Accepted Appeal: 76561198039260384 - (Ulysses / SR CAUTION)

Appeal for SR CAUTION

Steam profile: 76561198039260384 (Ulysses)

Appeal Plea: I commited the offense(s), but it was minor or I disagree with SteamRep policy
Appeal Reason: [Evidence] Missing - Evidence is missing or not enough

Victim Repayment: Yes, I repaid the victims of my offense(s)
Previous Appeals: No, this is my first appeal here​

Alternate Accounts:

​

Appeal description:

I have considered the recent report agaisnt me and am inquiring regarding the reasons I was given this sentence, and would like to see the explanation of the verdict from the people who delivered it.

I do think that what I have done is worthy of a caution tag. I am aware of what I was accused of but know that there may be confusion regarding the illegality of what I did. I have made it abundantly clear that I did not wish to make my actions predicated on any consideration worthy of a tag. I believed in my heart of hearts that I what I did was lawful by the right to the entitlement to my items.

I added him and had sent a trade offer with the description, '193 buds / going for that end gamer'. In reality, I had unknowingly only entered 191 earbuds into the trade offer.

Note there was no prior agreement to a sum, which makes the notion claimed by backpack.tf who were supplied by a moderator void; at least with regard to: "If both parties agreed upon 193 buds prior to the trade then the responsibility is on both sides for making sure the transaction is completed as agreed upon. Sending an offer of 191 and hoping the other user doesn't notice the missing buds is a trade agreement scam".

This means that the only time any such value or offer was brought to the attention of Dakota it was with the trade offer I sent him. The offer was the very same as the one he accepted, which I believe he knowingly did. The reason I say that is because he has inferred knowledge that I was entitled to the items, but merely thought I was obliged to follow my wording from the description of the trade offer. Here I make note of his wording, "Right...I thought you already knew that, but were gonna be a cool guy about it..." (reference: http://i.imgur.com/tQhUBSa.png )

The value of my word is independant of the offer I sent him. The reason it is separate from this issue is because what I said had been effected strongly by an accident. This accident in turn had created the ability to argue why I was required to provide Dakota with the additional two earbuds cosidering he had accepted the trade offer I sent via his steam profile and not through steam chat.

I argue he knowingly traded the for the value I had sent him, whether it was 193 or 191 buds did mean little to the actual offer, as both sides have stated on the original SR report. It merely became an issue when he realized what he had done and was also now not receiving the additional earbuds.

Why should my reputation be tarnished because of an error on his part? It is his responsibility to check what he does confirm.

Why was I required to pay him the additional two earbuds? He showed clear evidence of having had accepted the offer I made to him, any other consideration is subject to argumentative reasoning; not mentioning the lack of evidence or at least the evidence needing to refute the trade he agreed to.
---------
After the report was made, I began to realize that the 'immediate community' did not agree with my actions. I know what I did was considered by some people to be a bad thing, but I genuinely believed in light of what happened that I did not owe my additional earbuds to the user. I have since paid him the agreed amount that was contested in an attempt to promote my good faith with regard to the issue and to also restore my reputation that I believe has been wrongly tarnished.

I do not understand why I receive a caution tag for this, considering there was a clear ignorance of the rules and regulations held by communities and also a contestable argument against the verdict. I also am uncertain why my actions have been held more decrepid and more worthy of a reputation tarnishing label then the actions of other traders in the community. Here I note the recent actions of Groovypanda, Tiensto, and Creamygoodness. They receive no such tag, and as long as the reports are out of sight they are out of mind, whereas my caution tag cannot be out of site. The jurisprudence shown to me clearly is questionable to any person who would read this in a vacuume, and that is problematic for a variety of reasons. If traders cannot exist without the prescence and influence of SR so long as they trade, they I would argue that more consideration to mitigate should be made in my case. I have made various cash trades to show clearly my word is more valuable then a measly two earbuds. I have also regularly brokered unusuals much higher in value (lawfully), I hold mass spycrab give aways, make prize give away games on tf2-trader unusual server, and had also started my own charity steam group last year. I am not a bad individual, I merely got what I believed to be right mixed up with what is wrong.

I plead with you to consider the removal of my tag. I am reformed by this issue, and is that not a fundamental point of justice? To rehabilitate while providing a fair application of the law...​

One advice: The more [fancy] words you use to make the argument, the smaller the argument actually is in my opinion.

I've reviewed the report, basic facts:
- No prior chat or messages on a site to settle on what was agreed to trade. Or proof thereof.
- Trade offer was made with 191 buds, but text promising 193 buds
- Other party accepted the trade offer, saw the count of items awarded to 'm (191) and asked for the 2 other buds.
- Advice was sought with admins.
- A repair trade was made.

Apart from that either the 193 could have been a typo, a miscount from the appealer, etc.

I've removed the caution tag, as appealer did seek advice from admins and acted upon this situation to resolve it to best ability.

Hidden Content:

**Hidden Content: Content of this hidden block can only be seen by members of (usergroups: Administrative, Moderating).**