Community Feedback on How We Handle Accidental Gifting

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

So, we've had a fair bit of drama recently due to one user accidentally sending a one-sided trade offer to another and it being accepted. We have always handled these the same way - you get multiple prompts including confirmation that you're sure you want to send this trade, so holding the person accepting it accountable is not really fair. However, there's been a fair amount of complaint and discussion on whether this is the right way to handle it, and I'm always happy to take feedback from the community. I find it difficult to see a valid argument for banning, I am more open to the possibility of allowing negative trust in these cases.

 

I do not want discussion of specific cases or dragging up of drama in here. Insults towards other users will not be tolerated. Please make your arguments general in nature, and let me know why you either support the way we have done things in the past or why you think we should change things.

 

One argument that could be made is that we do allow positive trust for returning items sent in error, so the logical inverse would be to allow negative trust for items not returned.

[Erik]

I think it also applies when it's the other way around, when you mess up and the person gives back the keys/unusuals then this is worth a +trust because it shows that the person is trustworthy. If he sends you your $100 hats back, then sure he could be trusted in a $20 spy crab, right?

 

For example, I once sold a Burning Bonnet (worth around 80 at the time) for 11 keys through my bot. The person who bought it was willing to sell it back to me 16 keys, so a 5 key compensation. I thought that was pretty reasonable and generous. I left a positive trust rating for this user because, which unfortunately got removed. It shows that the person was trustworthy and therefore worth a +trust.

 

When people deliberately do NOT return your hats, despite you friendly asking, then it shows (in my eyes) that this person is a terrible person and not trustworthy. I definitely wouldn't do a PayPal trade with someone who isn't willing to even compensate or return hats. On the other hand, if someone returns you $500 in hats, then surely you can do a $30 PayPal transaction with this person. 

 

So not returning hats definitely makes a person less trustworthy in my eyes. It's not ban worthy, obviously, but (depending on the situation) I think a -trust would be appropriate. 

 

 

 

[rafiozol]

In a case like mentioned before that trader clicked through all notifications because it's a habit there should be no punishment for accepting one side trade like this.

Receiving party had no agreement with sending party and on top of that there is this prompt that is annoying enough (unless you use some sort of quicksell scripts that turn off those notifications) to not miss it in most of the cases, then you have this notification on mobile confirmations that also should make you question your sent trade.

 

I've had one case where I returned 120 keys worth of items just because person asking for them back was very polite and in exchange got a +trust for trading back. I think +repping should be taken into consideration when those events get resolved like this but I don't think traders should be called publicly scammers because they accepted, in fact, a gift.

Although I would think twice before doing anything when person who did such a miserable mistake also try to defame me because of accepting "donation" I wouldn't even consider sending back those items.

 

people on discord already know my opinion on this because i've discussed about that the day case happened.

[Diamond jozu]

well imo,steam already made a confirmation.thy first added the email,then the trade hold followed by phone authenticator.if you fel like something should be done,i'll listen.i do feel bad when these incidents happen.

[Tony Reigns]

9 minutes ago, Erik said:

I think it also applies when it's the other way around, when you mess up and the person gives back the keys/unusuals then this is worth a +trust because it shows that the person is trustworthy. If he sends you your $100 hats back, then sure he could be trusted in a $20 spy crab, right?

 

For example, I once sold a Burning Bonnet (worth around 80 at the time) for 11 keys through my bot. The person who bought it was willing to sell it back to me 16 keys, so a 5 key compensation. I thought that was pretty reasonable and generous. I left a positive trust rating for this user because, which unfortunately got removed. It shows that the person was trustworthy and therefore worth a +trust.

 

When people deliberately do NOT return your hats, despite you friendly asking, then it shows (in my eyes) that this person is a terrible person and not trustworthy. I definitely wouldn't do a PayPal trade with someone who isn't willing to even compensate or return hats. On the other hand, if someone returns you $500 in hats, then surely you can do a $30 PayPal transaction with this person. 

 

So not returning hats definitely makes a person less trustworthy in my eyes. It's not ban worthy, obviously, but (depending on the situation) I think a -trust would be appropriate. 

 

 

 

I do agree that something like this is deserving of a +trust. However I'm not sure if it would warrant a -trust if users* weren't willing to give the item(s) back. Does it make them a shitty person? Absolutely but I'm just not sure if it makes them untrustworthy as a whole.

 

Personally I wouldn't want to trade them just because it's a scummy thing to do since if the tables were turned, they'd beg for their items back. But if not for the negative trust, how would I know that they do stuff like this? Unsure. Going a bit deeper into the criteria for negative trust, if somebody overpays 10 keys, does that warrant a negative trust if the trader refuses to return it? How about 1 key or 1 ref?

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

Just now, Tony Reigns said:

Personally I wouldn't want to trade them just because it's a scummy thing to do since if the tables were turned, they'd beg for their items back. But if not for the negative trust, how would I know that they do stuff like this? Unsure. Going a bit deeper into the criteria for negative trust, if somebody overpays 10 keys, does that warrant a negative trust if the trader refuses to return it? How about 1 key or 1 ref?

 

This would only apply to one-sided trades I suppose, as otherwise we're getting into arbitrary value judgements about the worth of items in the trade.

 

I think part of my reluctance is because of what you said - how would you know if they don't have the neg trust... well the thing there is, there are thousands of people who would have accepted that offer and just never had it sent to them. Most of them are probably still trustworthy in any risky trade with a trade agreement. Does penalising the more high profile people who happen to get reports and drama threads really help anything? 

[Diamond jozu]

Just now, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

This would only apply to one-sided trades I suppose, as otherwise we're getting into arbitrary value judgements about the worth of items in the trade.

 

I think part of my reluctance is because of what you said - how would you know if they don't have the neg trust... well the thing there is, there are thousands of people who would have accepted that offer and just never had it sent to them. Most of them are probably still trustworthy in any risky trade with a trade agreement. Does penalising the more high profile people who happen to get reports and drama threads really help anything? 

the thing is,this whole thing is under steam.based on steam,this isnt an offense or anything but if punishment is necessary,maybe you could like allow the -rep untrusts to be put on their profiles so that people will be aware.ofc no ban shall be put in

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

1 minute ago, Diamond jozu said:

the thing is,this whole thing is under steam.based on steam,this isnt an offense or anything but if punishment is necessary,maybe you could like allow the -rep untrusts to be put on their profiles so that people will be aware.ofc no ban shall be put in

 

This is part of my issue: trust isn't a punishment. Its only purpose should be to ensure that users have some warning of whether or not someone is trustworthy before they make decisions about trading with them. It's not there to say someone is a bad person or not, it's there to say if they are trustworthy or not.

[TheWiz]

3 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

This would only apply to one-sided trades I suppose, as otherwise we're getting into arbitrary value judgements about the worth of items in the trade.

 

I think part of my reluctance is because of what you said - how would you know if they don't have the neg trust... well the thing there is, there are thousands of people who would have accepted that offer and just never had it sent to them. Most of them are probably still trustworthy in any risky trade with a trade agreement. Does penalising the more high profile people who happen to get reports and drama threads really help anything? 

Would that be for all one-sided trades or would you get into arbitrary values for that too? For example, if somebody did a one-sided trade for a key, would they have the same leeway to -trust someone as say someone who sent several hundred keys worth of items by accident?

[The Wishmaster]

In real life, if someone sends you money accidentally you don't get to keep it. If you wake up tomorrow with a sum of money in your account that's not supposed to be there then you don't get to decide to keep it and spend it. It is theft. It has been prosecuted as such. I see no reason why this doesn't apply here. If you send someone items (which very clearly have a monetary value despite what you say) with the intent of something in return but accidentally forget to include their items, and then they pocket the trade - it is theft. Everyone makes mistakes. If you don't make a good faith effort to return the items when it is very clearly a mistake then you are absolutely not a trustworthy member of this community and as such should not be allowed in it.

 

Some things in advance:

1) I've seen some analogies in the reddit thread about it being like giving someone change and then having second thoughts and asking for it back. This is, frankly, a terrible analogy. The items weren't given away. There was an expectation of something in return.

 

2) No matter how many confirmations there are, that does not entitle someone to pocket the items in a sense of "oh well your fault you clicked through 3 confirmations". Yes I agree at that point there is a heavy amount of personal responsibility on the person sending the trade (for having managed to ignore all those confirmations) but that STILL does not entitle the other person to pocket the items. It is still theft.

 

3) No, this can't be seen as a donation. Nobody wakes up in the morning with a trade offer for $2000 in hats and thinks "d'aw this completely random person whom I've never met must really like me". It doesn't pass the smell test. It's not a valid defense.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

1 minute ago, TheWiz said:

Would that be for all one-sided trades or would you get into arbitrary values for that too? For example, if somebody did a one-sided trade for a key, would they have the same leeway to -trust someone as say someone who sent several hundred keys worth of items by accident?

 

Well, yeah. If they just sent someone a key and then contacted that person and said "hey, I sent that by mistake, sorry, I wanted to sent X trade could we do that or could I have the key back?" and the person said no, they could then leave a trust.

 

Would need more than just a one sided offer, would need the refusal to return the item once made aware of the error.

[Diamond jozu]

its basically,you donated me some items then you call me a thief.kek

[Tony Reigns]

Just now, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

This is part of my issue: trust isn't a punishment. Its only purpose should be to ensure that users have some warning of whether or not someone is trustworthy before they make decisions about trading with them. It's not there to say someone is a bad person or not, it's there to say if they are trustworthy or not.

Trust can be a "punishment" though. People look at the overall trust, see a negative trust and just run away instantly.

 

As for your previous comment, what if a user ends up sending a lot more than the item is worth? It would appear to just be overpay but is it not the same concept? Maybe I'll overpay 10 keys for a 100 key item which wouldn't be a huge deal but maybe I'll end up overpaying a 200 key unusual. Users would just argue that "trades are final, that user just overpaid and is regretting it now", like you said.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

3 minutes ago, Tony Reigns said:

Trust can be a "punishment" though. People look at the overall trust, see a negative trust and just run away instantly.

 

As for your previous comment, what if a user ends up sending a lot more than the item is worth? It would appear to just be overpay but is it not the same concept? Maybe I'll overpay 10 keys for a 100 key item which wouldn't be a huge deal but maybe I'll end up overpaying a 200 key unusual. Users would just argue that "trades are final, that user just overpaid and is regretting it now", like you said.

 

I know people see it that way, but that is not its purpose. Anyone can trade with someone with negative trust, the content is just there to warn them for things to look out for.

 

Eh that gets into sharking and arbitrary value judgements which we don't get involved with unless there's proof of deception.

[Tony Reigns]

1 minute ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

I know people see it that way, but that is not its purpose. Anyone can trade with someone with negative trust, the content is just there to warn them for things to look out for.

 

Eh that gets into sharking and arbitrary value judgements which we don't get involved with unless there's proof of deception.

I wouldn't say that's sharking. I'm saying what if for example I'm trying to buy your 1000 key unusual with my 1100 key unusual(s) and I accidentally add an extra unusual. You can claim that it's just overpay for your unusual and I can claim that it was a misclick. It all depends on where we draw the line.

[appy]

I like the trust idea, to be honest.In a cash trade it is almost the same just with a trade agreement.The trust comment would simply be a warning, if the other user is willing to trust that guy sure let them do it, the trust is just to inform users that the person may not be for the highest moral standards. I would say it would definitely make me uncomfortable trading with a person who had a history of accepting a onesided offer and not returning but maybe others would be cool with it. 

Btw with the trust thing we are talk ONLY about one-sided trade offers that were made my mistake.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

3 minutes ago, Tony Reigns said:

I wouldn't say that's sharking. I'm saying what if for example I'm trying to buy your 1000 key unusual with my 1100 key unusual(s) and I accidentally add an extra unusual. You can claim that it's just overpay for your unusual and I can claim that it was a misclick. It all depends on where we draw the line.

 

Right but what I mean is that it has similar issues to sharking in terms of arbitrary value judgements. In that case, we'd need a broken trade agreement, it wouldn't fall under the topic of this thread.

[appy]

Just now, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

Right but what I mean is that it has similar issues to sharking in terms of arbitrary value judgements. In that case, we'd need a broken trade agreement, it wouldn't fall under the topic of this thread.

I dont think we should get into unfair trades. Also steamrep already bans for broken agreement(a guy put a burning tc instead of a n&b one a while back :/)

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

4 minutes ago, appy said:

I dont think we should get into unfair trades. Also steamrep already bans for broken agreement(a guy put a burning tc instead of a n&b one a while back :/)

 

That's a slightly different situation where the person sending an offer deliberately switches out one item with a similar one in order to deceive. It's called a quickswitch scam, and we, and SR, ban for that, yes. But what we're talking about here is a case where someone sends the wrong item in error and it hurts THEM not the person they're sending it to, so they request a tradeback. Either way, it doesn't really apply to the topic of this thread.

[Tony Reigns]

8 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

Right but what I mean is that it has similar issues to sharking in terms of arbitrary value judgements. In that case, we'd need a broken trade agreement, it wouldn't fall under the topic of this thread.

Alright that's fair. The only reason I'm somewhat against this is because of what you said before:

 

27 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

there is, there are thousands of people who would have accepted that offer and just never had it sent to them. Most of them are probably still trustworthy in any risky trade with a trade agreement. Does penalising the more high profile people who happen to get reports and drama threads really help anything? 

Should a trustworthy user end up getting a negative trust for taking a free key? They'd be a shitter for sure but is that warranted? A few years back, I once made the same mistake and sent a trusted PayPal trader a free 2 keys once, guy refused to give it back and laughed at me(his backpack was a few thousand $). He was still trustworthy but he was a dick. He later got banned on TF2OP for being an asshole/rude to staff, what goes around usually comes around . However for situations where large amounts of money are lost due to one sided trades, I absolutely agree that a negative trust is warranted.

 

I guess I can't really be on both sides here, at the end a negative trust is probably warranted...However trust would have to be monitored more strictly due to the fact that whenever somebody scams, usually the victim gets all their friends to go add a negative trust for the exact same thing. This cannot be the case for this type of offense.

[appy]

2 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

That's a slightly different situation where the person sending an offer deliberately switches out one item with a similar one in order to deceive. It's called a quickswitch scam, and we, and SR, ban for that, yes. But what we're talking about here is a case where someone sends the wrong item in error and it hurts THEM not the person they're sending it to, so they request a tradeback. Either way, it doesn't really apply to the topic of this thread.

no this was a case of the guy making a mistake - https://forums.steamrep.com/threads/report-76561198022541315-tf2-team-fortress-2-items.81461/

steamrep banned for broken trade agreement

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

3 minutes ago, Tony Reigns said:

Should a trustworthy user end up getting a negative trust for taking a free key? They'd be a shitter for sure but is that warranted? I once made the same mistake and sent a trusted PayPal trader a free 2 keys once, guy refused to give it back and laughed at me(his backpack was a few thousand $). He was still trustworthy but he was a dick. He later got banned on TF2OP for being an asshole/rude to staff, what goes around usually comes around. However for situations where large amounts of money are lost due to one sided trades, I absolutely agree that a negative trust is warranted.

 

I guess I can't really be on both sides here, at the end a negative trust is probably warranted...However trust would have to be monitored more strictly due to the fact that whenever somebody scams, usually the victim gets all their friends to go add a negative trust for the exact same thing. This cannot be the case for this type of offence.

 

 

Well that's the issue I'm having. Accepting an offer obviously sent in error makes someone a complete asshole, no doubt, but does it necessarily make them untrustworthy? It's not logically consistent to me to apply a rule only in high value trades. I mean where would we even draw that line. More arbitrary value judgements. 1 key is a huge amount to some traders. 

 

In terms of monitoring trust - never gonna happen. We work on reports. There's simply too much trust to actively monitor it. I browse it occasionally when I have time, but that's the most I can do.

 

1 minute ago, appy said:

no this was a case of the guy making a mistake - https://forums.steamrep.com/threads/report-76561198022541315-tf2-team-fortress-2-items.81461/

steamrep banned for broken trade agreement

 

Ok. We're talking about cases with no trade agreement in this thread.

[naknak]

A lot of people think that playground rules like "finders keepers" apply here.   The law is much more stringent and regards keeping mistaken remittances as theft - a serious crime.  It's been in the news a few times:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/sep/25/fraud-accept-too-much-change

https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2013/feb/09/bank-error-your-favour-spending-it-theft

http://www.budgetsaresexy.com/accidental-bank-money-not-yours-to-keep/

https://www.ncconsumer.org/news-articles-eg/using-money-mistakenly-deposited-into-your-account.html

https://www.money.co.uk/guides/can-you-keep-money-accidentally-paid-into-your-bank-account.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/05/australian-teenager-went-on-the-run-after-bank-accidentally-gave/

 

Highlights:

Quote

a Pennsylvania couple quit their jobs and fled the state after withdrawing $175,000 (£110,000) that had mistakenly been credited to their account. They were arrested in Florida.

 

Quote

over the next several weeks, he made several withdrawals from his account and spent all but $2,000 of the money before his bank traced their error back to his account.

While the bank is ultimately responsible for replacing lost monies in such situations, this account-holder was charged by the local police with receiving stolen property and theft of property lost by mistake.

 

Quote

In court last year, one half of the couple, Leo Gao, said: "A lot of people say: 'You're lucky, like winning the lottery'. I say: 'Nothing worse could happen to you'." He was later sentenced to four years and seven months in prison.

 

Quote

Christine Jiaxin Lee, now 21, was arrested at Sydney airport trying to flee to Malaysia after allegedly using funds made available to her due to a “glitch” by Westpac, one of Australia’s biggest banks.

 

There are gray areas - like if the person thought the payment was legitimate.   But in cases where a recipient knowingly kept money that didn't belong to them, courts in every western country agree that that is theft.

 

I will leave "what should backpack.tf's position on theft be?" as a question for another thread.

[Tony Reigns]

2 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

 

Well that's the issue I'm having. Accepting an offer obviously sent in error makes someone a complete asshole, no doubt, but does it necessarily make them untrustworthy? It's not logically consistent to me to apply a rule only in high value trades. I mean where would we even draw that line. More arbitrary value judgements. 1 key is a huge amount to some traders. 

 

In terms of monitoring trust - never gonna happen. We work on reports. There's simply too much trust to actively monitor it. I browse it occasionally when I have time, but that's the most I can do.

 

Yeah, this is a tough call. Hard to pinpoint where the line must be drawn...

 

And sorry "monitoring trust" was the wrong thing to say. There must be rules added to stop something like that happening though, so if the trusts were reported, they'd be dealt with. Have 10 -trusts for the same trade not being refunded is just unreasonable.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

Just now, Tony Reigns said:

Yeah, this is a tough call. Hard to pinpoint where the line must be drawn...

 

And sorry "monitoring trust" was the wrong thing to say. There must be rules added to stop something like that happening though, so if the trusts were reported, they'd be dealt with. Have 10 -trusts for the same trade not being refunded is just unreasonable.

 

If they were reported, they'd be removed. Duplicate trust isn't generally left up if reported, unless the user is banned or marked in which case who cares.