Community Feedback on How We Handle Accidental Gifting

[3.50]

1 hour ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

I will reply more at length when not at work but I would like to point out that whether or not it's legal is not a particularly strong argument for why a privately owned and run website is responsible for enforcing it. Plenty of things are against the law that have absolutely nothing to do with us. Harrassment is against the law but I'm not banning people on backpack.tf for harrassment on steam because it has nothing to do with our website. We're not the police or a court of law. I stated clearly in the OP but I'll repeat; legal arguments hold little weight with me.

 

I think that perhaps "legal arguments" should hold much more weight with you.  I'll explain why I think that, and what exactly I mean by that, and what it means for you.

 

First, you ban people from this site for being scammers.  What is scamming?  Scamming is stealing.  Therefore, you already ban people for stealing. 

 

So the only disagreement is over whether a specific action is or is not stealing, not what to do about it if it is.

 

Now, what is stealing?  Who decides what is and isn't stealing?  Well, let's think about it.

 

If you want an animal identified, you ask the accepted authority on the subject (a zoologist, a biologist, or a textbook written by one).  You could ask a group of your peers and take the answer that made the most sense to you, but you're very likely to be wrong.

If you want a disease diagnosed, you ask a doctor, as they are the accepted authority on the subject.  Again, you could ask a group of your peers and take the answer that made the most sense to you, but you're very likely to be wrong.

 

If you want a word defined, you ask the accepted authority on the subject to define it.

"Psychosis" is a psychological term.

"Bronchial" is a medical term.

"Stealing" is a legal term. 

 

So to define stealing (and decide whether or not something is stealing), you'd ask the accepted authority, which would be a lawyer, or laws on the subject.  If you ask anyone else, you're very likely to be wrong.

 

Therefore, it not only makes sense to accept the legal definition of stealing, it actually makes no sense to accept any other definition.

 

This also is not a very complicated or uncommon scenario.  Google "if someone accidentally gives you money do you get to keep it" for an idea of what I mean.  It's the exact same scenario, it happens all the time, and there is a clear consensus that it's stealing.  You don't have to dig into specific cases, or wade through pages of legal text to find the answer. 

 

Answer me this: What makes backpack.tf so different from the outside world that an issue as clearly defined as stealing might have a different definition here as opposed to in the outside world?

If you don't have a good answer to this, then I suggest you use the existing definitions.

 

Now, to be per--f***ing-fectly clear, no one is suggesting you enforce any laws!  You are obviously not the police, and no one is asking you to be the police.  The most anyone is asking is to add one specific behavior to the list of behaviors that you ban for.  One type of stealing is as relevant as any of the other types of stealing/scamming that you already ban for.  What's the difference?

 

Summary: You already ban people for stealing.  It's been established by the accepted authorities on the subject that a specific behavior is indeed stealing.  Why won't you ban people for doing it?

 

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

Whether or not it is stealing is not something you can prove using the law, because the law isn't our yardstick. Our rules are based on our judgements of what we allow or disallow in our community. There are types of scamming we will and will not ban for, because there's more factors at play than just "did a person take a thing unfairly?" It's a judgement call we are making and I am telling you that moral or practical arguments will hold more weight here than legal ones. If you wanna keep wasting your time talking legalities, feel free.

 

There are clear examples of things that are against the law that we don't punish for already. I used harassment as one in a previous post. Rules of a site =/= the law.

[3.50]

29 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

Whether or not we consider it stealing is not something you can prove using the law. It's a judgement call we are making and I am telling you that moral arguments will hold more weight here than legal ones. If you wanna keep wasting your time talking legalities, feel free.

Clearly I am wasting my time on you, because you're not even listening.  If you'd read what I wrote, it was a logical and not a "legal" argument.

 

What you "consider" stealing doesn't matter any more than what color you "consider" the sky to be.  Stealing is a word with an existing definition.  There's no judgment call to make.  Your opinion doesn't affect anything.  It's a fact that a specific scenario is stealing; that has been established. 

 

Sure, it's a private community and you can make your own rules.  No one is saying otherwise.  But you're not deciding how to handle stealing.  You're actually claiming that your opinion defines what is stealing.  That's literally equivalent to saying that you get to decide what color the sky is within this community, ignoring the rest of the world saying it's blue.  I'm not even mad--your arrogance actually impresses me.

 

35 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

If you think it's illegal and want justice under law, go to the police. We are not the police. We are a hat website.

Why do you keep insisting you aren't the police?  No one wanted anything from you besides a site ban, at worst.  That's just distracting from the argument and making you seem illogical.

 

29 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

There are clear examples of things that are against the law that we don't punish for already. I used harassment as one in a previous post. Rules of a site =/= the law.

You DO already ban for stealing, which is exactly the issue.  No one is asking you to change your rules to accommodate the law.  The suggestion is simply that some of us disagree with your definition of stealing.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

It's a logical argument based on legal definitions and precedent, which I have told you are not a factor here. The word "stealing" features nowhere in our rules, so its definition is irrelevant also. You're the one bringing it in to further your own argument.

 

What I am saying is that we ban for some things which may also be considered stealing under the law, but the fact that they are legally stealing is not the reason we ban for them and is therefore irrelevant here. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. Whether or not things are illegal is not a defining factor in our rules. We can keep talking about them but it's distracting from rather than helping your case. If you want to convince me to ban these people, think of another argument.

 

I DO NOT consider keeping items that were accidentally gifted to you in error stealing. I do consider it immoral. I don't care if some judges do consider it stealing, because the courts don't define the rules of private websites.

 

I will repeat my example and explain it further: harassment. If you harass another user on a suggestion you'll get a ban. If you harass another user on our forums you'll get a ban. If you harass another user on our discord you'll get a ban. If you harass another user on steam you will not get a ban, because it has nothing to do with this website. Harassment is illegal, but how we enforce rules on harassment is nuanced and unrelated to the law.

[3.50]

4 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

The word "stealing" features nowhere in our rules, so its definition is irrelevant also.

That was the issue; you don't ban for stealing.  I wasn't clear on that.  I was under the impression that this community made an attempt to help people, protect them from being taken advantage of, combat immoral behavior, that sort of thing. 

 

Clearly I was wrong.  I'll leave the discussion, as I don't believe moral arguments will work on someone who uses semantics as an excuse to allow immoral behavior.  I hope you don't take offense, as I mean none.  I simply don't see my input from here on out doing any good.  Thanks for at least taking the time to consider other viewpoints.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

19 minutes ago, 3.50 said:

19 minutes ago, 3.50 said:

That was the issue; you don't ban for stealing.  I wasn't clear on that.  I was under the impression that this community made an attempt to help people, protect them from being taken advantage of, combat immoral behavior, that sort of thing. 

 

Clearly I was wrong.  I'll leave the discussion, as I don't believe moral arguments will work on someone who uses semantics as an excuse to allow immoral behavior.  I hope you don't take offense, as I mean none.  I simply don't see my input from here on out doing any good.  Thanks for at least taking the time to consider other viewpoints.

 

Give me a break. This is a private website run for profit. We have rules in place that try to encourage fair trading and positive interactions between community members, but no I'm not going to use bans as leverage to force people to return items sent to them in error, just like I'm also not going to add every new trader in the classifieds, forums, or discord to thoroughly educate them on safe steam trading. I'm not a superhero here to save you, I'm the admin of a website. Acting like this is our role is preposterous, and thinking that guilting us will work as a tactic to get what you want is foolish. 

 

You have made no moral arguments despite me specifically suggesting that I would value those higher. You are the one making semantic arguments, I'm just picking them apart.

 

You're also completely ignoring (repeatedly) a clear example of the same thing, which you apparently have no objection to. Do you think we should ban people for harassment on steam? How about facebook? How about IRL in school?

 

[Rosalina]

Lava basically summed up most of what I would say.

 

I also think if you want a reason to ban them... Just ban them for being immoral and toxic: someone you don't want on your site. That's it. Nothing else to be said. No +rep or -rep for returning items or keeping them. No BS. That's it. If you don't like how someone acts, you remove them from the community. 

[naknak]

9 hours ago, RED265 said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2012/12/04/what-is-the-legal-status-of-virtual-goods/#11980cc108a2

 

That's from 2012.  It's one guy's theory.  Such theories about "outdated law" are always overblown.  Our laws are written in a general way for a reason, and courts have a multi-century track record of adapting to change.  In practice, courts have no problem recognizing that these things have value and that ownership can be established using existing legal principles:

 

Quote

In Tucows.Com Co. v Lojas Renner S.A. [2011] O.J. No. 3576, the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized that virtual items—in this case, Internet domain names—attracted “property rights” and were “property” in Ontario for the purpose of determining where a lawsuit about a domain name ought to occur.

 

Quote

UK courts at least are clear that virtual currency is pretty much analogous to real-world currency and that fraud is fraud

 

Anyway, property status doesn't matter when property isn't a prerequisite, merely "unjust enrichment". 

 

Property status is important when you're talking about the party that claims to own the virtual items (Valve, or a bank).   A bank can loan out your savings account, become insolvent, and pay you nothing without anyone going to prison for theft.  Valve can take your items.  A domain registrar may or may not be able to take your domain name for no reason.   In those scenarios, you have recourse against a third party who takes those things, even though you may not own them in a dispute against the corporate owner of the platform.

 

7 hours ago, Tasty Salamanders said:

Basically under Australian common law; if a bank accidentally gives people money it is the bank's fault.

 

I mean, Teeny Tiny Cat already said they aren't too concerned about what the law says because bp.tf isn't the law. But in this case even the law isn't as clear as you might think.

 

In my post I clearly said that criminal liability requires notification. The bank didn't discover their mistake for a year. They tried to call her but it's not clear she was ever made aware of the mistake or when. 

 

And even that case acknowledges her civil liability - "she would owe the bank the money she has spent" even though they "gave it to her."    There is TONS of backpack.tf precedent for banning over unpaid debt.

 

7 hours ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

I will reply more at length when not at work but I would like to point out that whether or not it's legal is not a particularly strong argument for why a privately owned and run website is responsible for enforcing it. Plenty of things are against the law that have absolutely nothing to do with us. Harrassment is against the law but I'm not banning people on backpack.tf for harrassment on steam because it has nothing to do with our website. We're not the police or a court of law. I stated clearly in the OP but I'll repeat; legal arguments hold little weight with me.

 

The only strong argument I see for banning is the removal of toxic people from our community.

 

No one is saying that backpack.tf is a court, or should enforce the law.  No one is suggesting to ban for harassment.  These are total strawmen.  Issues concerning theft and trading are directly pertinent to what backpack.tf does - reporting the trustworthiness of traders.

 

The actual argument made by me and others:  where there is a debate over right and wrong, the law should serve as authority of last resort.  A bright-line divider.  If a criminal court would send you to prison for it, then it's against the law and it's wrong.  If a civil court would say money is owed and a person won't pay, that person is a deadbeat, and no different from a chargeback or spycrab runner.

 

6 hours ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

And generally people aren't banned from commercial sites (or even IRL shops) because they broke the law. Stealing something and being prosecuted either criminally or civilly doesn't result in your being barred from the internet, shops, social venues, etc. The one has nothing to do with the other. So whether or not keeping accidentally gifted virtual items is legal or not is utterly irrelevant to this decision.

 

And here we have a backpack.tf admin explaining why this website is actively protecting, and representing as trustworthy, someone who has committed felony theft.

[Mrs TS]

My following comment might be off topic but it evolves around the beginning statements, that this post was put up due to a recent incident.

 

When people who state that the victim deserved what happened because 'he had to go through 3 different check points' ....those are the same exact 3 check points that every Paypal trader has dealt with.  I find it ironic that many are saying 'he deserved it because he had his 3 warnings'  So, are people saying that people that got Paypal scammed had it coming too?  They went through the same 3 checkpoints, knowing they weren't getting any items.

 

Also, I find it ludicrous that this is being called 'accidental gifting'   No, it was not accidental gifting. The 'victim' here sent an offer with the explicit intent to offer and accept a counter offer.  His accident was in not putting the item he was looking for in the trade offer.  There was nothing in his offer that hinted or suggested this was a gift in any way, shape or form.

 

I have personally sent out many an unsolicited gifts to people, usually with a message such as "Enjoy the free blah blah"  or "Happy Holidays"    How someone who received a trade with the words "feel free to counter' to think this was anything other than a botched offer is beyond me.

 

Lastly, my opinion of the trust pages are that it is not a perfect system.  Example:  A person is a solid trader, been around for years, does cash/paypal trades etc and leaves positive trust for his transactions.  Then......he finally goes rogue and starts scamming.  When he gets tagged, all those positive trusts you had from that person get wiped out.   But I suppose deleting all from a scammer is just an easy way to purge that person from the system.

 

I don't envy the Staff here when tough issues such as this come up, but I definitely applaud them for trying to make the Community a better place.

 

 

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

4 hours ago, naknak said:

The actual argument made by me and others:  where there is a debate over right and wrong, the law should serve as authority of last resort.  A bright-line divider.  If a criminal court would send you to prison for it, then it's against the law and it's wrong.  If a civil court would say money is owed and a person won't pay, that person is a deadbeat, and no different from a chargeback or spycrab runner.

 

The law is not an authority on right and wrong, we don't all even live in the same legal system with the same laws for crying out loud, and there's plenty of aspects of American law that I strongly disagree with. Beyond that, nobody is saying that this particular thing isn't wrong! I have clearly stated what I think of people who take advantage in a situation like this. There is no debate over whether it was wrong or not, that is was wrong is clear. But there are plenty of things that are wrong that we don't punish for because it's not our role. I don't ban people for murder either, doesn't mean I think murder is A-OK. Stop over simplifying.

 

5 hours ago, Rosalina said:

I also think if you want a reason to ban them... Just ban them for being immoral and toxic: someone you don't want on your site. That's it. Nothing else to be said. No +rep or -rep for returning items or keeping them. No BS. That's it. If you don't like how someone acts, you remove them from the community. 

 

So then when do we draw the line? How do we keep from becoming a community of staff who just ban people they don't like? There are plenty of people I consider toxic but I choose not to ban because they stay within the rules - are you advocating I change that policy and just ban whoever I feel like on the grounds that the community is better off without them? 

[naknak]

1 hour ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

The law is not an authority on right and wrong,

 

I have no response to this.

 

1 hour ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

we don't all even live in the same legal system with the same laws for crying out loud,

 

Can you find a single western country where keeping is NOT theft?  I can't.  US, CA, AU, NZ, UK and the list goes on.   That's how universal this principle is.  You continue to reject it.

 

Quote

there's plenty of aspects of American law that I strongly disagree with.

 

It's not just American law.  We as a society (western society, that is) agree that "finders keepers" is a bad principle.  

 

You keep asking for moral arguments - laws are morals codified, a set of rules to which we collectively consent.  Exceptions exist, when you believe the law itself is morally wrong. Is that really what you're claiming here?  If you want to conscientiously object to laws against stealing, okay, but then I'd ask what you're doing here and whether you can still perform your duties effectively.

 

 

Quote

I don't ban people for murder either, doesn't mean I think murder is A-OK. Stop over simplifying.

 

You keep comparing your opponents' positions to ridiculous concepts, as if anyone is suggesting you ban people for muder(?).   Yet I'm the one oversimplifying. 

 

Here is an argument which is not simplified in any way: Throughout the western world, keeping is theft.  Theft of hats is directly relevant to backpack.tf's role as a trust repository.  

 

That you, personally, maintain a different definition of "theft" than the entire western world does not strike me as a good reason to forego either principle articulated in the paragraph above. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 There is no debate over whether it was wrong or not, that is was wrong is clear. But there are plenty of things that are wrong that we don't punish for because it's not our role.

 

So the negative trust is reinstated then?  Negative trust is not a punishment; you said so yourself.  We all agree the act was wrong and you see multiple cash traders - the actual intended audience of the trust system - agreeing that such an act would prevent them from doing a cash trade.

[HarryG]

1 minute ago, naknak said:

 

I have no response to this.

 

 

Can you find a single western country where keeping is NOT theft?  I can't.  US, CA, AU, NZ, UK and the list goes on.   That's how universal this principle is.  You continue to reject it.

 

 

It's not just American law.  We as a society (western society, that is) agree that "finders keepers" is a bad principle.  

 

You keep asking for moral arguments - laws are morals codified, a set of rules to which we collectively consent.  Exceptions exist, when you believe the law itself is morally wrong. Is that really what you're claiming here?  If you want to conscientiously object to laws against stealing, okay, but then I'd ask what you're doing here and whether you can still perform your duties effectively.

 

 

 

You keep comparing your opponents' positions to ridiculous concepts, as if anyone is suggesting you ban people for muder(?).   Yet I'm the one oversimplifying. 

 

Here is an argument which is not simplified in any way: Throughout the western world, keeping is theft.  Theft of hats is directly relevant to backpack.tf's role as a trust repository.  

 

That you, personally, maintain a different definition of "theft" than the entire western world does not strike me as a good reason to forego either principle articulated in the paragraph above. 

 

 

 

So the negative trust is reinstated then?  Negative trust is not a punishment; you said so yourself.  We all agree the act was wrong and you see multiple cash traders - the actual intended audience of the trust system - agreeing that such an act would prevent them from doing a cash trade.

This is a Walrus and the Carpenter situation of a fool who ends up encountering a scumbag. One made a bad decision and unfortunately the person involved was a morally-bankrupt vulture. He stupidly wrote a check he regretted and this guy cashed it. This being said, banning people who don't break the rules regardless of the ethicality of their actions is fascism and as far as I'm aware, this site isn't a fascistic state. I would argue that backpack.tf is one of the strongest trust repositories as far as these fine lines go, given that they actually ban sharks, a situation that in my opinion is a lot harder to define but is a much more disgusting hive of scum then any other part of this economy. You just don't get to pick and choose when you see something bad/unfortunate happen to somebody, especially when it is partly their fault. This is just the real world. Sometimes a bad guy gets away to preserve the greater good of order, because otherwise it just becomes kangaroo court.  

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

17 minutes ago, naknak said:

 

So the negative trust is reinstated then?  Negative trust is not a punishment; you said so yourself.  We all agree the act was wrong and you see multiple cash traders - the actual intended audience of the trust system - agreeing that such an act would prevent them from doing a cash trade.

 

Negative trust isn't a punishment but it's also not just for things that are wrong. It's not for people you don't like. It serves a practical purpose to warn people about someone who is untrustworthy. I remain unconvinced that someone who keeps items sent to them in error is any more likely to paypal scam you than any random trader is - many, many users would do this but would not scam. 

 

Site rules and running sites are about practicalities as much as they're about anything else. Who does leaving neg trust help? The core of this issue is someone sending items in error. You can't pre-warn people about that because they never intended to do it in the first place. Your energy would be much better placed into spreading the word about checking your trades when sending an offer to ANYONE.  

 

 

[naknak]

8 minutes ago, HarryG said:

One made a bad decision and unfortunately the person involved was a morally-bankrupt vulture. He stupidly wrote a check he regretted and this guy cashed it.

 

Words like "decision" and "regret" imply there was anything intentional about the initial offer.  There wasn't.  Ignoring buyer's remorse and refusing to return a clearly accidental payment are not at all the same thing.

 

Quote

banning people who don't break the rules regardless of the ethicality of their actions is fascism

 

If theft isn't against the rules, it ought to be.

 

Quote

You just don't get to pick and choose when you see something bad/unfortunate happen to somebody

 

I completely agree.  That's why I'm citing the law, a collection of rules which we all live under.  The people saying "well, that may be illegal but we're going to tolerate it here because <reasons>" are the ones picking and choosing.

 

Quote

I remain unconvinced that someone who keeps items sent to them in error is any more likely to paypal scam you than any random trader is - many, many users would do this but would not scam. 

 

And people who actually trade for cash and deal with PayPal scammers disagree with you.  I wonder who is right?

 

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

25 minutes ago, naknak said:

And people who actually trade for cash and deal with PayPal scammers disagree with you.  I wonder who is right?

 

 

That's simply untrue. Some do, some don't, the community is pretty split. And most people who actually deal with scammers (steamrep staff, site admins, etc) agree with me... I didn't make this precedent, issues like these were handled this way before I was around and are handled the same way on other sites.

[appy]

1 hour ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

Negative trust isn't a punishment but it's also not just for things that are wrong. It's not for people you don't like. It serves a practical purpose to warn people about someone who is untrustworthy. I remain unconvinced that someone who keeps items sent to them in error is any more likely to paypal scam you than any random trader is - many, many users would do this but would not scam. 

 

 

 

why not leave the -rep up and since there is always a description of what the -rep is for, people who dont care about it can ignore. Cos atleast I for one do believe that such a person will is more likely to screw me over in a a cash trade if they need/want he cash since 1) they have gotten away with something like it before(not really but yeah it is similar) and 2) they lack morals to do the right thing when i am trusting them with my items by going first

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

2 hours ago, appy said:

 

why not leave the -rep up and since there is always a description of what the -rep is for, people who dont care about it can ignore. Cos atleast I for one do believe that such a person will is more likely to screw me over in a a cash trade if they need/want he cash since 1) they have gotten away with something like it before(not really but yeah it is similar) and 2) they lack morals to do the right thing when i am trusting them with my items by going first

 

Well that's what I'm considering. I can see the arguments both ways.

[Rosalina]

6 hours ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

So then when do we draw the line? How do we keep from becoming a community of staff who just ban people they don't like? There are plenty of people I consider toxic but I choose not to ban because they stay within the rules - are you advocating I change that policy and just ban whoever I feel like on the grounds that the community is better off without them? 

 

If a user has nothing positive to offer the community, yes. That jason guy has nothing positive to offer the community. He's got a terrible attitude. He's rude, he's immoral and he straight up taunted someone for making a mistake and running off with his hats. Does he need to return the items? No. Should he be banned for it? Maybe. But his behavior afterwards shows that he isn't the type of person we want using our site. Maybe it will teach him to not be a jerk.

 

A site like Backpack.TF should have the right to ban users for whatever they want, within reason.  

 

 

On a side note... I don't think people who keep items sent to them wrongly are more likely to scam. These are most likely people who wouldn't scam, out of fear of what would happen to them. However, knowing they can get away with something immoral if they profit is clearly not out of the question for them. If scamming wouldn't result in a ban, they might scam.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

32 minutes ago, Rosalina said:

 

If a user has nothing positive to offer the community, yes. That jason guy has nothing positive to offer the community. 

 

A site like Backpack.TF should have the right to ban users for whatever they want, within reason.  

 

That's a judgement call. There's people I think offer nothing positive that you probably think do. That's the point.

 

We do have the right. I'm not saying I can't, I'm saying I choose not to and I've explained why.

[naknak]

4 hours ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

That's simply untrue. Some do, some don't, the community is pretty split. And most people who actually deal with scammers (steamrep staff, site admins, etc) agree with me...

 

Are we reading the same thread?  Who are you talking about when you say "some don't?"     I see Tony Reigns saying "unsure" and DeadBoom saying " it just really makes them untrustworthy, I don't think a -trust or ban is needed, just makes them untrustworthy I guess."  (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me but whatever).   So that's one neutral and one against (though he does agree it makes them untrustworthy).  The rest are in favor. 

 

I see a bunch of people who don't sell, and their opinions, but who cares?  If you don't sell, you don't need to trust anyone anyway and it makes no difference if the trust system protects the untrustworthy. 

 

Quote

And most people who actually deal with scammers (steamrep staff, site admins, etc) agree with me

"Read stories about" is not what I meant by "deal with".  It's easy to judge a character after they've ripped someone off.    Please, play on hard mode before talking about what behaviors predict dishonesty. 

 

How many times have you interviewed a stranger with a clean history, made a judgement call on whether they are trustworthy, and backed up that judgement with your own money?  Knowing that if you guess wrong in either direction, you lose money?  How many times has Lava done this?   I think your combined number is zero; correct me if I'm wrong.   I've done it hundreds and hundreds of times.  I sell to people that marketplace.tf won't.  And I would not touch Jason Le in a million years if I knew his history - dishonesty, disrespect, and failure to take responsibility for his own actions - any one of these is an instant DQ.  It's notable that Wolfi, who does sell for cash, agrees with me.

 

 

 

[Rosalina]

6 minutes ago, naknak said:

  And I would not touch Jason Le in a million years if I knew his history - dishonesty, disrespect, and failure to take responsibility for his own actions - any one of these is an instant DQ.  

 

 

 

(1) There is no dishonesty

 

Simple. I'm actually blocking you on steam. Between your comments on here and the other thread I don't think you're the type of person I ever want to bother me now or in the future on steam.

[naknak]

23 minutes ago, Rosalina said:

(1) There is no dishonesty

 

"Dishonesty is to act without honesty. It is used to describe a lack of probity, ..."  Probity, by the way, means "the quality of having strong moral principles."  

 

It's also, you know,  felony theft, which most people would actually consider dishonest.

 

Quote

I'm actually blocking you on steam.

 

That's a shame; I may never get the chance to trade with someone who doesn't know the difference between right and wrong.

 

 

[Rosalina]

35 minutes ago, naknak said:

That's a shame; I may never get the chance to trade with someone who doesn't know the difference between right and wrong.

 

 I know right and wrong. This has nothing to do with right or wrong. He acted wrongly and immorally. That is a fact: no one is debating it. He did not, however, lie. He was not dishonest and he did not steal anything. Steam's policy, the trading system, the numerous confirmations classify those items as his 100%. 

 

Stop trying to argue like you have something intelligent to say. There is no argument to be made. You're just flat out wrong.  I'm sure you voted for Trump, too. Like you, he can't seem to stop when he's just fundamentally and factually wrong.

[naknak]

3 minutes ago, Rosalina said:

He was not dishonest and he did not steal anything. Steam's policy, the trading system, the numerous confirmations classify those items as his 100%.

 

He is guilty of theft practically anywhere in the western world.  Those items are his 0%.  I, and others, have explained this in very simple terms, with sources. 

 

Quote

I'm sure you voted for Trump, too.

I'm Canadian.  I did bet all my 2016 trading profits on Trump with a bookie and quadrupled my profits in one night.  Being right when the majority is wrong has been very profitable for me. 

 

Most people totally lack the ability to hold an unpopular opinion.   It's a rare gift and one I'm thankful to have.

[Rosalina]

5 minutes ago, naknak said:

 

He is guilty of theft practically anywhere in the western world.  Those items are his 0%.  I, and others, have explained this in very simple terms, with sources. 

 

So if we get lawyers involve, have a contract written and I sign a contract giving my car over to you then are you guilty of stealing my car? You want to talk about legality... Well, the trade offer is a binding legal contract. The steam terms of service even say that. Your confirmation on mobile, which requires your password to unlock the phone, to access the account and then your fingerprint to confirm the trade is your signature. It's a binding contract "anywhere in the western world," using your own words. 

 

This isn't "holding an unpopular an opinion." It's a fact. There are people who believe the Holocaust didn't happen. That is not an "unpopular opinion." There is no opinion here. You seriously have no clue what you're talking about. You're delusional. I suggest you take a course in modern law, since you seem to like spouting these sources.