

outpost admins are a-holes anyways

[PeterLG]

It's reasonable because if you don't use the site, it shouldn't matter if you're banned or not, and it keeps you from starting to use the site in a state that's against the rules, e.g. having a private profile. I don't see what your major malfunction is here

[t0night]

Two main reasons:

1) If he ever gets back into trading, appealing the ban means several hurdles and hoops to jump through which will take time.

2) The stigma of a ban. If someone's got a ban, even for the most frivolous reasons, there will be people out there that will judge him (both openly and internally) for it, and/or just outright refuse to associate with him.

stigma comes from private inventories much much moreso than outpost bans in my experience.i don't see outpost bans being a big dissuasion much myself. the private inventory is a much bigger deal to me. i've traded with and been friends with multiple people who are banned from outpost.

 

I just don't see it mattering at all. presumably you're not even going to be trading significantly if your backpack is private anyway since most servers and many traders don't like private inventories. if you want to trade without stigma, keep your backpack public. if you sincerely care personally about being banned reversibly (at your discretion) on a service you are deciding not to use, i don't really know what to say. find more important things to be annoyed about, i guess? it says the reason for your ban is a private backpack, so anyone worth associating with in the non-trading sense will probably figure that it was your decision and not a violation of general trading etiquette that has generated the ban. once again, if you mean trading stigma, that's fair in my opinion as there's really no good reason to have a private backpack if you're a regular trader.

[TheMCBros99]

I think it's reasonable, what you got to hide