Keroro1454 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Just a typical shitty way to deal with things in the TF2 universe. Instead of Valve preventing fraud and scamming, the community is enforcing made up rules in order to "prevent scammers from profiting". Same like 2 years ago, when instead of banning Pinion, Valve rather chose to take all quickplay traffic away from community servers, killing many good servers in the process... It starts to get extremely ridiculous, when you suddenly get in trouble for trading with a user that has "pending reports" on steamrep because 1. those don't even show up on backpack.tf... and 2. wasn't there some saying about people being innocent until proven guilty? While the system has gotten somewhat extreme as of late, the concept still holds solid logic. If you believe that this entire way of thinking is horribly flawed, how would you recommend eliminating incentive from scammers. The basic concept of don't trade with them= less profit for them= less reason to scam is a solid concept, although sometimes stretched to a extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gren Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 While the system has gotten somewhat extreme as of late, the concept still holds solid logic. If you believe that this entire way of thinking is horribly flawed, how would you recommend eliminating incentive from scammers. The basic concept of don't trade with them= less profit for them= less reason to scam is a solid concept, although sometimes stretched to a extreme. The only problem is that this concept is not proven to work. If it did, why was I getting 20 phisher adds/day? This only stopped now that Valve stepped in. Now I'm not getting any phisher adds. The punitive measure theory here doesn't work, just like it doesn't work for most real life crimes. And if it maybe had some effect to decrease scamming in the past, that point is now totally invalid ever since scammers can dump their items on SCM without fear of punishment to them and/or the buyer. I'm not in favour of scamming, but this is one of those situations where a little more critical examination is needed than just accepting something because it seems to make sense. Show me the evidence. Oh right, there isn't any, just conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 This thread is almost completely off-topic and full of insulting and flaming. Locking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.