Shpiro Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Good luck on exams and enjoy life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Rawer Beryl Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 "Lying to staff." Oh dear, that one again. Ah well. Good luck with your exams, school, and life in general. Once you do come back, Bazaar is a wonderful alternative to Outpost. Edit: On a side note, I wonder how long it's going to take to ban every active trader on outpost by banning everyone who accidentally trades with 1-2 scammers and "lies" about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zemnmez Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 So, the ban is not being taken seriously because I put "Lying to staff" in it? I'm sure Grimdercell can attest to the fact that regardless of whether it turns out he did trade with a scammer, that the events surrounding this issue are enough to warrant a ban pending appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators OverduePixels Posted March 22, 2014 Administrators Share Posted March 22, 2014 Of course... "Lying to staff" Outpost mods really needs to get their head on the game and stop banning everyone who accidentally trades with 1-2 scammers and "lies" about it. Its a matter of time when they end up banning the most avid traders on outpost and all will be left is grass and dust surrounding the site. Anyways...Good luck, hope to see you again very soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Rawer Beryl Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 So, the ban is not being taken seriously because I put "Lying to staff" in it? Not necessarily, we don't have all the details of this case. However, that reason was also used in a very controversial case recently, so forgive us if we assume the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators OverduePixels Posted March 23, 2014 Administrators Share Posted March 23, 2014 So, the ban is not being taken seriously because I put "Lying to staff" in it? As Hatch mentioned... Not necessarily, we don't have all the details of this case. However, that reason was also used in a very controversial case recently, so forgive us if we assume the worst. A case like this has happened to a user who was very much regular here and on other sites, he was a pretty good person but got banned for controversial reason thus we are saying that. Forgive us if that is not the case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zemnmez Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Not necessarily, we don't have all the details of this case. However, that reason was also used in a very controversial case recently, so forgive us if we assume the worst. "The worst" is it being controversial again? I am confused. You're saying that you are not taking it seriously because it might become controversial in the future? That's a very strange way to look at it. I'm just not sure about the attitude in this thread. None of you have any of the evidence and Grimdercell has not complained about the ban being inappropriate, but you're all jumping on the 'bash Outpost' train anyway, pitchforks in hand as though they had asked to be defended. You have quite literally none of the evidence we made this decision, and no-one is asking for a white knight to save them from Outpost's tyranny. I made this ban personally with a review of the evidence I was given, if you have a problem with my judgement, add me and talk to me about it, or email me or do something other than pat each other on the back for hating Outpost staff. I am talking to Grimdercell in their appeal and it will be handled properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 "The worst" is it being controversial again? I am confused. You're saying that you are not taking it seriously because it might become controversial in the future? That's a very strange way to look at it. I'm just not sure about the attitude in this thread. None of you have any of the evidence and Grimdercell has not complained about the ban being inappropriate, but you're all jumping on the 'bash Outpost' train anyway, pitchforks in hand as though they had asked to be defended. You have quite literally none of the evidence we made this decision, and no-one is asking for a white knight to save them from Outpost's tyranny. I made this ban personally with a review of the evidence I was given, if you have a problem with my judgement, add me and talk to me about it, or email me or do something other than pat each other on the back for hating Outpost staff. We're not trying to bash outpost here. I think what we are trying to say is that you and the rest of outpost team has NO IDEA that people make mistakes and SHOULD NOT be punished permanently for 1 OR 2 trades with scammers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woifi The Viking Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 We're not trying to bash outpost here. If you ignore all the hidden posts, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Rawer Beryl Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 "The worst" is it being controversial again? I am confused. You're saying that you are not taking it seriously because it might become controversial in the future? That's a very strange way to look at it. I'm just not sure about the attitude in this thread. None of you have any of the evidence and Grimdercell has not complained about the ban being inappropriate, but you're all jumping on the 'bash Outpost' train anyway, pitchforks in hand as though they had asked to be defended. You have quite literally none of the evidence we made this decision, and no-one is asking for a white knight to save them from Outpost's tyranny. I made this ban personally with a review of the evidence I was given, if you have a problem with my judgement, add me and talk to me about it, or email me or do something other than pat each other on the back for hating Outpost staff. I am talking to Grimdercell in their appeal and it will be handled properly. Well, by controversial I meant completely unjustified but defended anyway. That's an entirely different topic though. And yes, I know I don't have any of the evidence that you have. I admitted that myself. If you'll notice, I have not tried to directly defend Grimdercell yet, because of that very reason. All I'm saying is, the "lying to staff" reason was used to poorly justify a perma-ban in another case, so I'm not entirely certain that this ban was justified since it includes that reason. Also, why would we email you or add you to talk to you about this ban without the evidence? As you astutely pointed out, we don't have any of it. Would you be willing to share for the record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zemnmez Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 We're not trying to bash outpost here. I think what we are trying to say is that you and the rest of outpost team has NO IDEA that people make mistakes and SHOULD NOT be punished permanently for 1 OR 2 trades with scammers. You are trying to tell me that the statement that "[the] outpost team has NO IDEA that people make mistakes and SHOULD NOT be punished permanently for 1 OR 2 trades with scammers." is not bashing outpost? Let's talk about this in a non-confrontational way: Where, for you do think we should draw the line for trading with scammers? I've dealt with cases where users have been added by a scammer and bought an item from them, they were new, they made a mistake; those users get off with a warning. There are cases where a user has traded with a scammer, then attempted to hide trading with a scammer, passing it through alts and private profiles to try to hide it, sometimes, even those users get off with a warning. I've handled a case where a user practically made a living out of trading with scammers via alts, appealed in the most apologetic terms talking about how they had always helped the user get back their items via Steam Support and that they didn't mean to hurt anyone, and that they wished to help the community. After some time, this was accepted and a week later I was alerted to evidence they had started trading with scammers again in large amounts, now they are tradebanned. I've handled a case where a user has, several times bought items off sketchy alts after warnings and each time got out by the skin of their teeth with pretty good excuses. Later, more evidence was brought to light on SR's part and they were marked on SR. The user 'till this day acts the victim, despite Valve stepping in and locking their account. I later found that they were given advice on how to avoid bans and such by a scammer they added to ask about co-operating as a fence. I've handled a case where two people appear to share a computer, one of which is a scammer, but who are both unique people. You must understand that we deal with large volumes of very complex and unique cases, we cannot say 'trading with scammers once or twice is fine', because it is not. The ban reason may come down to "trading with scammers", but the case is a whole lot more than that. You do not know the details of this case and I think it would be wise to reserve judgement. And yes, I know I don't have any of the evidence that you have. I admitted that myself. If you'll notice, I have not tried to directly defend Grimdercell yet, because of that very reason. All I'm saying is, the "lying to staff" reason was used to poorly justify a perma-ban in another case, so I'm not entirely certain that this ban was justified since it includes that reason. Also, why would we email you or add you to talk to you about this ban without the evidence? As you astutely pointed out, we don't have any of it. Would you be willing to share for the record? I don't think you really are in a position to judge the validity of a ban based on some key terms in the ban reason. Apologies for the 'you should email me' implication; I meant it as in the many people 'you', as in -- 'If anyone has a problem with this ban, they can discuss it with me directly'. It's a shame people don't use 'one' any more, isn't it? "If one has a problem with me, they can contact me directly" is much more concise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 cut Then these details should be shown, I've known grim for a while, not a person who would trade a scammer on purpose. A system of "points" should be added. Like I put in my ignored suggestion on the outpost forums.. Hey, while we're on the topic, you should look at it.. Then can you explain why people like slank who has sharked MANY unusuals has not been banned for sharking when I have submitted reports on him with more than 4 instances of trading with scammers and sharking people. Talk about picking favorites. For example http://puu.sh/7FJBS.png Garry has closed many of my reports with valid reasoning for the report and not giving a reason for closing it. Outpost and SR need to be fixed in more ways than one, I've had reports just closed by some moderators just because when they were valid reports. I've had SR reports open for close to a year now. If you ignore all the hidden posts, maybe. I dont think we're trying to bash outpost, we're trying to get them to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeird Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Lol, people getting banned on OP and thinking their trading career is over. So sad that people think this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Rawer Beryl Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 I don't think you really are in a position to judge the validity of a ban based on some key terms in the ban reason. Apologies for the 'you should email me' implication; I meant it as in the many people 'you', as in -- 'If anyone has a problem with this ban, they can discuss it with me directly'. It's a shame people don't use 'one' any more, isn't it? "If one has a problem with me, they can contact me directly" is much more concise. You misunderstand me. I'm not judging the validity of the ban. I only doubt it. I'm not convinced that it was justified, but I'm reserving judgement until I know more. Again, you misunderstand me. I'm saying that it would be pointless to contact you to discuss the ban without any of the evidence. With that being said, would you share the evidence for the record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zemnmez Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Then these details should be shown, I've known grim for a while, not a person who would trade a scammer on purpose. A system of "points" should be added. Like I put in my ignored suggestion on the outpost forums.. Hey, while we're on the topic, you should look at it.. Then can you explain why people like slank who has sharked MANY unusuals has not been banned for sharking when I have submitted reports on him with more than 4 instances of trading with scammers and sharking people. Talk about picking favorites. For example http://puu.sh/7FJBS.png Garry has closed many of my reports with valid reasoning for the report and not giving a reason for closing it. Outpost and SR need to be fixed in more ways than one, I've had reports just closed by some moderators just because when they were valid reports. I've had SR reports open for close to a year now. I dont think we're trying to bash outpost, we're trying to get them to change. "I've known grim for a while, not a person who would trade a scammer on purpose." I don't understand what you are saying here, apologies if I misrepresent your intention, but it sounds like you're asking to give Grimdercell preferential treatment because you know him well. We don't operate like that, and it would be unjust if we did. If you think there is some wrongdoing in the Outpost staff, do something about it; contact me, or another admin, or make a forum post with the evidence on Outpost's steam group. You are not helping anybody by saving whatever you think Garry is doing for a completely ad-homenim reply to a backpack.tf post (your argument is along the lines of 'Outpost cannot be trusted because I believe a member of staff is handling reports incorrectly'). Change is good, but backpack.tf forums is really not the place to bring about change. I myself would like to see some change in the TF2 community, and I'm doing something about it. You misunderstand me. I'm not judging the validity of the ban. I only doubt it. I'm not convinced that it was justified, but I'm reserving judgement until I know more. Again, you misunderstand me. I'm saying that it would be pointless to contact you to discuss the ban without any of the evidence. With that being said, would you share the evidence for the record? Perhaps I misundersood your original post, which I will quote here: "Lying to staff." Oh dear, that one again. Ah well. Good luck with your exams, school, and life in general. Once you do come back, Bazaar is a wonderful alternative to Outpost. Edit: On a side note, I wonder how long it's going to take to ban every active trader on outpost by banning everyone who accidentally trades with 1-2 scammers and "lies" about it. If that last line is not "judging the validity of the ban" I can only beg to differ on that point. It's all opinions I suppose, but I took that tongue-in-cheek remark as a judgement on the quality of Outpost bans, and by extension, this one. Again, you misunderstand me. I'm saying that it would be pointless to contact you to discuss the ban without any of the evidence. With that being said, would you share the evidence for the record? I agree with you, but there are people discussing the validity of this ban already. Vince, above you is already telling me that this ban is unjust because we do not implement his point system and because he knows Grimdercell well. I apologise for not providing the evidence, I understand how that can be frustrating. The appeal and discussion includes IP address data I would consider to be private, details on Grimdercell's life that I don't know if he wants to release, screenshots of his trade history, as well as the names of those who worked on the investigation, their opinions on parts of evidence that may be correct or incorrect. If I released the evidence here I would have to take the time to edit a full copy explanation of the evidence, I hardly think it would be appropriate to start using our time writing detailed edited explanations of where all the bans come from -- especially setting the precedent that users who are popular on forums get special treatment, which is now being perpetuated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Rawer Beryl Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 1. If that last line is not "judging the validity of the ban" I can only beg to differ on that point. It's all opinions I suppose, but I took that tongue-in-cheek remark as a judgement on the quality of Outpost bans, and by extension, this one. 2. I apologise for not providing the evidence, I understand how that can be frustrating. The appeal and discussion includes IP address data I would consider to be private, details on Grimdercell's life that I don't know if he wants to release, screenshots of his trade history, as well as the names of those who worked on the investigation, their opinions on parts of evidence that may be correct or incorrect. If I released the evidence here I would have to take the time to edit a full copy explanation of the evidence, I hardly think it would be appropriate to start using our time writing detailed edited explanations of where all the bans come from -- especially setting the precedent that users who are popular on forums get special treatment, which is now being perpetuated. 1. Sorry, that post was presumptuous of me. 2. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 TF2Outpost moderation could use some favoritism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Map Painter Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 TF2Outpost moderation could use some favoritism. The rulers of the State are the only ones who should have the privilege of lying - Plato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prince Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 i barely use outpost, most my adds come from backpack.tf even when having trades open at both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimes Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 i barely use outpost, most my adds come from backpack.tf even when having trades open at both. Ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Delicious Cashew Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 remember, this thread is about grim and not outpost Gl with your exams and your appeal. PS: @All, please refrain from making useless comments, thx. always sucks to see someone quitting, but good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.