Do you think one should be marked for trading with scammers/scammer alts?

[zirune]

How the fuck are you supposed to know he stole something earlier that day, thats such a shitty comparison considering theres no steamrep irl to know what they did and no way to tell if he is shady or not and getting marked is nowhere near getting "shut down" considering you can still trade

 

And the answer would still be no cause its a first offense and "Walmart" would receive a warning or caution if it was a second offense at least put some effort into your steamrep vendetta

 

There's no way to tell if people are shady even with Steamrep. There are plenty of people marked on Steamrep for trivial things (running from a spycrab several years ago, for example), or just for trading with people who traded with scammers. Are those people shady? A lot of them, no. Some of them, yes. Steamrep's mark means practically nothing in relation to the shadiness of those people.

 

Not every scammer is marked, either. I mean, we just had a huge discussion over what counts as an "obvious scammer alt", and the answer is it's not obvious. There are plenty of people with legitimate-looking accounts that are "shady", but there's no way to tell they're shady because nothing they do is shady. It would be like walking into a Walmart, buying something at 20% off, and then being arrested for supporting a drug ring. No reasonable person would think that a Walmart is involved in a drug ring, whether they actually are or not.

 

Buying of Scammers or a Fence is part of the big and evergrowing scamming problem that haunts Steam. Imagine no one would buy from Scammers. They would go "out of business" soon.

 

That'll literally never happen. Never. Not only is it impossible to identify everything that's been stolen and everybody that's stolen something, it's impossible to stop them from trading. Even if you could, what's to stop people from making more accounts, or buying them? Do you think if somebody gets marked with a $500 inventory that they'll throw their hands up in the air and say "Welp, you got me!" No, they're going to get an alt account and sell everything.

 

People still trade after they get marked. Hell, I've seen a person who was marked several years ago and has had their backpack value go up by a couple thousand dollars since then, very clearly through trading.

 

Trying to be the world police is pointless, and in many cases counterproductive. Giving non-scammers the same punishment as scammers is a terrible practice that likely does almost nothing to deter actual scammers.

[fluffyy]

There's no way to tell if people are shady even with Steamrep. There are plenty of people marked on Steamrep for trivial things (running from a spycrab several years ago, for example), or just for trading with people who traded with scammers. Are those people shady? A lot of them, no. Some of them, yes. Steamrep's mark means practically nothing in relation to the shadiness of those people.

 

Not every scammer is marked, either. I mean, we just had a huge discussion over what counts as an "obvious scammer alt", and the answer is it's not obvious. There are plenty of people with legitimate-looking accounts that are "shady", but there's no way to tell they're shady because nothing they do is shady. It would be like walking into a Walmart, buying something at 20% off, and then being arrested for supporting a drug ring. No reasonable person would think that a Walmart is involved in a drug ring, whether they actually are or not.

you arent going to get punished for trading with an unmarked alt that is not fishy at all, and dont even bring up ret0rds case because that had a lot of red flags even though i would have fell for it

[zirune]

you arent going to get punished for trading with an unmarked alt that is not fishy at all, and dont even bring up ret0rds case because that had a lot of red flags even though i would have fell for it

 

That's really the crux of the situation. If a reasonable person would fail to identify a scammer alt, then why are people that do fall for it punished? In the absence of clearly defined rules, all we have to go on is what a person could reasonably discern from what they're shown. If they're not intentionally trading with scammers, how can they be punished for not realizing they are?

 

If you punish everybody who trades with scammers, regardless of how obvious those scammers are, then you catch a lot of entirely innocent people in the crossfire.

 

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

[fluffyy]

That's really the crux of the situation. If a reasonable person would fail to identify a scammer alt, then why are people that do fall for it punished? In the absence of clearly defined rules, all we have to go on is what a person could reasonably discern from what they're shown. If they're not intentionally trading with scammers, how can they be punished for not realizing they are?

 

If you punish everybody who trades with scammers, regardless of how obvious those scammers are, then you catch a lot of entirely innocent people in the crossfire.

 

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

youre just repeating what 20+ people have said in that god forsaken thread about ret0rd and i suggest you go back to there to read what sirploko said, regardless of what your opinion is, he has a point and a valid one at that

 

his account had many red flags including his very very very early steam start and low game hours with expensive items which all went against steamrep's guidelines of a scammer alt, which sirploko also highlighted

 

if i took the time to research ret0rd, including where his items come from and his game time based on months, i wouldnt have traded with him. but i deal with dozens of keys a day and i dont have the time for that and thats why i would have fell for it

 

an obvious scammer is still an obvious scammer, no matter if you have to research a bit more, and you always have the option to stay away from an account you feel is fishy, no one is forcing you

[The Penguins]

Just a reminder SteamRep only has authority because the community thinks it has authority. If all the traders spontaneously ignore SteamRep and FoG's rulings, they both would be pointless and powerless. 

[fmca]

snip

 

If you don't have the time to do that research, and many other high profile traders didn't have the time to do that research, does that not shift the emphasis onto Steamrep's onerous burden of responsibility that it places on individual traders, particularly ones who deal with "dozens of keys a day"?

 

Or do you think Steamrep's guidelines are fair and practicable? Which one is it? You said you yourself would have fallen for ret0rd's profile, would you not feel aggrieved if you were marked for trading with it? Or would you just sit back and say "well the guidelines state this has to be done, so the internet police have me bang to rights". Somehow I doubt the latter. I know I wouldn't if I was in your position.

[fluffyy]

If you don't have the time to do that research, and many other high profile traders didn't have the time to do that research, does that not shift the emphasis onto Steamrep's onerous burden of responsibility that it places on individual traders, particularly ones who deal with "dozens of keys a day"?

 

Or do you think Steamrep's guidelines are fair and practicable? Which one is it? You said you yourself would have fallen for ret0rd's profile, would you not feel aggrieved if you were marked for trading with it? Or would you just sit back and say "well the guidelines state this has to be done, so the internet police have me bang to rights". Somehow I doubt the latter. I know I wouldn't if I was in your position.

id smack myself in the ass for not putting in the time cause im lazy and then move on in life

[The Oddball]

The reason this rule exists is because SR, and it's affiliates don't want scammers to be selling items they have scammed. They will not ban you for it without a warning, and if you continuously trade with scammers, you will be marked. This rule has been negotiated so many times, and it will not be changing any time soon. II think that the rule is fine how it is, and shouldn't be changed.

[77777777777777777777777777]

The reason this rule exists is because SR, and it's affiliates don't want scammers to be selling items they have scammed. They will not ban you for it without a warning, and if you continuously trade with scammers, you will be marked. This rule has been negotiated so many times, and it will not be changing any time soon. II think that the rule is fine how it is, and shouldn't be changed.

 

But taking into consideration human nature, stolen goods are bound to get bought again. It's impossible for scammed hats not to get back into circulation eventually unless under extraordinary circumstances. I'm not trying to act offensively or anything, but your vote says otherwise.

[The Oddball]

wat

[77777777777777777777777777]

 

 

SteamRep's guidelines expect the impossible from human beings. The taboo nature of trading with a scammer is enough to entice people with a lot of funds and very little concern to trade them, more so if they have hats that have a high demand. (I know for a fact a lot of people would kill for their favorite hat with their favorite effect, per instance).

 

You've voted for the third option, but your post agrees with the 1st one.

[The Oddball]

I must've misclicked, on my phone. *dies* also you dont have to quote every time

[sirploko]

I just want to eliminate a few misconceptions that seem to go around:

 

SR does not tag you for one trade with a scammer. The guideline is three strikes and you are out, unless it can be proven that you did so knowingly.

 

Outpost has a two strike rule, but we do not issue tags for trading with scammers. We also do grant appeals, if users do not trade with any scammers during their perma anymore and a few months have passed.

 

So both SR and OP do realize that mistakes happen, but obviously people with one or two scammer trades already under their belt can not be trading as 'careless' as someone who has no strikes yet. There has to be a point where 'mistakes' can be considered negligence (at best) or intent (at worst).

 

The other issue people have brought up, that only trades with scammers should be punished, not trades with user who are banned for trading with scammers themselves:

 

If that were standard operating procedure, then all the latter users essentially could become fences for all the actual scammers. Since they do not have to fear any more reprisals for trading with scammers, they could sell all the stolen goods.

 

It also makes no difference how much of a profit you make from a trade with a scammer or if you trade them to own the item, not to resell it. If the item you are buying was stolen, anything you pay is pure profit for the scammer and encourages further scamming.

 

I realize, that we are curing the symptoms though, ideally every trader should avoid paypal trades like the plague (since most scams happen that way) and insist on wire transfer or western union, etc. Sure, there are reputable paypal buyers, but once every full moon, one of them goes rogue. Unfortunately, a large portion of the userbase is young and naive and many will take a paypal offer from a brand new account with no rep, just because it is the highest offer. Most scams rely on our own greed, to blind us to the dangers.

 

I've seen Venom offering a lot of counceling to new users who have unboxed valuable items and I would encourage others to follow suit. The more people know about scams and the importance of reputation in a trust based environment(paypal), the harder it will be for scammers to find a mark. In the meantime, it is still important to reduce the pool of potential buyers for scammed items, by having the threat of an SR tag looming.

[Дебра]

SR does not tag you for one trade with a scammer. The guideline is three strikes and you are out, unless it can be proven that you did so knowingly.

http://backpack.tf/item/388225931

 

 

It also makes no difference how much of a profit you make from a trade with a scammer or if you trade them to own the item, not to resell it. If the item you are buying was stolen, anything you pay is pure profit for the scammer and encourages further scamming.

buying non scammed goods = promoting scamming? trading with a scammer for some random crap that he unboxed/dropped in mvm/bought on the market/bought with pure he had lying around =/= promoting scamming... 

[Argos]

http://backpack.tf/item/388225931

 

 

Can you imagine how oblivious someone must be to be able to trade for a scammed Burning TC and still not know its from a marked user? I certainly can't, because its not possible.

[sirploko]

http://backpack.tf/item/388225931

 

> "unless it can be proven that you did so knowingly"

 

None of the buyers can claim ignorance when it comes to the TC. They all knew it came from a scammer.

 

buying non scammed goods = promoting scamming? trading with a scammer for some random crap that he unboxed/dropped in mvm/bought on the market/bought with pure he had lying around =/= promoting scamming... 

 

 

So you would only buy original ID items from scammers? How noble of you. And guess where the pure / wallet cash they had "lying around" most likely came from.

[77777777777777777777777777]

So you would only buy original ID items from scammers? How noble of you. And guess where the pure / wallet cash they had "lying around" most likely came from.

 

You're putting words in his mouth. He never said he'd only buy original id items from scammers. All he's saying is that one shouldn't get marked for trading for items that weren't acquired with dishonest means. It's not your place or mine to say where their pure comes from, your argument revolves around "if he stole once, he'll steal again". That's prejudice and generalizing. Furthermore, you're ignoring the main premise of his post, the burning TC, to focus on borderline off-topic matters.

[Mike Hawk]

There's also still the argument that the original scammer of the burning TC has long since profited. Trading for the hat shouldn't be grounds to mark someone anymore, and buying it doesn't help the scammer profit anymore than he already has.

[Milz187]

I just want to eliminate a few misconceptions that seem to go around:

 

SR does not tag you for one trade with a scammer. The guideline is three strikes and you are out, unless it can be proven that you did so knowingly.

 

Outpost has a two strike rule, but we do not issue tags for trading with scammers. We also do grant appeals, if users do not trade with any scammers during their perma anymore and a few months have passed.

 

So both SR and OP do realize that mistakes happen, but obviously people with one or two scammer trades already under their belt can not be trading as 'careless' as someone who has no strikes yet. There has to be a point where 'mistakes' can be considered negligence (at best) or intent (at worst).

 

 

This really didn't seem to be case with myself. I was tagged as a scammer for one trade and it was not proven that I had done so knowingly. I feel like there was a personal aspect into why I was marked.

 

I was perm banned on outpost for a first offense, post the SR marking I did not complete a trade for 3 months.. does this mean I can have my ban lifted?

[Дебра]

And guess where the pure / wallet cash they had "lying around" most likely came from.

 

maybe market, betting, paypal or even hats, pure etc they owned pre-steamrep mark. not everyone marked on steamrep is a scammer, very many 'scammers' just traded items with scammer. ru+by etc obviously didn't scam everything they already had lying around so trading with them supports scamming? there should be clear difference between trading with a actual scammer or with joe who had a 1,000 key backpack who traded with greg who traded with scammer, especially when what you trade for had no relation to why he got marked.

[sirploko]

I was perm banned on outpost for a first offense, post the SR marking I did not complete a trade for 3 months.. does this mean I can have my ban lifted?

 

You were banned by the man himself, for:

 

"You clearly neglect our authority and did not attempt to properly verify that you were trading with a scammer for high-value items. As such, you won't be allowed to participate in trading here."

 

So, that would be a definite no.

[Milz187]

You were banned by the man himself, for:

 

"You clearly neglect our authority and did not attempt to properly verify that you were trading with a scammer for high-value items. As such, you won't be allowed to participate in trading here."

 

So, that would be a definite no.

 

I did get perm banned by yourself for a first issue did I not? So you can't really be going around saying we don't perm ban users for their first attempt when clearly you have.

[sirploko]

I did get perm banned by yourself for a first issue did I not? So you can't really be going around saying we don't perm ban users for their first attempt when clearly you have.

 

In some cases we do, but they are a rare exception. We've talked about it at length, but the reason you were permbanned for that trade by me (after consultation with senior staff), is that your excuse to not have known the guy to be a scammer was not believable.

 

That's all I will say about this matter, I have wasted a lot of time arguing about this and will not continue to do so. If you feel that your appeal should get accepted, go ahead and argue your case. I am not involved in that process and frankly I'm not personally invested enough to care either.

[fmca]

 

That's all I will say about this matter, I have wasted a lot of time arguing about this and will not continue to do so. If you feel that your appeal should get accepted, go ahead and argue your case. I am not involved in that process and frankly I'm not personally invested enough to care either.

 

Glad to hear you think our concerns are a waste of time. As I've said before ploko, don't go into PR or customer relations, you don't suit it. Maybe you guys should hire someone else.

[Professional Map Painter]

"You clearly neglect our authority and did not attempt to properly verify that you were trading with a scammer for high-value items. As such, you won't be allowed to participate in trading here."

 

 

Pretty sure Sneeza simply banned him (after he'd been unbanned) because he created a reddit thread about the issue.

 

but the reason you were permbanned for that trade by me (after consultation with senior staff), is that your excuse to not have known the guy to be a scammer was not believable.

 

Earl De Darkwood only has a reputation amongst those who've been trading for years, and even then some who started trading back then may not have used SR/Outpost etc at the time. Whilst Earl's been marked for years (and Milz should have waited for SR to load), we'll probably be seeing more of these cases due to SR's inability to deal with reports. 

.