Suggestion to policy change: Add 10 minute limit to technical troubles

I readed here in this thread:
http://forums.steamrep.com/threads/...with-scammer-policy-end-of-life.119528/page-3

That if someone loses connection or gain computer trouble during a trade or spycrab, such as they can't fulfill their end of the deal, it will be allowed through even if a report is filed, provided that the user completes the trade upon regain of connection.

But I have a suggestion: I think a strict 10 minute limit should be enforced. This 10 minute limit is counted from the very time the user in question disconnects from server or goes offline in steam chat, and if the user hasn't returned at the expiry of the 10 minute limit, and the other party starts a report, this will grant a CAUTION tag, provided that, at the time of report, the user still hasn't paid the items, and the user, after the report pays the victim, and then blames the whole thing on computer trouble or internet connection issues, and not way too long period has elapsed between agreement and repay. (in this case, where a way too long period has elapsed, its should as today, count as regular scam - this thread are about the cases that are today "let through")
If the user has a CAUTION tag, the tag will be upgraded to a BANNED. However, if all the trades/spycrabs came out as successful after the report (eg, the trades were not scams in the end, just that the timelimit expired), the user can appeal, but this will then forfeit the single appeal the user has.

Possibly, if there is a possible for temporary CAUTION tags for these sitations, that could be a solution. First offense = 7 day CAUTION tag, second offense (expired CAUTION tag) = permanent CAUTION tag, third offense (or second offense with active 7-day tag) = permanent BANNED tag.

However, strict evidence should be shown that the 10 minute limit did actually expire, and that the user is not yet paid or returned the half-completed trade at the time of the report.

Of course, another requirement should be that at the time of the report, the accused must not have returned and paid. But the user should have right to report after 10 minutes elapsed, eg the 10 minutes are the minimum waiting period, but if you choose to wait a day and user during this wait repays, you cannot report someone just because the timelimit expired when the trade came out successful.

Examples:
user1 does a spycrab with user2. user2 drops out. user1 does a report after 6 minutes
= INVALID (user1 must wait atleast 10 minutes)

user1 does a paypal trade with user2. user2 drops out. user2 does not return after 10 minutes. user1 starts a report after 12 minutes. Next day, user2 returns and pay user1.
= ACCEPTED (Even is user2 returns and pay user1, it was done after the report was started, and after the timelimit, thus still counts)

user1 does a paypal trade with user2. user2 drops out. user2 does not return after 10 minutes. But user1 decides thats maybe a good idea to wait for a day. user1 waits for a day and gets paid by user2. user1 now starts a report solely because of the timelimit.
= INVALID (at the time of the report, the victim must still be unpaid)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why I think this policy should be implemented:
Since for example in DOTA2/CS:GO matchmaking, you are asked to ensure your computer and internet connection is free from defects and clear any troubles before initiating a MM request. (link to steam support site)

If you lose your connection or gain computer trouble in a MM, and can't return within a period of minimum 3 minutes until a maximum of 8 minutes (depends on how long the rounds get) you get a "cooldown".

And I think, that the same thing is resonable to ask to traders. If you are going to spycrab or do a trade that cannot be completed in a trade window, you should first ensure your computer and internet connection is okay before initiating the trade.

By having a strict policy in place for this, we avoid scammers that try to scam, blames the scam on computer/internet problems and repays the victim after a report is filed. By having a CAUTION tag for this, possibly temporary, users that just happen to get a single trouble are not getting innocently banned, since the tag will eventually expire, but repeat offenders that are doing risky trades or spycrabs on shoddy internet connections or rubbish computers without fixing their equipment are getting harser and harser punishments. (In the same way you can get into jail if you repeatably are eating at resturant with a malfunctioning credit card as only way to pay)

By having a strict policy in place about this, it also sets a good time that a trader or spycrabber can be expected to wait if the other side just unexpectedly drop out, before filing a report here. I think 10 minutes are fully resonable, since, as I said, users should be aware of any IC/computer outages before initiating a "risky trade".

(In the same way CS:GO cooldowns work, and if you rack up too many 7-days, you can actually be banned for 30 days or get permanently banned for "minorly distruptive behaviour")


Any comments? What do you think? Maybe 10 minutes is a bit short? I think anyways, there should be a strict policy on timelimits, if MM on Dota2/CS:GO can have it, why not Steamrep?

Yes, I don't encourage too quick reporting, while there must be a good time where the user can be certain that "I have been scammed", why I said the timelimit itself could be adjusted, maybe 30 minutes is resonable?

Lava:
I was talking about when partner sites are reporting spycrabs. I do not know the exact policy about this as the policy for 3rd party sites have changed many times, but what I remember, partner sites can still report spycrab runners, but users cannot report on SR itself. So what I meant, is that this policy could also apply to these 3rd party reports, eg, the original user report on the partner site must follow this 10 minute policy. (in other cases, the partner site can ban on their site, but the tag does not propagate to SR if the report was done too early)

About the reporting/tagging, that was exactly what im talking about. When you said about that with paypal trade that go "bad" because of internet connection issues. Yeah, I agree that a permanent tag is a bit harsh for a first-time issue, but a gradually increasing policy is what I tought about, where the user will get a temporary caution tag or even some sort of written warning, before harser punishments are dished out.

When there is steam outages (unexpected outages), they have a system to auto-reverse the cooldowns. When the servers are unstable, the system are configured to dish out 10 minute bans to first-time offenses to prevent too much of a problem.
If theres however planned maintenace (which steam have every tuesday, but also some other periods), nothing will be done to the bans, as steam support once said to one that attained a 30 day ban ("Minorly distruptive behaviour") for losing connection at maintenace time for the Xth time "Maintenace time is something planned that we inform about, thus you should know to not initiate any MM searches if you are not able to complete the match before maintenace starts".

The idea is not that "if a network connection drop at a very inopportune time, delaying payment by X minutes" should be a issue, but more of that if you do trading from a connection or computer you KNOW is unstable, and doing it knowlingly that it will put users at risk (because they don't know if its a scammer or bad equipment) , should be a offense.

And thats also why I suggested that the time could be changed. Maybe 10 minutes are a bit short? Maybe 1 hour is a bit long? Maybe even 24 hours are too short? But just a clear policy, of when can you make the conclusion "I have been scammed", and do a report, and have it guranteed to be accepted even if the accused comes in the day after and repays, and blames it on a bad internet connection (when the scammer infact is a real scammer and just repaid to avoid being tagged). The problem is differing between these 2, and thats why I suggesting a policy change so if a user blames it on a internet connection, you could say "You should have made sure the internet connection is fine and your computer is okay before initating the trade.", like Valve says when users are getting cooldowns.

I dont mean anything ill or want to see the "world burn". It was just a idea I got, and wanted to discuss the pro's and con's of having more a "digital ruleset".

My tought was a more "digital" ruleset where a outcome somewhat can be "calculated". Such a ruleset is more easier for everyone, both users and admins, both to understand and enforce, as theres then a clear path in the ruleset that should be taken, like black and white.
The reason I find the CS:GO ban system be "fair", is that it issues very low bantimes in the beginning for first-time offenders, and then racks up when you repeat-offend. Thus if you accidentially gets a unexpected disconnect, then its no problem, you get a low bantime and then it expires and its fine with that, but if you repeat-offend and constantly are getting problems, then its worser.

About scammers that try to "repair", I have got the impressions that if the scammer are at risk of being banned, and can avoid the ban by repaying, they always repay, because repaying lets say 1 of 5 scammed trades where only 1 of 5 scammed trades was reported, just to evade a ban, is profitable for a scammer. Thats why I just came up with a idea of making a more "digital ruleset". I don't have statistics about scammers, I just tought what scammers do when they get caught. Maybe steam scammers are very much different than "real scammers"?

aha now I start to understand this more....
In other words, you are against automation, especially when it comes to support and banning systems.

Im a very pro-automation person. I like when computers can do automatic judgements according to some digitally coded rules, for example, one in a time I wrote a moderator for a forum (it was written in perl), that was based on a bayesian system. Needed to learn a lot before it could be switched to production use, but in the end it was just a few innocent bans. OTOH it was a heck to re-learn when a rule-change was made, because then the whole ruleset for both "good posts" and the rule that was changed, needed to be flushed and relearnt.
I even readed about a court that handed out sentences that was computer calculated by punch cards. Imagine the future when computers take over the courts with advanced AI and neural networks.

look at Steams new refund system, its fully automatic, checks playtime and time game was owned, and then refunds or not. The rules are simple, if you played the game less than 2 hour and owned the game less than 14 days, then you get a refund. Anything else are not refundable. On the other hand, people who purchase games that use a external launcher (so launcher usage is counted as playtime), and then this external launcher needs to download more data, and this download takes more than 2 hours, refunds are disabled, even if the game is completely broken and they didn't play the game a single second, and thus people are "caught in the crossfire".

The negative thing with automation, that it can be abused, is, IMHO something that needs to be written in the rules for the automation thing in question. Compare with for example no-fly lists in USA. So people understand that the judgement system is automatic, and that the system wont care if someone gets abused, its that person's responsibility to defend against it.

In CS:GO, the rule is "If you disconnect, you are gonna get banned. It does not matter why, its still your reponsibility.".
Thats is fair in one way: Same decision for everyone, if you do X (where X is very clearly defined), you get banned. No exceptions.
But that can be unfair that people that just had bad luck or got abused, gets "caught in the crossfire" because they inadvertly broke a rule without intention.

And your opinion is more, that each persons needs to be treated differently, eg if someone does X, because he didn't intend it, person is pardoned, but if someone does X with intent, person is banned.
And thats fair in another way, that mistakes are an exception.
But on the other hand, that could be unfair because people are treated differently for doing the same thing, depending on intention and/or understanding.

We're not against automation. But automation has to be ironclad against any form of abuse for us. And banning for disconnect may make sense in a game environment, but not in a trade environment. You pull examples that show exactly why NOT to automate...

Our rules here have all the goal to safeguard other traders against actual scammers. Not for those "caught in the crossfire". If we allowed such a quality degradation, it would end up that we're trusted a lot less by other parties. These may understand why we did such, but we don't want errors here, for those mistakes we do sometimes make (luckily not that often), it will be a problem for a long time for those users.

A owner of a partner community we had (the comm is defunct sadly), lived in a country where he had regularly the problem that the government just said: turn off the power. So he had often for hours no electricity or on occasion even days. He had a generator, but that doesn't power the internet provider's equipment at the phone system etc.
My own situation is that my ISP's DNS server gets attacked every week several times for hours on end. I'm knowledgeable enough to change the DNS to a public one (examples are Google, Opendns, etc). When I'm at people who have the same provider, I always help them to set their configuration alike. But its the biggest ISP in my country...
Just some examples where someone could not being online. You may live in such luxury, but others certainly don't.