Open Debate on Classified Rule 6.

[The Wayne Train]

2 hours ago, Zeus_Junior said:

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.
 

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

1.) You say I shouldn't fear this rule, yet what you say after, leads me to believe otherwise. But as a side note, what is classifieds ban, what restrictions does it have, whats it do ect.

 

2.) The discretion of mods, is often not the best way to handle situations, don't get me wrong, thats all any mod really can do, but there is a ton more that we can be clear about when it comes to rules and guidelines, to leave out the guess work. It would prevent people from getting out of  bans where they really shouldn't of been able to, as well as prevent people from getting banned, when they really shouldn't of. I feel like, often, Admins are not traders, and don't really understand fully, what getting banned on Platforms like Backpack.tf and Steam Rep (and Outpost when it was a thing) ect really means.

 

1 more time in 3 months........... I decline at least an offer a day from a sketchy user, if I have 2 trade offers, I will accept the one from the least sketchy, or the guy who got to it 1st, or, straight up decline it, like I did with Chris. Backpack.tf might very well not care about the reasons I choose not to trade with someone, and that is fine, but like I said above, its just forcing me to make trades with users I am uncomfortable trading with, and I simply won't do it, and seriously ask that you, and the rest of the mods / admins, give the idea some thought, because this is honestly ridiculous. Its my bloody item I can do whatever I want with it, if I deleted that damn nade launcher I'd be off scot free, if I uploaded it to Marketplace or loaned it to a friend and that little bar didn't say "declined' i'd be off scot free. The "rule: is already abuse able, or at the very least able to be circumvented, if I renamed it, added a strange part, or paint, or hell, festivized it, I'd be singing like a bird.

 

I accept my listed price, I'm a trader, trust me, I want to sell my stuff, and I want to trade, and I want to be apart of Backpack.tf, and have the ability to trade, on said platform. I don't trade with scammers, and I choose the judgement on who I trade with, not Backpack.tf, that won't change, I'm not going to make a trade with some sketch account for brand new keys for the sake of not annoying him, what about me being annoyed that people charge back on Steam and I have to deal with it.

 

@rndmchrs For what its worth, looking more into your account standings, I doubt I'd of harmed my rep (looking at things now) had I accepted that trade offer.  But with the nonsense crap I've had thrown at me, I don't take any chances, and I wouldn't trade with you now, for a few reasons...

 

10/10 this rule or the way its implemented is wrong, very very wrong. If you're open to hearing feadback from others, on the topic, or if your own personal viewpoints differ from that of the rules you enforce, that'd be interesting, and I'm still looking to get something about this changed.

 

In the mean time, I'm not dead set sold on if I'm safe to re-list on backpack.tf, from the sounds of it, its wait over 3 months or upload stuff to marketplace to avoid the decline text. Something I'm sure happens all the time in situations other then mine. 

[rndmchrs]

19 minutes ago, The Wayne Train said:

I wouldn't trade with you now, for a few reasons...

I don't mind at all, I'm not planning to buy anything from you in future either way.

[Spootzie]

7 hours ago, The Wayne Train said:

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"

It would be a valid reason if this was still possible today. To my knowledge, any keys/items provided from steam have a one week trade hold and are refundable 48 hours after the initial purchase. Now if you could provide me a legitimate and relevant reason as to why you believe that we should make changes to rule 6, I'd be more happy to comply with your grand progressive ideals that you want to impose. Now if you're main concern is that you don't want to be at risk getting site banned for trading with another site banned user, then your problem isn't that traders aren't able to dictate who they make transactions with. It would be in everyone's best interest to change the rules and regulations behind site banned individuals. 

 

7 hours ago, The Wayne Train said:

If people want to that that type of behavior its not against the rules

It doesn't matter if its against the rules or not, its the ethicality behind it. If you refuse a transaction with someone because of discrminatory bias, that is wrong. 

 

7 hours ago, The Wayne Train said:

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 then we can add to the problem by enabling others and let individuals refuse service to sexual, racial, religous, and political minorities. 

 

7 hours ago, The Wayne Train said:

do our best to avoid those people, by changing this rule, it allows you, to not trade with users, you don't want to,

But you can't. If you are a minority of some shape or form and you go up to somebody to buy something, how are you going to be able to know that person is going to discrminate against you? Now if this were to be the other way around then that would make more sense, however, I would still not condone that. I believe that all transactions should be taken with out any bias or discrmination coming from both parties regardless of the groups or parties that they affiliate with. Avoidance doesn't integrate, rather it segregates people of not, entire communities. 

 

This isn't about you, this is about the people who will want to buy something in the future and then proceed to get declined because of either a mistake they made from the past, or because someone has clashing ideals and beliefs that they are proud of showing. 

 

Remember that Rule 6 doesn't just apply to sellers.

 

What about buy orders? Right now, buy orders are very relevant to how we trade today. If the rules you applied were relevant today, people would be able to put up fake buy orders on their hat and consistently decline offers and it wouldn't be wrong since they wouldn't be adjusting the price of the given buy order, like you yourself stated. 

[The Wayne Train]

7 hours ago, Spootzie said:

It would be a valid reason if this was still possible today. To my knowledge, any keys/items provided from steam have a one week trade hold and are refundable 48 hours after the initial purchase. Now if you could provide me a legitimate and relevant reason as to why you believe that we should make changes to rule 6, I'd be more happy to comply with your grand progressive ideals that you want to impose. Now if you're main concern is that you don't want to be at risk getting site banned for trading with another site banned user, then your problem isn't that traders aren't able to dictate who they make transactions with. It would be in everyone's best interest to change the rules and regulations behind site banned individuals. 

I've made my point(s) if you dont agree with it you're free not to, I guess.  Not everyone is going to agree with me, no one gets 100% support with any venture.

Quote

 

It doesn't matter if its against the rules or not, its the ethicality behind it. If you refuse a transaction with someone because of discrminatory bias, that is wrong. 

You keep saying nosense like this, what about my views of of about whats unethical. Why is is fair to listen to how you preach and your views on whats right and wrong, while saying mine is wrong, I agree with yours, people who treat people, and discriminate for the reasons you're worried about are, imo, trash, but that is life, if you're going to be a trader, or be an online gamer, you're going to have to have thicker skin then that.

7 hours ago, Spootzie said:

It would be a valid reason if this was still possible today. To my knowledge, any keys/items provided from steam have a one week trade hold and are refundable 48 hours after the initial purchase. Now if you could provide me a legitimate and relevant reason as to why you believe that we should make changes to rule 6, I'd be more happy to comply with your grand progressive ideals that you want to impose. Now if you're main concern is that you don't want to be at risk getting site banned for trading with another site banned user, then your problem isn't that traders aren't able to dictate who they make transactions with. It would be in everyone's best interest to change the rules and regulations behind site banned individuals. 

 

It doesn't matter if its against the rules or not, its the ethicality behind it. If you refuse a transaction with someone because of discrminatory bias, that is wrong. 

 

And then we can add to the problem by enabling others and let individuals refuse service to sexual, racial, religous, and political minorities. 

 

But you can't. If you are a minority of some shape or form and you go up to somebody to buy something, how are you going to be able to know that person is going to discrminate against you? Now if this were to be the other way around then that would make more sense, however, I would still not condone that. I believe that all transactions should be taken with out any bias or discrmination coming from both parties regardless of the groups or parties that they affiliate with. Avoidance doesn't integrate, rather it segregates people of not, entire communities. 

 

This isn't about you, this is about the people who will want to buy something in the future and then proceed to get declined because of either a mistake they made from the past, or because someone has clashing ideals and beliefs that they are proud of showing. 

 

Remember that Rule 6 doesn't just apply to sellers.

 

What about buy orders? Right now, buy orders are very relevant to how we trade today. If the rules you applied were relevant today, people would be able to put up fake buy orders on their hat and consistently decline offers and it wouldn't be wrong since they wouldn't be adjusting the price of the given buy order, like you yourself stated. 

 

Most of the above, is more of your personal feelings about whats right and whats wrong. I will however touch on what is underlined.

 

You're right, the rule currently it would seem would apply to buy orders, but the example you give, (not that Im sure you couldn't find a relevant one) would fall under the rule of "price manipulation" and they'd be banned for it.

And I am just saying that the rule is wrong, and thrown some ideas about the fact we need to change it, and what that new change might look like. If you think the rule is 100% with no flaws, by all means stick with the statements you've said, and I can keep responding to others, with similar or differing viewpoints. 

 

On the other hand, if you have productive input as to what we can do to change or fix it, that in your eyes would help alleviate your fears about the situation, feel free to share em.

 

I had not thought about buy orders, still feel like you should be able to trade with whoever you want with, and if you're found to be rigging the system to give yourself an adv advantage or if you repeatedly keep doing this behavior in a short amount of time (like 5 times in a day, not twice in 3 months)  then you will get banned

 

The only change I am saying is let people make the choice, freely, and if after they make that choice, it is deemed to be made out of price manipulation or out of upping the price, and they've got a history of it in a short amount of time, then warn em, ban em, and move on.

 

Anyways, my above message was not really meant for you. I was responding to @Zeus_Junior..............

Not really interested in playing devils advocate with you, you've shared how you feel, what your concerns are, I'm after everyones. Dont need this becoming one large conversation with a back and forth of two people.

 

[Zeus_Junior]

20 hours ago, The Wayne Train said:

1.) You say I shouldn't fear this rule, yet what you say after, leads me to believe otherwise. But as a side note, what is classifieds ban, what restrictions does it have, whats it do ect.

 

2.) The discretion of mods, is often not the best way to handle situations, don't get me wrong, thats all any mod really can do, but there is a ton more that we can be clear about when it comes to rules and guidelines, to leave out the guess work. It would prevent people from getting out of  bans where they really shouldn't of been able to, as well as prevent people from getting banned, when they really shouldn't of. I feel like, often, Admins are not traders, and don't really understand fully, what getting banned on Platforms like Backpack.tf and Steam Rep (and Outpost when it was a thing) ect really means.

1.) As i already mentioned, I dont think you have to fear it.
The ban blocks you from creating listings for the duration of the ban, and it deletes any existing listings.

 

2.) Looking at the current report moderators, sin, smokey and myself are traders. Pixel / cat / toughsox are not. Toughsox handles appeals and pixel / cat have been active long enough to know how everything works. I'm more that sure we all know what these bans mean haha

We simply can not set every rule in stone. So we have to use discretion of mods. When someone is unsure, it is discussed with the other moderators.

 

20 hours ago, The Wayne Train said:

1 more time in 3 months........... I decline at least an offer a day from a sketchy user, if I have 2 trade offers, I will accept the one from the least sketchy, or the guy who got to it 1st, or, straight up decline it, like I did with Chris. Backpack.tf might very well not care about the reasons I choose not to trade with someone, and that is fine, but like I said above, its just forcing me to make trades with users I am uncomfortable trading with, and I simply won't do it, and seriously ask that you, and the rest of the mods / admins, give the idea some thought, because this is honestly ridiculous. Its my bloody item I can do whatever I want with it, if I deleted that damn nade launcher I'd be off scot free, if I uploaded it to Marketplace or loaned it to a friend and that little bar didn't say "declined' i'd be off scot free. The "rule: is already abuse able, or at the very least able to be circumvented, if I renamed it, added a strange part, or paint, or hell, festivized it, I'd be singing like a bird.

 

I accept my listed price, I'm a trader, trust me, I want to sell my stuff, and I want to trade, and I want to be apart of Backpack.tf, and have the ability to trade, on said platform. I don't trade with scammers, and I choose the judgement on who I trade with, not Backpack.tf, that won't change, I'm not going to make a trade with some sketch account for brand new keys for the sake of not annoying him, what about me being annoyed that people charge back on Steam and I have to deal with it.

 

-snip-

 

10/10 this rule or the way its implemented is wrong, very very wrong. If you're open to hearing feadback from others, on the topic, or if your own personal viewpoints differ from that of the rules you enforce, that'd be interesting, and I'm still looking to get something about this changed.

 

-snip-

I have not seen this rule being misused in the way you describe

 

Personally, I do not think there is an issue with how this is implemented and personal viewpoints (? bias) don't really matter when enforcing these rules. Yes, I/we are open to hearing feedback on the topic.

@The Wayne Train If you could repeat what you'd like to be changed in the way this rule is written / enforced for both buy- and sell orders (rather than me looking for it in multiple previous messages), i'll bring it up to the rest of the moderators.

 

 

[The Wayne Train]

36 minutes ago, Zeus_Junior said:

Personally, I do not think there is an issue with how this is implemented and personal viewpoints (? bias) don't really matter when enforcing these rules. Yes, I/we are open to hearing feedback on the topic.

@The Wayne Train If you could repeat what you'd like to be changed in the way this rule is written / enforced for both buy- and sell orders (rather than me looking for it in multiple previous messages), i'll bring it up to the rest of the moderators.

 

 

I just want to be able to decline trades with people I don't feel comfortable trading with, I take my rep seriously, and a warning or a strike, means I did something wrong, to find out that it was because I didn't trade with a banned user, It just does not sit right with me.

 

Now, I am going to assume, that your opinion / personal feelings is probably the consistence of the staff and mods, at least to enough of a degree, that outright removing the rule, is probably out of the question.

 

That being said,I guess, update the way its enforced? I do like the way the rule is written on the site, and if a user is found to not be accepting a trade offer, for the purpose of raising its price, or due to it not being kept up to date, that is I believe where the rule should kick into effect. 

 

If you really wanted to, I'd be willing to say, that only takes effect with users who have tarnished rep, Banned on Backpack.tf or a Community that matters to you? Some relevant reason might be required if the user who was declined ends up reporting it in the first place.

 

I still strongly agree, that you should be able to pick who you trade with, for any reasons, free trading, decline for any reasons, but as I pretty much never decline trades for personal reasons, not having that ability isn't really the end of the world, in practice. (at least in mine)

 

 

[The Wayne Train]

2 minutes ago, The Wayne Train said:

I just want to be able to decline trades with people I don't feel comfortable trading with, I take my rep seriously, and a warning or a strike, means I did something wrong, to find out that it was because I didn't trade with a banned user, It just does not sit right with me.

 

Now, I am going to assume, that your opinion / personal feelings is probably the consistence of the staff and mods, at least to enough of a degree, that outright removing the rule, is probably out of the question.

 

That being said,I guess, update the way its enforced? I do like the way the rule is written on the site, and if a user is found to not be accepting a trade offer, for the purpose of raising its price, or due to it not being kept up to date, that is I believe where the rule should kick into effect. Buy and sell orders should be the same, however my original proposal  was for sell orders, since buy orders, I feel like tend to have more to them (paints, parts, dupes not dupes ect)

 

If you really wanted to, I'd be willing to say, that only takes effect with users who have tarnished rep, Banned on Backpack.tf or a Community that matters to you? Some relevant reason might be required if the user who was declined ends up reporting it in the first place.

 

I still strongly agree, that you should be able to pick who you trade with, for any reasons, free trading, decline for any reasons, but as I pretty much never decline trades for personal reasons, not having that ability isn't really the end of the world, in practice. (at least in mine) 

 

 

 

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

This is a problem with the way mods are applying the rules. That rule was only ever intended literally for what it says. If you can justify why you turned down a trade (user is banned, shady for X reason, etc, whatever) then you're fine. I will clarify this to the mods. 

 

Note: I did not read this thread, I saw mods discussing it in a mod channel and filled them in on why this is a problem. This post may contradict things said in here by mods, said mods have now been corrected. 

[The Wayne Train]

On 6/22/2020 at 4:47 PM, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

This is a problem with the way mods are applying the rules. That rule was only ever intended literally for what it says. If you can justify why you turned down a trade (user is banned, shady for X reason, etc, whatever) then you're fine. I will clarify this to the mods. 

 

Note: I did not read this thread, I saw mods discussing it in a mod channel and filled them in on why this is a problem. This post may contradict things said in here by mods, said mods have now been corrected. 

 

Dankuchen.