have a nice day Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Bigmac even if you were not able to check steam rep you should have at least been able to check his bp.tf and OP profile. This is your fault and you paid for it. + as said your hat you traded was worth well over $3000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woifi The Viking Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 I just compare the burning pullover to the level 3 mass duped burning tc now. Both are worth around the same probably, you get instantly marked for trading for the TC (yes even on SR) so why not for the pullover as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 Also if you want (big mac ) read this : http://forums.steamrep.com/threads/ask-a-steamrep-staff-member.19358/page-36#post-283634 I've had a read and he banned me without giving me the opportunity to respond. A couple things on this: He said "You not understanding the rules is the first problem: (then said) The rules you quote have been in discussion for rewrite/re-evaluation since December, I'm in the process of rewriting them, and original plan was that I would have pushed them live last monday, June 1st. In saying the current rules don't apply is like saying our privacy statement can also not apply, I feel to be legit and transparent you should be following your advertised rules, with this statement he is saying we can ban you for what ever the f we want, we just need to say we are thinking about or are changing the rules. Defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others. The status on SteamRep is the direct results of your own actions.No it's not, it's due to the judgement of SteamRep and other partners which much of the community believes it's not warranted.. the SteamRep / FoG judgement on a non scamming related issue has defamed me... but lets move beyond my case, there are many traders who have shown to be incorrectly marked and others who have waited many years for an appeal to be looked at. This falls under Defame, SteamRep has defamed people, incorrect rulings have been admitted, you can not argue or deny this. Restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying Steam services, software or other content.Its specific to STEAM services, we're not inhibiting you to use them. Any game server has a ban system, this includes the servers and sites of friend and partner communities of SteamRep. They are FREE to ban anyone from their services for any reason they like, including from a central system like SteamRep that provides any who wants a API to check if someone is on our banlist with their own services. Valve even DEMANDS them to use it for their automated steam trading bots (https://www.reddit.com/r/tf2/comments/35da06/steamrep_has_issues_but_you_fail_to_consider_the/ oh, wait, you have been banned from Reddit by the Reddit admins for harassment)No It's not specific to Steam Services it's also software and content as stated.... by the nature of your system and partnerships you are restricting users from enjoying Steam Content by telling people you are not allowed to trade with someone otherwise we will ban you are restrict the ability for you to enjoy content. Harvest or otherwise collect information about others, including e-mail addresses.You use our services (forum) and our partner's and friends services. As part of that they, and we, log things automatically. By using these services you agree to terms we and they have set for services we and they have set for that. You don't need to use these services. You using SteamRep to verify trading partners indirectly implies you are using SteamRep and its various partner and friends community's services.This is my main and only real concern... I have a concern that I have created an account for my nephew and that account is now public and attached to mine, his account should not be attached to mine and showcased on SR and having it attached is a breach of privacy, this data was not collected from your website, and I did not give you permission to use it... if it was in your TOS that you can then I no longer choose to use your services and will like it removed. I had placed it in the FoG appeal but it was on SR before the appeal, I will like to request it being removed. Create a false identity for the purpose of misleading others.Oh, wait....that's not what you want to talk aboutI have not created a false identity to mislead others, feel free to show an example. So i'm happy to talk about it. But yeah I'll rather leave it at that, I know myself I have not scammed anyone and people shouldn't fear trading me but I'm forced to work inside what I feel is this void systems, I don't want to get anyone marked on account of me so I won't be completing any traders in the next 3 months / move items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 More of convenience than anything personal. A mod will provide proper reasoning for a scamming or something SR would handle-related ban if needed. All I can say is make a professional appeal but keep your hopes low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 Ultimately, if it's very clear you were purposely trying to profit from scammed or stolen items, you deserve a BANNED tag at admin discretion. You quoting this just highlights my issue. How it was clear that I was purposely trying to profit from scammed or stolen items? I should probably say How it is it not clear that I was not purposely trying to profit from scammed or stolen items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 You quoting this just highlights my issue. How it was clear that I was purposely trying to profit from scammed or stolen items? I should probably say How it is it not clear that I was not purposely trying to profit from scammed or stolen items. The point is, you helped a scammer in profit. They scammed an item, anything will give them profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 The point is, you helped a scammer in profit. They scammed an item, anything will give them profit. Read the rule in the bullet points, this is what I am discussing. I am discussing the current rules and not an incoming rule, Ultimately, if it's very clear you were purposely trying to profit from scammed or stolen items, you deserve a BANNED tag at admin discretion. Can you prove clearly that I was purposely trying to profit off this trade? If so please explain. SR response to this is that they were meant to change the rules, there is no transparency here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Read the rule in the bullet points, this is what I am discussing. I am discussing the current rules and not an incoming rule, Ultimately, if it's very clear you were purposely trying to profit from scammed or stolen items, you deserve a BANNED tag at admin discretion. Can you prove clearly that I was purposely trying to profit off this trade? If so please explain I know where you're coming from, but once again, you still helped a scammer to profit, whether you profited or not. And it's been said time and time again, TF2 Outpost is the safest way to check if a person is banned. "SteamRep is down" isn't really a valid excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 I know where you're coming from, but once again, you still helped a scammer to profit, whether you profited or not. Can you show me where in the rules it says helping a scammer to profit is a banable offense? I am not saying it should not be a bannable offense, people who are knowingly helping scammers profit should receive bans but this wasn't the case with me and if they are banning people for this the rules should reflect that. Telling people they don't understand the rules because we haven't posted them is pretty unprofessional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Can you show me where in the rules it says helping a scammer to profit is a banable offense? I am not saying it should not be a bannable offense, people who are knowingly helping scammers profit should receive bans but this wasn't the case with me and if they are banning people for this the rules should reflect that. Telling people they don't understand the rules because we haven't posted them is pretty unprofessional. Honestly, it's best you appeal than continue with this thread, because we can't help much outside the moderators. I'm not saying you're SOL with getting unbanned, but there's not much we as a small community-ran forum can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 Honestly, it's best you appeal than continue with this thread, because we can't help much outside the moderators. I'm not saying you're SOL with getting unbanned, but there's not much we as a small community-ran forum can do. Thanks mate, I've appealed it, it's been denied... possible downgrade to cation in 3 months. but yeah i really didn't create this thread to discuss my issue. I'm simply answering to comments that referring to my case. So yeah it's best to stop talking about my case and I'll rather it stay on the topic of FoG having the power to ban over rule other communities judgement. Polar has giving a insight to it and it's always good to get clear insights from admins. I don't agree with it but it's what's in place and I just hope that highlighting these gaps could help promote some improvements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Thanks mate, but yeah i really didn't create this thread to discuss my issue. I'm simply answering to comments that referring to my case. So yeah it's best to stop talking about my case and I'll rather it stay on the topic of FoG having the power to ban over rule other communities judgement. No problem. Wish you luck on your appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja Otter Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Look, if any community disagreed with our ban, they would most likely take it up with SR, the only reason you're posting this thread here is because you've run out of places to spew bullshit from, you were banned from posting on the SR forums for 6 months for shitposting constantly over the fact that we banned you. SR do not feel like we were wrong to have applied a full ban to your account, and because of that no other community will feel like this ban is unjust, we followed the SR guidelines and rules when handling your case and all cases, BP.TF agreed to the same rules when they started to use the SR API and therefore our bans are also applicable on BP.TF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 Look, if any community disagreed with our ban, they would most likely take it up with SR, the only reason you're posting this thread here is because you've run out of places to spew bullshit from, you were banned from posting on the SR forums for 6 months for shitposting constantly over the fact that we banned you. SR do not feel like we were wrong to have applied a full ban to your account, and because of that no other community will feel like this ban is unjust, we followed the SR guidelines and rules when handling your case and all cases, BP.TF agreed to the same rules when they started to use the SR API and therefore our bans are also applicable on BP.TF. Hey Ninja, I'll rather keep things civil. I am not spewing bullshit, everything I am saying is factual.. without using assumptions what have I said that is not factual? My issue is that, backpack.tf as well as other communities have seen a case and not feel It should be a perm banned offense on their service.. as an example backpack.tf could ban someone for 1 week for a certain case but FoG could have their own feeling towards that case and feel that that case should be a perm ban on their own service. I don't have an issue with that, your free to judge as you please on your own services. What we have is separate companies / groups with separate processes and thoughts on how an issue should be handled but with the current structure if FoG feels one way but other communities feel another the FoG ruling ripples through to the other communities and overrules their rulings. FoG is free and should be free to not want me using their services but I don't think they should be entitled to over rule and have their judgement placed other communities. Another issue is that FoG has been ruling against the rules of SteamRep, no where does it say my case in particular that I should have received a banned marking. I will assume these are the rules other communities have been following. Which SR rule says that I should have been marked as banned? I have highlighted how none do, the current rule is clear in saying that for a first time offense you can only be marked if it was clear that the trade was for profit. It should be clear that this trade was not done for profit, you can have your thoughts and assumptions about thinking it's bullshit that I didn't know or didn't check but that is besides the point as the rules don't state anything about knowing or not knowing. I will think for professionalism, consistency, fairness and mostly transparency that you should be adhering the the current rule set of SteamRep when placing bans on SteamRep. This was not done and saying that the rules are changing is not a professional and transparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Дебра Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 -snip- You are spewing bullshit, just appeal in 3 months and keep silent until then. Every post you make just hurts your chance of appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 You are spewing bullshit, just appeal in 3 months and keep silent until then. Every post you make just hurts your chance of appealing. Which part is bullshit? Add some substance please. Lets keep this as a civil discussion where facts are stated and highlighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
λngelღмander Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 In response to everything you have said, Milz, I just have a few concerns with your argument. You say that it was during steamrep's downtime that you made this trade, but is it not true that the user was banned on backpack.tf and outpost at the time of trade? When steamrep was down, it was your responsibility to check other places, as most trading websites ban people who are unsafe to trade with. I don't agree with some of the rules that steamrep has set down, sure, but I understand that it is not my choice, and that steamrep does what it wants. Whether you like it or not, you traded with someone who was marked, and even if steamrep was down, backpack.tf and outpost weren't also down at the same time. Outpost would have had a ban reason stating that the user was banned for being marked/scamming, and backpack.tf probably would have them listed as banned as well. I don't know you very well, but from what I've heard of your reputation, I think if you waited a while, you could possibly get your mark down to a caution. A permanent caution isn't the death sentence that a mark is. You would be unbanned by backpack.tf if you were cautioned, most likely, but never by outpost. However, there is nothing that the backpack.tf forums can do. The simple fact of the matter is, though, that while you are marked on steamrep, you MUST be banned on any credible trading website. If you were not banned on backpack.tf, then you could still sell your items here, and that would be dangerous for traders using the backpack.tf service, as they could assume you were safe to trade with and check no further. Because of the danger of trading with you, until your ban is gone, you can not be unbanned by backpack.tf. There is really little more anyone on this forum can do for you except repeat the same thing over again: Wait a few months and appeal. Any further posting will get you the same reply over and over, and you'll only find yourself personally attacked. For your own sake, just give it some time. If you can convince the people who banned you that you didn't mean to trade with a marked scammer, and you can be beneficial to the community, then you will see a second chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 Hey Angel, I can't confirm if they were banned on outpost and backpack.tf at the time as I did not check them, I will think they were though. I really hadn't every viewed backpack.tf and outpost as a rep checking tool, someone could be banned on either but not SR tagged. But I understand now how it's a good place to check for at least an insight due to this experience. I had only ever been checking SR for tags before trades for many years, many / most years of which bp.tf and outpost didn't exist... call it a force of habbit but at the time that's all I checked but not checking non rep checking tools shouldn't be a ban worthy offense though. Being marked for trading with a scammer hasn't always been around, it used to be check SR to see if you are at risk yourself when conducting a trade, checking SR before a trade wasn't always forced on you as it is now. Trading didn't have to stop when SR was down, and frankly it should not be expected to. SR was first designed for someone to check that they aren't going to get scammed themselves but over the years processes changed myself I traded less and less and became less involved in the community and while to some it's very common that someone "Earl" is a scammer and that there's certain new requirements and responsibilities for traders to adhear to, it's not as obvious to others. I'm trying to explain my perspective as best as possible as a lot of my marking has to do with, I have been around for so long and should have known better. But this is besides the point, nothing in the SR rules indication you can be banned for knowingly or unknowingly trading with a marked user. The rules point out that to receive a ban it must be clear that you completed the trade for profit, this was not the case as I had highly overpaid and according to the rules I should not be banned. I don't see how being vocal of concerns should impact my appeal, if it does then that highlights more issues and so be it, I like to think that there's still a level of freedom of speech. I was not looking to discuss my case, I was looking to discuss what I believe is a flaw in the current system where FoG has the ability to over rule all, this should be a clear issue. But yeah I thought I'll highlight my concerns, I think they are justifiable concerns and people can choose to discuss or ignore them, I am not looking to create multiple threads and cause drama here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
λngelღмander Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Hey Angel, I can't confirm if they were banned on outpost and backpack.tf at the time as I did not check them, I will think they were though. I really hadn't every viewed backpack.tf and outpost as a rep checking tool, someone could be banned on either but not SR tagged. But I understand now how it's a good place to check for at least an insight due to this experience. I had only ever been checking SR for tags before trades for many years, many / most years of which bp.tf and outpost didn't exist... call it a force of habbit but at the time that's all I checked but not checking non rep checking tools shouldn't be a ban worthy offense though. Being marked for trading with a scammer hasn't always been around, it used to be check SR to see if you are at risk yourself when conducting a trade, checking SR before a trade wasn't always forced on you as it is now. Trading didn't have to stop when SR was down, and frankly it should not be expected to. SR was first designed for someone to check that they aren't going to get scammed themselves but over the years processes changed myself I traded less and less and became less involved in the community and while to some it's very common that someone "Earl" is a scammer and that there's certain new requirements and responsibilities for traders to adhear to, it's not as obvious to others. I'm trying to explain my perspective as best as possible as a lot of my marking has to do with, I have been around for so long and should have known better. But this is besides the point, nothing in the SR rules indication you can be banned for knowingly or unknowingly trading with a marked user. The rules point out that to receive a ban it must be clear that you completed the trade for profit, this was not the case as I had highly overpaid and according to the rules I should not be banned. I don't see how being vocal of concerns should impact my appeal, if it does then that highlights more issues and so be it, I like to think that there's still a level of freedom of speech. I was not looking to discuss my case, I was looking to discuss what I believe is a flaw in the current system where FoG has the ability to over rule all, this should be a clear issue. But yeah I thought I'll highlight my concerns, I think they are justifiable concerns and people can choose to discuss or ignore them, I am not looking to create multiple threads and cause drama here. If/when you decide to appeal, trying to appeal using the technicality of never having traded 'for profit' will not work. The fact that the trade occurred is what they care about, trying to bend their rules against them will only serve to make them angry. Your best bet is to apologize for making the trade in the first place, promise to be diligent the next time, and be a good influence on the community in the mean time. The rules don't matter as much as the admin's opinions. The admins have decided to ban you, so appeal to them, not the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pomp Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 fog is a steamrip affiliate, backpack.tf "respects" steamrip bans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 If/when you decide to appeal, trying to appeal using the technicality of never having traded 'for profit' will not work. The fact that the trade occurred is what they care about, trying to bend their rules against them will only serve to make them angry. Your best bet is to apologize for making the trade in the first place, promise to be diligent the next time, and be a good influence on the community in the mean time. The rules don't matter as much as the admin's opinions. The admins have decided to ban you, so appeal to them, not the rules. Hey Angel find out what they banned me under and you will see they are bending the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffyy Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Dude, I'm sure the SR admins have answered any of your questions already considering you spammed 5 threads along with your 1 or more appeals on SteamRep. They were more than clear in their responses and you should be thankful your forum privileges were not revoked on there considering they banned some people for ONE post on the Wayne/D0 report. http://forums.steamrep.com/forums/steamrep-general-discussion.2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 Dude, I'm sure the SR admins have answered any of your questions already considering you spammed 5 threads along with your 1 or more appeals on SteamRep. They were more than clear in their responses and you should be thankful your forum privileges were not revoked on there considering they banned some people for ONE post on the Wayne/D0 report. http://forums.steamrep.com/forums/steamrep-general-discussion.2/ Hey, I didn't have an appeal on SR... they won't hear out an appeal due to the 3 month appeal time on FoG. They kept closing threads, I wasn't able to have a discussion there and I was then banned. But yeah this thread isn't to discuss my case it's to discuss why FoG has power over backpack.tf regarding bans, but I understand that backpack.tf has left the trust in SR who in turn has put their trust in FoG I understand this, I don't agree with it but it is what it is. I'm just highlighting my concern is that FoG bans someone incorrectly, then that person is banned everywhere and they can only appeal to FoG, I just think it's putting to much power in their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffyy Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Hey, I didn't have an appeal on SR... they won't hear out an appeal due to the 3 month appeal time on FoG. They kept closing threads, I wasn't able to have a discussion there and I was then banned. But yeah this thread isn't to discuss my case it's to discuss why FoG has power over backpack.tf regarding bans, but I understand that backpack.tf has left the trust in SR who in turn has put their trust in FoG I understand this, I don't agree with it but it is what it is. I'm just highlighting my concern is that FoG bans someone incorrectly, then that person is banned everywhere and they can only appeal to FoG, I just think it's putting to much power in their hands. They wouldn't ban someone incorrectly, and if they did it would be corrected promptly. Your ban was completely justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milz187 Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 They wouldn't ban someone incorrectly, and if they did it would be corrected promptly. Your ban was completely justified. My ban was under the guideline "Ultimately, if it's very clear you were purposely trying to profit from scammed or stolen items, you deserve a BANNED tag at admin discretion." Going off that and the fact I overpaid for the item it should be very clear that the ban was not justified. For them to have marked me on a 1st offense they need to have followed the guidelines and the guidelines are clear in saying that I need to have been looking to make profit. It is evident I overpaid and was not looking to make profit. The below chat is from me and Tio who is both a FoG and SR mod, he confirms this is the reasoning for my ban. It's also hinted imo that my ban is more to do with me being vocal about issues. Much respect to him for sparing some time to chat with me. You will see he states that that is the reason for my ban. Link: https://vid.me/lUH5 (pause as i scroll down) In between the two there were 2 lines of him saying I need to eat... I then moved to my tablet Continuation of chat (moved to my tablet) http://postimg.org/image/ajlnt0ljt/full/ He also states that the rules are meant to mean also giving them profit, this is not what the guidelines reads and if that's the case then anyone on their first attempt can be marked as a scammer. The guidelines are as they are for a reason and I feel they are looking to tweak it's meaning (which is very clear) to justify the ban. I'll also note that previously I've highlighted a conflict of interest on the SR forum, this was a long debate and I noted that it was a clear conflict of interest that a mod can be both a spokesperson for a partner as well as SR. As an example if a partner was to do something misleading / against the guidelines but they are also part of the SR group then things could get overlooked. It can cause a conflict of interest where if I had an issue with one community it could filter into another, But yeah I don't want to complicate things, I'll rather keep it simple if you want to reference my case and say that I have been banned against the guidelines of "My ban was under the guideline "Ultimately, if it's very clear you were purposely trying to profit from scammed or stolen items, you deserve a BANNED tag at admin discretion." I was not purposely trying to profit, thus this is not a justified guideline to use to ban me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.