Some consistency on bans would be nice.

Here a user mistakenly trades a hat, other than what was agreed upon. Receiver refuses to trade back, and gets banned.
http://forums.steamrep.com/threads/...tis-mcpootis-tf2-team-fortress-2-items.60596/

Same scenario here, receiver admits that is what happened, and report gets marked Invalid.
http://forums.steamrep.com/threads/...-tf2-team-fortress-2-items.74255/#post-204424

What is the explanation for this?

For the record the first one was archived by me. We were told that we do not handle sharking attempts or reports.

What are you talking about?

http://forums.steamrep.com/threads/...pootis-tf2-team-fortress-2-items.60596/page-3

I will review them tomo.

Most often its reading skills that people lack.

Lets define a scam as SteamRep defines it for purpose of brevity and in relation of this:
A scam is where either party of the trade is NOT upholding their agreed exchange of items/games/money.
That means, that if the agreement is A for B, if either party gets or gives something different than agreed upon, both parties can claim.

Sharking as SteamRep sees it:
Where an agreement is upheld (A is actually traded for B), but one party was misinformed by the other party about the price or value of the items that where exchanged, or was not aware about value differences of various items (noob).

So, lets do this...

http://forums.steamrep.com/threads/...tis-mcpootis-tf2-team-fortress-2-items.60596/

Settings:
- Victim put up a unusual with the wrong effect in the trade.
- The accused confirms the wrongly traded in the first reply on the report.
- Victim notices and lays claim (wrong one traded, want to swap the unusual)
- The accused refuses to swap the wrongly traded unusual.
A for B is not upheld = scam.

I have to agree on the decision by Thomas Matthias on that one.

Lets read the next one in the next post.

Second report: http://forums.steamrep.com/threads/report-76561198109840015-tf2-team-fortress-2-items.74255/

http://forums.steamrep.com/attachments/excalibur-5-png.122970/
9:10 PM - Excalibur: sry u mdae the mistake its ur fault
= implied admittance

The rest is laying claims / retrade.
And indeed, that report should have been put forward for "ready for review" by @SIVARTZ .

I'm marking now (as I've reviewed the report already, no point in wasting time of another admin).

@32BitPimp: thnx for pointing this out.

Thank you for your prompt attention. I had no intended outcome, either ban them both, or ban neither. But they were situated similarly.