Open Debate on Classified Rule 6.

[The Wayne Train]

TLDR;I think Backpack.tf's Classifieds Rule #6, conflicts with the intentions / spirit of the rule. Hope to change how the rule is enforced and or come up with ideas for a updated rule.

 

*Stealing the format of this, from another post from a few years back, that was a very pleasing read, and gets to the point! Wayne here, a rule that has always confused me, was this one, and up until recently, I never found a situation where it warranted an update, so here is the jyst!*

 

The current rules are as follows:
-It is your responsibility to keep your listings up to date and accurate. If you are found to be repeatedly changing your mind after receiving offers, you will receive a ban.

 

Now, I am sure most of you are familiar with this rule, if you haven't or don't fully understand it meaning, its application is that of accepting any trade offer (within 24 hours) so long as its full pure and the item is listed on Backpack.tf classifieds.

Reading it, sounds to me, to do exactly what the rule says, keep your listings up to date, because if a price goes up, and someone attempts to capitalize on it, and you keep changing your price each time someone attempts to buy an item, to milk them for more, after doing that, repeatedly, you will receive a ban.

 

Now here is the problem.

People are taking this rule the wrong way, and way to seriously.

 

I was recently warned, for not accepting a trade offer, for full Pure, on an Aussie Grenade Launcher for 52 Keys. (Double Spelled) I declined the trade offer, because the user trying to buy it, was Banned on Backpack.tf, for knowingly trading with Marked Scammer(s) and thus, I didn't complete the trade with him, regardless that it was full pure. This, is currently against rule 6.

 

In practice, I am apparently forced, or be warned, or banned, to trade with users who may harm my rep, both on and off Backpack.tfs Platform.

 

Rules, just re-updated and tweeked last year.
https://forums.backpack.tf/topic/70966-new-rules-for-background-checks/

 

- If a trader is found to be regularly buying items from accounts banned on backpack.tf as a scammer, scammer alt, or scammer fence they may receive a ban even if those accounts are not marked on Steamrep.

 

You can argue that the permanent ban for knowingly trading with Marked Scammer is a lower tier "crime" then scammer fence, but as far as I was and still am concerned, if I don't want to trade with you, for whatever reason I see fit. 

*If the reason I see fit, is to change the price, due to not having it up to date, OR that I see fit to make a trade with a Marked Scammer, both against the rules, very clearly, then I agree, the original punishment could very well be applied.

 

I am still asking 52 keys on that very Grenade Launcher, I did not change the price, I just did not wish to trade with that user, and I should have that right. Shouldn't be able to force anyone to trade with user(s) they don't want to for any reason, (aside from a reason that would break the rules set in place by Backpack.tf of course, i.e, to change its price (presumably up) due to negligence of keeping your listings up to date or Marked Scammers & Banned accounts for the above, scammer,scammer alt or scammer fence.

 

I've declined trade offers for large sums of keys, from new-ish accounts (keys with 1 person histories or very short histories) because I've had my keys taken away, from Steam itself, when a user charged back Steam funds, for those keys. And then Im the one having to make a appeal, to get my item back, or keys back, its a nightmare. So I decline them if I see fit. Now, Im not declining the offer to change its price, or to ask more, all the time, I am doing what is in the best interest of my Rep and Investments. (Without breaking any of Backpack.tfs rules)

 

I say that I have not broken any rule, because as it stands, there is no rule saying you're forced to accept an offer if its in full pure / regardless or rep / ect. But the argument is, that Rule 6, is being enforced not to protect buyers and prevent outdated listings and troll listings, but to strong arm trades with users who you very well might not be comfortable trading.

 

I am interested to get others thoughts on this rule, and this situation, if you feel it fair, and a good rule, then share that, if you have your own thoughts about how it should be structured, this is the place to discuss it I really feel that this needs to be enforced as its written. I hope I got what I was trying to say across.... (Not the greatest writer)

 

Thanks for Reading , stay safe ~ Wayne

 

[rndmchrs]

Aha so trading with a legit user harms your reputation lmao, sure

Ban reason is literally on my profile so go ahead and read it again

 

It clearly says nothing about me being a scammer or you not being allowed to trade with me.

[The Wayne Train]

33 minutes ago, rndmchrs said:

Aha so trading with a legit user harms your reputation lmao, sure

Ban reason is literally on my profile so go ahead and read it again

 

It clearly says nothing about me being a scammer or you not being allowed to trade with me.

Rules, just re-updated and tweeked last year.
https://forums.backpack.tf/topic/70966-new-rules-for-background-checks/

 

- If a trader is found to be regularly buying items from accounts banned on backpack.tf as a scammer, scammer alt, or scammer fence they may receive a ban even if those accounts are not marked on Steamrep.

 

I made the choice, to "lump" you in with the rest.

 

I would also like to add something, as a point of concern. Admins and Mods over the years it has seemed, have added, in posts, reports, and discussions (like the one I just referenced above) about the "Rules" The Rules of Backpack.tf are here: https://backpack.tf/rules  with the caveat of Note: These rules and guidelines are not here as a complete list of warnable or bannable offenses. They are here to clear up any confusion about the rules that may not be obvious.

 

Now, if that the "Complete" or a more in-depth list of rules, or definition of rules, are found on other posts or forums, (pinned or not) that should be linked as "For more information; go here" (or something to that effect) I had to re look up the rules above to double check that this is in fact a thing, because it was not clearly on the sites page for rules.

 

That being said, I did also follow the other 'Hidden" rule of "Must be willing to accept this number in pure" and I am, I am still asking 52 Keys for the Grenade Launcher. (Or rather, I was, until I removed all my listings, pending some extra info moving forward)

 

I don't really understand, no where does it say, I have to trade you or honor the price.

 

The seller is refusing to sell this item at the offered price - when reporting a user for refusing to sell at their list price, it is important that you include proof. We need a screenshot of the declined trade offer or chat in order to remove these, we will not do so just based on your word. Please note that declining offers from users with trade holds is fine, even if they offer at your list price. No-one is required to put their items on hold if they don't wish to.

 

Here it says there is punishment for refusing to sell X at offered price,  or at least that it is report worthy, and that is from 4 years ago on Forums not on the site.... 

 

Am I the crazy one here? Is this; 

-It is your responsibility to keep your listings up to date and accurate. If you are found to be repeatedly changing your mind after receiving offers, you will receive a ban.

 

Really intended to force me to accept offers from people I don't want to? Or is it (like I've said in so many words above) not just to prevent people from upping the price on their items, when the markets change, rather then do what the rule suggests and keep your listings up to date and accurate.

 

I never changed my mind, I never wanted to trade with you in the first, place, it was only the other day that I learned the delightful fact that Banned users can still see my listings and offer me stuff, not exactly sure what being banned actually prevents you from doing, and I don't intend to find out, hence this whole thing.

 

If there was a magic button to block all banned users, or prevent banned users from sending or seeing my listings, I'd click it. Save me the trouble of getting in trouble for not trading with a banned user -.- from a an extension of 2 rules, (one on the main site, thats honestly imo not even relevant) and one from a forums post 4 years ago....

 

@rndmchrs you've also made alt accounts to circumvent your ban?, and up until just recently, I was unaware that banned users can even see my listings, so the quick, decline and move on, is habit. 

It sucks when it happens, I'd still accept 52 keys for it, I never changed the priced. Sue me for thinking that someone who has 2 accounts banned, is someone to AVOID trading with. And the rules support that, and if the general take away from the rule(s) are the opposite of that, well thats what Im here to change, because I feel that is ridiculous 

 

Please, if you think I'm crazy, tell me, or if not, tell me that too (This goes for everyone) very very curious how others (not directly involved in this) feel about it. 

 

 

 

 

 

[OverduePixels]

Hiya , I cannot speak of others but personally I am more lenient on this type of report for rejecting offers and such at classified listing price. If a user provides reasonable explanation and evidence (if required) I do take down the warnings. Also, users do not get banned for rejecting offers over a long period of time, if they are continuously doing it short period of time, yes they will get banned and I have banned user for it. This rule is not something to fear of, if you do it consistently in a short period of time, you will receive warnings and then ban. We hardly have any users fall into the category of rejecting trades at their listing price and its even more rare that people end up getting banned for it.

 

This rule is there so that users keep their listings up to date and accept accordingly, it is not there to force you or anyone else to trade or you will end up receiving a ban. 

[The Wayne Train]

1 hour ago, OverduePixels said:

Hiya , I cannot speak of others but personally I am more lenient on this type of report for rejecting offers and such at classified listing price. If a user provides reasonable explanation and evidence (if required) I do take down the warnings. Also, users do not get banned for rejecting offers over a long period of time, if they are continuously doing it short period of time, yes they will get banned and I have banned user for it. This rule is not something to fear of, if you do it consistently in a short period of time, you will receive warnings and then ban. We hardly have any users fall into the category of rejecting trades at their listing price and its even more rare that people end up getting banned for it.

 

This rule is there so that users keep their listings up to date and accept accordingly, it is not there to force you or anyone else to trade or you will end up receiving a ban. 

 

4 Months ago, and now this. I wouldn't be shocked, if people abuse of the ability to report for a feature like this. Not sure if my behavior recently (4 months + now) falls into "consistently" (In both cases it was users I wish not to trade with, the 1st one 4 months ago, I did end up accepting the offer in the end, just to put it to rest, but attempted to keep the debate alive on the Report. And you're right, you can't speak for others, in the sense of how each admin handles the rule, and that is part of the problem, everyone has there own style about how rules should be viewed.

If its in Backpack.tfs interest or your own, or if you're able to, remove any backend notices or notes on my profile, i.e remove any "strikes" or warnings. At least that way I will have that 1st strike to fall on, in the event this happens again (of course with exposure, it raises the chances of people attempting to abuse of this type of report) So yes, I do "fear" it in a sense. 

 

"This rule is there so that users keep their listings up to date and accept accordingly, it is not there to force you or anyone else to trade or you will end up receiving a ban."

 

So is this confirmation that I can decline to trade (i.e not be forced to) with whoever I want, so long as its not to update my listings (to presumably raise its price) (Because that is sure what it sounds like, and it that is the case, then my Warning should by default be removed, the rule shouldn't be enforced the way it currently is (By Any Admin / Mod) and I can go back to listings my stuff worry free :D)

 

Any actual action / statement taken by an Admin or Mod, is helpful, it sheds light on a situation that for me has come up in the past enough times to warrant making this discussion and presumably other users as well!

 

 

[OverduePixels]

1 minute ago, The Wayne Train said:

4 Months ago, and now this. I wouldn't be shocked, if people abuse of the ability to report for a feature like this. Not sure if my behavior recently (4 months + now) falls into "consistently" (In both cases it was users I wish not to trade with, the 1st one 4 months ago, I did end up accepting the offer in the end, just to put it to rest, but attempted to keep the debate alive on the Report.

 

This rule has been part of the site for a long time, I can guarantee you that no one has abused it and if they are they will end up receiving a ban. If people were abusing it, we would have loads of users banned and threads would have been created by now

 

3 minutes ago, The Wayne Train said:

If its in Backpack.tfs interest or your own, or if you're able to, remove any backend notices or notes on my profile, i.e remove any "strikes" or warnings. At least that way I will have that 1st strike to fall on, in the event this happens again (of course with exposure, it raises the chances of people attempting to abuse of this type of report) So yes, I do "fear" it in a sense. 

 

If you received a thread, reply with explanation on your end and provide evidence if possible. You are making it a big deal when it really isn't. We can see if a user is abusing it or not on both ends because they have to create reports or reply. No one ever abused it and I do not see how can someone abuse it.

 

5 minutes ago, The Wayne Train said:

So is this confirmation that I can decline to trade (i.e not be forced to) with whoever I want, so long as its not to update my listings (to presumably raise its price) (Because that is sure what it sounds like, and it that is the case, then my Warning should by default be removed, the rule shouldn't be enforced the way it currently is (By Any Admin / Mod) and I can go back to listings my stuff worry free :D)

 

Not sure what you mean by it. You cannot just ignore and reject trades left and right. Listings should be updated regularly. As I have mentioned before, literally hardly anyone ends up receiving ban for this rule. I don't even remember the last time someone was banned for it. This is one of the most lenient rule in the site.

[rndmchrs]

@The Wayne Train I did trade with a scammer, but that was in like August last year and the reason I got banned was exactly that trade. I haven't traded with a scammer ever since, not sure what you mean with 'actively trading with scammers'.

[Spootzie]

If you read the rules like you said you did, you'd be aware that you don't get in trouble for trading with a site banned user. However, if you trade with somebody who is marked a scammer on steamrep, that's a different story. Its also your responsibility to check your listings and update them as you go, if you plan on just leaving something up on classifieds and do nothing afterwards, don't expect ideal results. The entire premise that this can be abused relies on the fact that its happening consisently. Which then at that point is again on you for repeatedly not checking your listings, and updating them. You should try revisiting your grand idea, and acknowledge the pros and cons. 

[Fire ̷̨●̷̨°]

Seeing a ban reason of "Knowingly" trading with a marked scammer would definately dissuade me from trading with that person. That reason could be enough to get you banned on SteamRep if someone reported him there. Even if there is a 1% chance this guy has done it multiple times, why would I risk my own reputation trading with a possible scammer fence?

 

Anyway the Mod they said to get any sort of punishment you would need to be warned multiple times in a short period. Probably should be stated in the warning message given to people (if it isn't already) so this type of confusion doesn't happen again.

[D.Alex]

16 minutes ago, Fire ̷̨●̷̨° said:

Seeing a ban reason of "Knowingly" trading with a marked scammer would definately dissuade me from trading with that person. That reason could be enough to get you banned on SteamRep if someone reported him there.

 

If you don't really know about SteamRep bans, why bother posting?

[Fire ̷̨●̷̨°]

22 minutes ago, D.Alex said:

 

If you don't really know about SteamRep bans, why bother posting?

 

I don't know what you are talking about.

[Zeus_Junior]

2 hours ago, Fire ̷̨●̷̨° said:

 

Seeing a ban reason of "Knowingly" trading with a marked scammer would definately dissuade me from trading with that person. That reason could be enough to get you banned on SteamRep if someone reported him there.

 

This is not true

https://forums.steamrep.com/threads/steamrep-investigative-policy.140101/

[Spootzie]

3 hours ago, Fire ̷̨●̷̨° said:

Seeing a ban reason of "Knowingly" trading with a marked scammer would definately dissuade me from trading with that person. That reason could be enough to get you banned on SteamRep if someone reported him there. Even if there is a 1% chance this guy has done it multiple times, why would I risk my own reputation trading with a possible scammer fence?

 

Anyway the Mod they said to get any sort of punishment you would need to be warned multiple times in a short period. Probably should be stated in the warning message given to people (if it isn't already) so this type of confusion doesn't happen again.

Regardless if it dissuades you from an offer, you again need to realize that if they offering your buyout there is no competent reason as to why you shouldn't take it. You would only get in trouble if the person was marked a scammer on steamrep prior to/during the time of the trade. It would only affect your reputation if you are using this scammer fence/alt to get better/more profitable trades. Only when you are capitalizing off of it will your reputation be affected. 

[Fire ̷̨●̷̨°]

55 minutes ago, Zeus_Junior said:

This is not true

https://forums.steamrep.com/threads/steamrep-investigative-policy.140101/

 

https://forums.steamrep.com/pages/faq/

 

^I was reading here. "Accomplice or fence (knowingly supporting and systematically trading) for a banned user" 

 

My point was if he knowingly traded with a scammer once and was banned for it whose to say this is the first and only time. He might be a fence and was just caught one time, the information provided by bp.tf doesn't provide the full story so I would rather not even risk it.

 

14 minutes ago, Spootzie said:

Regardless if it dissuades you from an offer, you again need to realize that if they offering your buyout there is no competent reason as to why you shouldn't take it. You would only get in trouble if the person was marked a scammer on steamrep prior to/during the time of the trade. It would only affect your reputation if you are using this scammer fence/alt to get better/more profitable trades. Only when you are capitalizing off of it will your reputation be affected. 

 

I'm not going to trade with people who have been caught knowingly trading with scammers, and I know a lot of people who feel the same way. Also, it doesn't just apply if you are profiting, if you are helping a scammer profit from their ill-gotten gains that's also wrong.

[The Wayne Train]

32 minutes ago, Spootzie said:

Regardless if it dissuades you from an offer, you again need to realize that if they offering your buyout there is no competent reason as to why you shouldn't take it. You would only get in trouble if the person was marked a scammer on steamrep prior to/during the time of the trade. It would only affect your reputation if you are using this scammer fence/alt to get better/more profitable trades. Only when you are capitalizing off of it will your reputation be affected. 

You're not quite right.

 

1.)Regardless if it dissuades you from an offer, you again need to realize that if they offering your buyout there is no competent reason as to why you shouldn't take it.

Let's say I don't want to trade with them, I should have that right, for any reason. (Aside from the reason breaking rule 6)

 

2.) You would only get in trouble if the person was marked a scammer on steamrep prior to/during the time of the trade.

Clearly that is not always the case,.

Rules, just re-updated and tweeked last year.
https://forums.backpack.tf/topic/70966-new-rules-for-background-checks/

 

- If a trader is found to be regularly buying items from accounts banned on backpack.tf as a scammer, scammer alt, or scammer fence they may receive a ban even if those accounts are not marked on Steamrep.

 

3.) It would only affect your reputation if you are using this scammer fence/alt to get better/more profitable trades. Only when you are capitalizing off of it will your reputation be affected.

Not at all, if you knowingly trade with a user who is a scammer fence / alt (marked on Steam Rep or not) for any trade, profitability of the trade is irrelevant in the underlining fact that just the trade was against the rule(s), now if you recived massive profit from the trade, that might help the case against you, that you knew that user was a scammer, and due to the profitability of the trade, decided to "forget" that information, so it certainly wouldn't help your case, but profit itself off a scammer, isn't the prerequisites for retaliation from admins. 

 

I would like to see, the ability to decline trade offers from ANYONE for any reason, aside from, the above mentioned to update / change, presumably up the price.

10 hours ago, OverduePixels said:

Not sure what you mean by it. You cannot just ignore and reject trades left and right. Listings should be updated regularly. As I have mentioned before, literally hardly anyone ends up receiving ban for this rule. I don't even remember the last time someone was banned for it. This is one of the most lenient rule in the site.

 

You might think this will insight abuse from it, I disagree, because only the people seriously messing with people, and doing it repeatedly will get warned and banned for it.

 

I will try to be as clear as possible. I want the ability to decline a trade from you, OverduePixels. And hear nothing about it. Now if I where to decline from you, and many others, in like the same week, or span of a few days, and up my price along side with the declines, THEN thats abuse, and very clearly should be warned and perhaps banned.

 

You might be chill about the rule, but the fact that you can't even remember the last time someone was banned, means that its not a serious enough rule to keep in place, and removing it, will backpack.tf mods and admins a good chunk of time, in an era of backlogs. Anyone actually going out of there way to rig the system to there favor, will see punishment, that would just fall under "other" or Note: These rules and guidelines are not here as a complete list of warnable or bannable offenses. They are here to clear up any confusion about the rules that may not be obvious.

 

@OverduePixels If you agree, then confirm that you do, that I can within reason, as stated above, decline offers I see fit, aside to decline only to raise its price repeatedly. That way I can go back to having my listings. Because I'm sure CHRIS or people like him, will wait in the weeds, to send me trade offers on 5 key items, just so I will decline. I won't trade with a user if I deem them a risk to my rep, or for whatever reason I see fit. Its my choice. Of course if backpack.tf wants to put conditions on that, i.e not to up the price, I agree that is smart and I will abide by them. I didn't change my mind and ask more for that Grenade, I still want 52 keys.

 

@rndmchrs = CHRIS *edit*

[Spootzie]

6 hours ago, The Wayne Train said:

Let's say I don't want to trade with them, I should have that right, for any reason. (Aside from the reason breaking rule 6)

 

You don't realize how this can be problematic. I am all for the autonomy for individuals, however when it comes to business I believe that any transaction should be non-discriminatory. Take for example, if backpack had allowed traders to choose whether of not they can trade with someone. What if somebody was part of a given community, had a different sexual orientation or identity, or even a different race. You're enabling certain individuals to dictate who they want to trade with out of unethical and unreasonble beliefs. Even if the interaction between the two people didn't have communication, there are still members of the community that are representatives for what they believe in and get harrassed because of it on a daily basis. 

 

6 hours ago, The Wayne Train said:

- If a trader is found to be regularly buying items from accounts banned on backpack.tf as a scammer, scammer alt, or scammer fence they may receive a ban even if those accounts are not marked on Steamrep.

 

Yes, exactly. If it was repeatedly happening then I would see that there is a problem with that, IF the person has recently been pariticipating in those unethically given actions. In the scenario you've given it appears that you've had no past interactions with this person until now and all he wanted to do was buy an item off of you. You shouldn't be worried about one transaction between a scammer. You also need to acknowledge that not all site banned users have been banned because they were scammers in the past as well. The person that you refused service to was banned because he had been trading with scammers in the past. You're arguing for your own reputation and the reputation of others because you believe that trading with scammers is wrong. It is, however, there are plenty of people who have been banned on this site for other reasons. And even if they have been marked due to some malicious things in the past, that shouldn't be a impasse unless it happened recently, and are also marked a scammer on steamrep. I'm against scammers as well, but you also need to acknowledge that we shouldn't be turning people down for mistakes they made in the past, because THEY ARE MISTAKES. People change and go through ups and downs, there are plenty of people in this community that haven't made the best choices but have now become reputable members of the trading community. 

[Spootzie]

6 hours ago, Fire ̷̨●̷̨° said:

I'm not going to trade with people who have been caught knowingly trading with scammers, and I know a lot of people who feel the same way. Also, it doesn't just apply if you are profiting, if you are helping a scammer profit from their ill-gotten gains that's also wrong.

I said that this would only affect your reputation and status on this site if the person had been recently or actively scamming individuals. I do think its wrong to be trading with scammers, and there are rules put in place to make sure people don't. But what you're talking about is trading with a person who had traded with a scammer in the past. Would that even be contributing to the scammer? The only exchange you'd have between the scammer and yourself is that you've owned an item they've had in the past. In that case, wouldn't it be wrong or "ill-gotten" if you were to own a hat that had scammers in its history? Even then, they haven't scammed people themselves, they merely affiliated with scammer prior to your current offer. There are plenty of people who made a turn around after what they did, and you shouldn't hold people against the mistakes they make unless they are grave. Such a mentality is conceited and self righteous. 

[Fire ̷̨●̷̨°]

If someone is banned from this website what does that even entail? Like are you just unable to post your items for trade or are you completely blocked from the site?

[MopkoBka116]

I got banned for this once, like 4-5 years ago, (I made a buy order on Strange Pro KS Ambassador,but  i was looking for only one type of killstreak effect and decline all trade offers with other killstreaks)

I just unable to list my items for like 12-24 hours.
Other people didn't see any marks about my ban.

But anyway this rule didn't work anymore.
Your reports will always ignored.

2 hours ago, Fire ̷̨●̷̨° said:

If someone is banned from this website what does that even entail? Like are you just unable to post your items for trade or are you completely blocked from the site?

 

[rndmchrs]

2 hours ago, Fire ̷̨●̷̨° said:

If someone is banned from this website what does that even entail? Like are you just unable to post your items for trade or are you completely blocked from the site?

If I was really blocked from the site, I could just log out. 

 

I can not:

-> tag items in my inventory

-> leave trust ratings/delete old ones

-> list items for sale

-> use the premium search (obviously)

-> participate in their secret santa event

-> create price suggestions and vote/comment on them

-> comment on public issues (private ones only)

 

Pretty sure those were all points, I might have forgotten one or two.

[The Wayne Train]

3 hours ago, Spootzie said:

You don't realize how this can be problematic. I am all for the autonomy for individuals, however when it comes to business I believe that any transaction should be non-discriminatory. Take for example, if backpack had allowed traders to choose whether of not they can trade with someone. What if somebody was part of a given community, had a different sexual orientation or identity, or even a different race. You're enabling certain individuals to dictate who they want to trade with out of unethical and unreasonble beliefs. Even if the interaction between the two people didn't have communication, there are still members of the community that are representatives for what they believe in and get harrassed because of it on a daily basis. 

 

If people want to that that type of behavior its not against the rules, so long as you're not spreading hate or being overly rude to users on the forums of calling them names, I'd imagine thats perfectly fine. (Providing your user name, background on bp.tf and profile picture is not hate related) (Thats just my guess, Im not going to quote a rule)

 

You don't realize how problematic is IS right now,  at the end of the day, there will always be racists and neo nazis and murders and the like, us as humans have to accept that fact of life, and do our best to avoid those people, by changing this rule, it allows you, to not trade with users, you don't want to, providing the only reason you don't want to trade with them, is to repeatedly raise the price on your items, after those users offered full listed price. 

 

I've declined trade offers for large sums of keys, from new-ish accounts (keys with 1 person histories or very short histories) because I've had my keys taken away, from Steam itself, when a user charged back Steam funds, for those keys. And then Im the one having to make a appeal, to get my item back, or keys back, its a nightmare. So I decline them if I see fit. Now, Im not declining the offer to change its price, or to ask more, all the time, I am doing what is in the best interest of my Rep and Investments. (Without breaking any of Backpack.tfs rules)

 

I will qoute myself, there are many actual legitimate reasons, aside from a personal reason, to avoid trading with a user. 

 

Not sure if anyone recalls https://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198086210007

 

Blizzstorm, a now scammer, for charging back large PayPal trades, he came into the Market, like a handful of users do, loud and with alot of money, and its people like this user, who give rise to the cautious nature of how traders deal with people, or how each trader is comfortable with how he sees another users actions effect the rest of us.

 

Blizzstorm came in and started buying items left and right, So did Bobsplosion, and Jewlander and Darth Chicken Gaming and FatstormTrooper, so did a old now cashed out user named Cloudy, and c0ver, mistress, and sunkists I also believe invested heavy early on (as well as countless more)

 

All of the names above, at some point or another, I did not want to trade, at least, not actively, now would I of declined a full pure offer from them, I am not sure, looking at it now, it seems almost funny. But at one point, they, were to me as fishy as they come. I would list the profiles, and dig up old scammers and the like, who used there quickly earned rep, to scam thousands, but I will keep letting history forget those names.

 

As for me, I just want the ability to pick who I trade with, that is all, it would seem that if I want to trade the way I do, to quote the thread creating admin, "Well if you want to keep declining trade offers from users you can trade with it's your prerogative, but do know that you'd be blatantly breaking our rules and would eventually receive bans for this reason"

 

 

 

 

 

[The Wayne Train]

4 minutes ago, rndmchrs said:

If I was really blocked from the site, I could just log out. 

 

I

Yes, but then you'd be unable to send offers to users, without signing in, unless you copy pasted the link and circumvented the ban, but it would appear you, as a banned user can still access a large portion of the site.

[Zeus_Junior]

10 hours ago, The Wayne Train said:2- You would only get in trouble if the person was marked a scammer on steamrep prior to/during the time of the trade.

Clearly that is not always the case,.

Rules, just re-updated and tweeked last year.
https://forums.backpack.tf/topic/70966-new-rules-for-background-checks/

But they are not banned as a fence or alt. So that IS always the case. You can trade them.

 

10 hours ago, The Wayne Train said:

If you agree, then confirm that you do, that I can within reason, as stated above, decline offers I see fit, aside to decline only to raise its price repeatedly. That way I can go back to having my listings.

You asked this question to Pixel specifically, but I disagree. 

 

10 hours ago, The Wayne Train said:

You might be chill about the rule, but the fact that you can't even remember the last time someone was banned, means that its not a serious enough rule to keep in place, and removing it, will backpack.tf mods and admins a good chunk of time, in an era of backlogs.

Removing reports for this kind of thing will not save us the huge amount of time you think it will, so I don’t think that really matters.

 

37 minutes ago, MopkoBka116 said:

 

I got banned for this once, like 4-5 years ago, (I made a buy order on Strange Pro KS Ambassador,but  i was looking for only one type of killstreak effect and decline all trade offers with other killstreaks)

I just unable to list my items for like 12-24 hours.
Other people didn't see any marks about my ban.

 

This is a different rule, 4-5 years ago you couldn’t do this but now you can. Using the pencil icon on the item image when on the “create buy order” page

[The Wayne Train]

@Zeus_Junior Appreciate the feedback, you're right, he was not banned as being a scammer fence, or the above, I just lump most banned users together, just do my best to avoid them, its not a personal thing against the guy or anything.

 

If it won't free up time, well, that is a shame, no doubt any website as large as backpack.tf, has its fair share of stuff to do, and as unfortunate as it not freeing up a bunch of extra time, I still don't see that as a reason to keep what I see as a failed / to strict enforcing of a not clear rule. (Its clear now, how the rule is enforced, but certainty not before I was warned)

 

I am curious what you think and if you, like OverdueP thinks, that the rule isn't something to be fearing, rather, and simply, if you do it consistently in a short period of time, you will receive warnings and then ban.

 

If this sums up how you feel, can you, or another admin, give me a definite number as to what is deemed as "consistently" and "short period of time"

 To me, this sounds like 5 times in a day type nonsense. But...then I get warned for having it happen twice in 4 months.. 

 

More Info on to how to better avoid breaking this rule, or a change in how its enforced, would be very helpful, at least to me and the apparent select few this effects / has affected.

[Zeus_Junior]

37 minutes ago, The Wayne Train said:

I am curious what you think and if you, like OverdueP thinks, that the rule isn't something to be fearing, rather, and simply, if you do it consistently in a short period of time, you will receive warnings and then ban.

 

If this sums up how you feel, can you, or another admin, give me a definite number as to what is deemed as "consistently" and "short period of time"

 To me, this sounds like 5 times in a day type nonsense. But...then I get warned for having it happen twice in 4 months.. 

I do think you shouldn’t (have to) fear this rule, yes. As pixel already said he rarely actually bans people for this, the same goes for me.

 

For this, like a couple other classifieds report types, there is no set in stone number. People are allowed to change their minds and the first or second report is not always a ban from the classifieds. It depends on the mods discretion.

if you were to be reported for this again in say, the next 3 months, I would give you a first offense classifieds ban (1 day) given that you have had no bans of this type in the past.
 

36 minutes ago, The Wayne Train said:

More Info on to how to better avoid breaking this rule, or a change in how its enforced, would be very helpful, at least to me and the apparent select few this effects / has affected.

The simply answer is really just “accept your list price”, as long as they are not marked scammers