Community Feedback on How We Handle Accidental Gifting

[naknak]

Just now, Rosalina said:

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?

 

The trade offer is a binding legal contract. 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.

 

Hey I'm glad you mentioned contracts.  In common law it is a prerequisite that both parties offer consideration before a contract can be thought of as binding.  "Consideration" means "something of value."

 

A contract where one party receives nothing is .. not a contract.  Not binding.

 

How does this new information change your view?

[Rosalina]

1 minute ago, naknak said:

 

Hey I'm glad you mentioned contracts.  In common law it is a prerequisite that both parties offer consideration before a contract can be thought of as binding.  "Consideration" means "something of value."

 

A contract where one party receives nothing is .. not a contract.  Not binding.

 

How does this new information change your view?

 

These are digital items. They have no value. There is no tangible value to these goods. Considerations for things of "equal value" don't hold wait here. These are all community prices, unless valve makes a statement and gives us an MSRP among other things. Consideration is pointless. In America, people have sold their houses for charity for $1 and that's a contractual deal. Your "considerations" don't make sense.  I was using your own argument as a metaphor and bringing in contract.

 

The fact is: Legally a trade is binding, that's it. If you honestly can't see how wrong you are (which wouldn't surprise me, since you appear to spend hours a day playing TF2 instead of doing something productive) then I will no longer respond. It's just not worth my time. I have better things to do. 

[Mrs TS]

I suppose that bitcoin is worthless too since it is simply a digital item.  Using that analogy would also mean, scamming does not exist because nothing was ever stolen because it never really existed.

[Rosalina]

7 minutes ago, Mrs TS said:

I suppose that bitcoin is worthless too since it is simply a digital item.  Using that analogy would also mean, scamming does not exist because nothing was ever stolen because it never really existed.

 

Bitcoin has a value. It's honestly closer to a share of stock than a TF2 item. There is a huge difference. Please read the whole statement. It's more than just the digital. Otherwise the $10000 in my bank account is actually worthless because "it's a digital number."

 

Also the IRS has said that Bitcoin is taxable. The government has direct involvement with making sure that bitcoin fraud doesn't occur. The same is not said for garbage tf2 items.

[Rosalina]

5 minutes ago, Rosalina said:

 

Bitcoin has a value. It's honestly closer to a share of stock than a TF2 item. There is a huge difference. Please read the whole statement. It's more than just the digital. Otherwise the $10000 in my bank account is actually worthless because "it's a digital number."

 

Also the IRS has said that Bitcoin is taxable. The government has direct involvement with making sure that bitcoin fraud doesn't occur. The same is not said for garbage tf2 items.

 

 

To add onto my point here, also. Do people who unbox "burning Killer exclusive" or "Karambit Fade" get taxed for their unboxes? No. It is not valued as a tangible asset. A bitcoin has a tangible asset value. If you unbox a rare Steam Item you will not be taxed on that item's "value." HOWEVER, if you sell it... You will be taxed (or committing tax evasion).

[naknak]

8 minutes ago, Rosalina said:

These are digital items. They have no value. There is no tangible value to these goods. Considerations for things of "equal value" don't hold wait here.

 

The word is weight and yes they do have value.  Domain names, the digital money in your bank account,  services of all kinds - intangible yet valuable.  Well established principle.    This question was already addressed, by the way, about four pages ago.  Ctrl-F "tangible."

 

If you truly believe what you just wrote, feel free to send me your backpack in a trade offer.  I will give you ten US dollars cash money sent in the mail.  You're getting something of value for something of no value!  This isn't a legally binding contract, since I'm receiving nothing of value, but my reputation for honesty is unmatched.

 

Please note - you will need to unblock me in order to send the offer.

 

Quote

In America, people have sold their houses for charity for $1 and that's a contractual deal.

 

Do you see why it's $1 and not $0?    The dollar is there to satisfy the consideration prerequisite that we're talking about.

 

Quote

The fact is: Legally a trade is binding, that's it.

 

Well, no it's not, and I just explained why.

 

Quote

Your "considerations" don't make sense.  I was using your own argument as a metaphor and bringing in contract.

 

"I was articulating a general principle up until I realized it doesn't support my position.  I now declare this principle irrelevant and refuse to apply it."

[Rosalina]

5 minutes ago, naknak said:

Do you see why it's $1 and not $0?    The dollar is there to satisfy the consideration prerequisite that we're talking about.

 

 

items have legal value of $0. Legal value of $0 was given in return. What's the problem?

 

Bah, I accidentally posted too early and messed up my multiquote... Continuing,

 

The contract point does support me. Facts do, as welll. I was making it clear that I was using your own "legal" argument and showing how it doesn't even support the position you're making with it. Stop while you're ahead. This will be my last response to anything you say. It's clear you have no legal training or if you do, you should be disbarred. 

[naknak]

First of all, let's take a moment to LOL at the notion that laws against theft are less relevant than tax law in this discussion of a case of theft.

 

Okay.  Now - the IRS regards absolutely anything of monetary value as an asset.  If the asset constitutes income, it's taxable.  That $10k unusual you unboxed?  Gambling winnings.  The 500 key profit you turned flipping hats?  Taxable income.  Because the IRS are not fools, they are not using some complicated definition of value.  Fair market value is their standard.  If an item is readily saleable for $1000, then its fair market value is (at least) $1000.

 

No need to take my word for it. 

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/tax-consequences-of-virtual-world-transactions

 

Quote

In general, you can receive income in the form of money, property, or services. If you receive more income from the virtual world than you spend, you may be required to report the gain as taxable income. IRS guidance also applies when you spend more in a virtual world than you receive, you generally cannot claim a loss on an income tax return.

 

And what is "income"?  Let's find out! 

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/what-is-taxable-and-nontaxable-income

Quote

Generally, you must include in gross income everything you receive in payment for personal services. In addition to wages, salaries, commissions, fees, and tips, this includes other forms of compensation such as fringe benefits and stock options. 

...

The sale or other exchange of virtual currencies, or the use of virtual currencies to pay for goods or services, or holding virtual currencies as an investment, generally has tax consequences that could result in tax liability. This guidance applies to individuals and businesses that use virtual currencies.

...

Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering.

[fluffyy]

I'll just throw in my two cents. I don't think someone should be -trusted for accepting an empty trade offer if there was no agreement before. If I agree to pay 5 keys for an item and they accidentally send me an empty trade offer to which I accept, I'm going back on that agreement. If you can prove something was agreed upon before, I think a -trust is warranted since it's just a scam at that point. 

 

Without an agreement, in my opinion, it just becomes an issue of whether or not someone is nice enough to give the items back. I don't think you should be -trusted for being mean in the same sense that I can't be -trusted for insulting someone over Steam or these forums. I could honestly care less if the person I'm dealing with is a notorious asshole. I'm focused on if they're trustworthy - and the nicest people don't always fall into this category as I'm sure multiple marked users can be made an example of - or not. 

 

In addition, I think the multiple-step process to prevent empty trade offers is an effective barrier. I don't believe that those who exercise a lack of diligence should be given any leeway and essentially have the ability to punish another user just because they were being careless. This is also not the same as PayPal trading, as those kinds of transactions are almost always sent under an agreement that the sender is to receive something in return. I've never heard of someone mistakenly sending someone else PayPal money in which there are also multiple confirmations that showcase the email you're sending to.

 

I didn't read a lot of the other opinions so I might just be rephrasing what they said. Some of you might disagree with me and that's okay. 

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

2 hours ago, naknak said:

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 it?

 

We take that risk for everyone in our communities. Hate to break it to ya bud, but you're the one on easy mode. Risking my own money is significantly easier and requires less stringent rules and investigation than risking other peoples. If you care about helping us keep people safe, help us. Stop trying to win a fight and help find practical solutions. Banning this one guy or not has basically no impact on the community or the risk of trading within it. You're on a crusade based on perceived injustice. I'm just trying to find the most practical ways to keep trading safe fairly.

[naknak]

20 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

We take that risk for everyone in our communities.

 

Moral hazard is a situation in which one party gets involved in a risky event knowing that it is protected against the risk and the other party will incur the cost.  The protected party knows that someone else will pay for the mistake he makes. This gives him the incentive to act in a riskier way.

 

Quote

If you care about helping us keep people safe, help us. Stop trying to win a fight and help find practical solutions

 

I thought you'd never ask.  I have a simple, three-point plan:

 

1. make theft of virtual items explicitly against your rules

2. ban people who break that rule

3. permit factual accounts of theft in trust

 

Please also consider whether you are well suited to this moderator position.  Enforcing rules and judging situations fairly, which you claim is important to you, requires the ability to go against the mob. 

 

Quote

Banning this one guy or not has basically no impact on the community or the risk of trading within it

 

You could say that about literally anyone who has done literally anything.

 

 

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

That aint helpful. How about you get more involved, teach people about safe trading, talk to newer community members, start a campaign, etc? I dont expect you will cause it's much easier to just simplify everything to banning and make it someone elses responsibility. In reality, education is the BEST way to prevent people being taken advantage of.

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, naknak said:

You could say that about literally anyone who has done literally anything.

 

 

Not to the same extent but there is some truth to that. Like I said - education is a stronger weapon than bans.

[naknak]

Just now, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

That aint helpful.

 

It's so surprising that you would say that.

 

Keeping the hats is against the law but you're more swayed by moral arguments.

Laws are codified morals but you conscientiously object to laws against theft(!)

Keeping this guy around is bad for the community, you say precedent is more important.

Precedent exists of someone being banned from this site for accepting an erroneous trade offer, you say that doesn't count.

You take risks on everyone's behalf and talk about higher obligations, then say lawbreaking isn't your concern and people should just go to the police.

Experienced sellers make clear that most of them would like to see at least a negative trust, you maintain the community is "split."

You make a thread soliciting "community feedback" and become the single most active poster in it, relentlessly advocating your stated and unchanging position.

 

There's no internal consistency here.  We can't reach agreement because the foundational principle informing your position is that you have already done the right thing.  

 

(The principles informing my position, by the way, are "we should obey the law" and "people who break laws relevant to trading should not be welcome in this community").

 

Quote

education is the BEST way to prevent people being taken advantage of.

 

Okay.   Let's educate people that Jason Le is a thief who has committed theft.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

Right I've considered everyone's responses and discussed with other admins and we will allow negative trust. I don't agree that keeping items someone sent you in error is stealing or that it necessarily makes you untrustworthy (though it does make you an asshole, no doubt.) But, I hear you all when you say that it does matter to you and it's something you'd want to know. End of the day, trust doesn't stop you from trading with someone, just gives you some background to inform your decision. 

 

Trust can be left by the exploited party only and must contain proof that you attempted to get the items back and the person refused. It must be clear from the offer that it was not intended as a gift. It applies to one sided trades only. Dupes will be removed.

 

To anyone wanting to help and protect people more, I've mentioned a few times that spreading awareness to be vigilant, check every offer you send, etc, will do a lot more than trust will to prevent this happening to others.

[Lucif3r]

Here is my two bits.

 

This whole idea of negative reps for one sided trade is absurd. Some of you are thinking from a trader's perceptive where it will be rare to see these kinds of mistakes and what not. However, moving past the traders come Youtuber's and Streamers who obviously get a ton of single sided trade offers as donations.

 

Sample case : Say x streamer received an item as a donation from Y user. After a few days Y feels that he should not have donated said item to the streamer and asks for it back from him. At this point the streamer should reserve the right to refuse him the same (Kinda douchey but in his rights). Y is now mad that the streamer refused to give him back his item. He then leaves a -rep saying that he "accidentally" sent him the trade and forgot to put something on his side of the trade even though he actually sent the item as a donation.

 

How would you justify a - rep of this sort if this new idea of - repping people based on single sided trade offers is implemented.

Fact is you can never properly quantify if a single sided trade offer was a donation or not at the time it was made. Obviously the user may portray it as a mistake at a later date but that does not mean that you can say for sure that when the offer was initially made it was not a donation.

 

Edit :

Take the whole Merendas and Jason thing for example. Consider Jason's a streamer here for argument's sake.

Merendas plans to donate 3k worth of unusuals to Jason because he likes his content *Hypothetical*

He then immediately regrets his and makes a post like the one he did on the forums saying that he forgot to put something from Jason's side.

Can you justify a -rep for Jason on that account?

*This is a hypothetical case and not what actually happened but it shows how this -rep for one sided trades cannot be implemented.*

 

Edit 2 : I saw you already implemented this feature. However, I'd still like to know how the admins will tackle what I just said because otherwise people can just misuse this feature without any repercussions.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

8 minutes ago, Lucif3r said:

Here is my two bits.

 

 

Please read the post above yours thoroughly.

[Lucif3r]

5 hours ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

It must be clear from the offer that it was not intended as a gift.

How can you quantify that?

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

3 minutes ago, Lucif3r said:

How can you quantify that?

 

We don't need to quantify it... it's a judgement call. If someone puts "feel free to counter" as a note on a one-sided offer, I'd say it's pretty clear they didn't mean to gift it.

[Lucif3r]

5 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

We don't need to quantify it... it's a judgement call.

How can you judge if something is a gift or not? It would be more like your personal opinion and that is obviously not something for which a user should get a - rep.

Say if someone does not put the "feel free to counter" as a note. I mean I certainly do not when I send trade offers. I just send them. What is your stand on this then?

 

I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

9 minutes ago, Lucif3r said:

How can you judge if something is a gift or not? It would be more like your personal opinion and that is obviously not something for which a user should get a - rep.

Say if someone does not put the "feel free to counter" as a note. I mean I certainly do not when I send trade offers. I just send them. What is your stand on this then?

 

I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

 

If it's a blank one sided trade offer with no other context, no that's not proof it wasn't a gift. Moderator judgement and personal opinion aren't quite the same thing. We use judgement in applying rules all the time. If judgement had no role, we could just use bots.

[Lucif3r]

That is right. Judgement plays a role. 

I just want to know how you would judge a typical one sided trade offer without any context as a gift or a mistake.

 

User could have originally sent it as a gift but say he overdid it and wants his items back. He could argue that he forgot to put something on the other guys's side.

Or

He actually did forget to put something on his side.

 

How can you judge what actually happened there i.e on what criteria. The whole thing is based on the accuser's testimony which is the only thing you have to go on. It may be true or it may not be.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

2 minutes ago, Lucif3r said:

That is right. Judgement plays a role. 

I just want to know how you would judge a typical one sided trade offer without any context as a gift or a mistake.

 

User could have originally sent it as a gift but say he overdid it and wants his items back. He could argue that he forgot to put something on the other guys's side.

Or

He actually did forget to put something on his side.

 

How can you judge what actually happened there i.e on what criteria. The whole thing is based on the accuser's testimony which is the only thing you have to go on. It may be true or it may not be.

 

Listen to both sides and judge based on what we have, same as everything else.

[Lucif3r]

I don't particularly agree with this feature because of the loopholes as mentioned above but if the majority of the community feels it is a good feature then I guess that is that.

Appreciate you having a civil conversation with me on this.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

3 minutes ago, Lucif3r said:

I don't particularly agree with this feature because of the loopholes as mentioned above but if the majority of the community feels it is a good feature then I guess that is that.

Appreciate you having a civil conversation with me on this.

 

It's not really a feature as such. It's a thing that doesn't happen that often and happens even less in provable circumstances. It's really going to be very little change practically speaking.