Is this markable?

Which part man, I'm honestly confused by it.

How I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong but he was not marked for the gambling part, he was marked for the not following up with the agreement part. It was of the assumption that he said that he will give Wayne what ever items back and didn't. There was an agreement, it wasn't followed thus he was banned. How does that differ from a trade agreement? As another example if I was to tell you once you reach 3000 posts on this forum that I will give you an unusual, but once you reach 3000 posts I then say I was trolling... will I receive a marking?

For clarity I guess two questions can be asked, 1. Was he banned due to not following up on the agreement? And 2. In what circumstances can you be banned in not following an agreement?

Because it was such a high profile case with too much fog around it, I had to explain everything to the letter. It still has controversy, but most admins did agree with me when i consulted with them.

1. Read the end note on the d0 report.
2. See 1.

We're really not looking to "expand" our rules. But d0's case was a example where we had to rule. I'm just glad that those type of cases are nowadays very rare that we have to expand our rules with. Don't think we had such a expansion for like 3 years or so.

As for your trolling question.

Humor: Fun for both sides.
Trolling: "fun" for the troll not the other party, but once people will act upon a perceived trade agreement, the troll can get in trouble. For there is no difference then between that and lying.

Trolling is often taken too far by people, for they don't keep the principle: Do not harm the other party in any way.

I troll my real life friends, hell, they know me very well for that. But they really know that I will never hurt them with it. As soon as its regarding relationships, money, or in something that they could get hurt in some way, etc, they know that I won't lie to them regarding such things. For if I would, I would lose friends.

Your word is all you have here on the internet. Your name, looks, ethnicity, gender, facial expression, posture, w/e, everything is out of the equation. Once your word is worthless, you lost the only valued property to have that you can have online. Trolling is then undermining oneself, leaving things for interpretation by someone else. And that someone else will in most cases take it serious, for they do not know you, they don't get the message by your facial expression or posture it was intended as "funny", etc.

I've read the report and the explanation wasn't a simple explanation and at no point did it highlight why he was getting marked.

I can see you like Albert Einstein qoutes so you might understand where I'm going with this since he has a long of simplicity based quotes. My favorite is "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" Are you able to explain his marking simply? Or are you able to explain it at all? When I've asked people about the marking they refer to silents explanation but everyone is referring to an explanation but not able to explain it themselves then they don't understand it.

The simple explanation: d0 led Wayne to believe they had a agreement. Wayne acted upon it, by betting alongside with d0. In that, the agreement was then active. d0 then never really indicated to Wayne they didn't have a agreement. d0 then tried to back out of it saying there was no agreement.

Hints don't count. For you cannot assume one understood the hints.

If someone told me that they will give me an earbud for opening a crate, and then I opened a crate but they didn't give me the earbud can they be marked since I acted on it?
This is a silly one but I hear it heaps in trade servers, someone says "I will suck your D___ for an unusual, If i gave them an unusual but they didn't follow through can they be marked?

Can you see where I'm going with this as your simple explanation opens a large can of worms.

You should learn that people can say things in so many ways, that someone else understands it won't be literal. You pull things here as example that have NO bearing whatsoever.

The thing I do understand is that you don't understand to read with understanding. Its the education of morality, understanding of the world etc that you can act upon. There is no point in putting "rules" for every "situation", for its still largely interpretation.

There is no way we can define exactly every situation and our rule(s) on them. There are more possible situations then Graham's number.

They have baring as they relate to the reasoning you have given to apply a ban. Your reasoning was that person A Led person B to believe they had an agreement.

I am pointing out other scenarios where Person A could lead person B to believe that they had an agreement and am asking in which of these cases is a ban justified.

For reference to big mac's question http://forums.backpack.tf/index.php...ad-can-someone-explain-it-simply/#entry402886

Has there been another recent case where someone has been banned for failure to follow through on an agreement?

I'm not going to (try to) define the fine line between obvious trolling and non-obvious trolling.

That being said. Back on topic.

I got someone marked for not giving me 11 keys he promised after a max for my unusual. He gave them to me eventually but his appeal was declined.

My question has been answered, thanks ^^

Yeah a part payment was done and the rest was not followed through. I understand that this scenario is a ban. But in D0's case no part payment was done.

I can see you did not read what the admins told you >_>

This is on topic, I am replying to your comment and you are the OP.

Am I allow to reply? or isn't just me that needs to stay on topic and admins can continue to post off topic