Bigmac: Trades with Scammer Policy, End of Life

Ah then why isn't it more public?

I have brought nothing out of context, I am stating that there is confusion, I am stating facts here.

There are two statements that contradict each other here and if you can still be banned for trading with a scammer (without brokering for them) then that bullet point needs to be updated for clarity.

I don't appreciate you trying to put me in a negative light, If you look at my history you will see that I am one of the most honest and legit traders. I was banned due to the previous rule and I did not complete a single trade during that time, I did not know if I was ever going to be unbanned, the previous SR rules made me fear that I will get someone else marked for trading with them so I did not complete ANY trades while I was banned.

I am asking for clarity and not for a rule set for me to exploit. Understand that I can be concerned and questions things that aren't clear without the intent to exploit the rules.

I appreciate you clearing it up and pointing out that is going to be a case by case ruling but please understand that the below statement is not correct and should be updated.

- Not taggable anymore. No new bans or cautions will be tracked on SteamRep for cases where a normal trader (i.e. not green tagged) trades, sells, or purchases items from a banned user.

You have said that it is still taggable under a non public guideline / judgement. This point should be updated to indicate that.

I can believe it's getting to this, but read the bold point - Not taggable anymore........ but it is

can't*

Yeah it read like you meant me with them but all good. That's not important.

Just with the hypothetical I gave to SilentR and the reply it indicated that it is still taggable and that it doesn't need to be you brokering / fencing to receive a ban.

I asked If I trade 10 scammers today and keep the items will I get a marking? and he responded you will get marked.

This is where I am confused, is his statement incorrect?

As if I am keeping the items, then I am not fencing / brokering the items but by his statement I will still get a ban when the rule says I won't. I hope you can see I am not aiming to be difficult I am just trying to clear up his statement vs the rule.

With such a process change questions should be expected. I am asking SteamRep in general I'm not to fussed who answers it as long as it's clear. There is no doubt different variables which you pointed out and I have pointed out previously with concerns, my concern is that without a clear guideline and with different communities able to mark then there could be the case of inconstant rulings.

The question I asked was:

If I trade 10 scammers today and keep the items will I get a marking?

He said Yes

I understand that there could be different scenarios which adds more even more confusion.

But by him saying Yes and if his statement remains true then the below statement is incorrect.

- Not taggable anymore. No new bans or cautions will be tracked on SteamRep for cases where a normal trader (i.e. not green tagged) trades, sells, or purchases items from a banned user.

I am just asking for a clear answer on the below.

Can you still be marked as banned for trading with a scammer if you did not broker or partner up with a scammer?

If the answer is yes then that Not taggable anymore point needs to be updated.

What I am saying is logical, both the statement and rule can't both be correct. I feel the statement has added confusion to the rule and I am asking for clarity on the rule.

Is the rule correct or are there circumstances where you could not be brokering / partnering up yet still be banned?

If you and SteamRep are getting annoyed by myself seeking out clarity that's on you, I feel it's a point that should be cleared up and i feel it should be a point SteamRep should be looking to clear up.

Can we please stay on topic, and try and clear up the process. You don't know anything about me but have listed a long list of assumptions about me.

Yes I have raised a lot of concerns, and am pretty vocal and with how SR has been operating you should be expecting criticism. I have seen a lot of people affected by SR rulings and have been affected myself but for me to criticizing it doesn't make me a bad person. Yes you are all volunteers but that doesn't mean you should be immune to criticism.

This is another thing I am critical about, though I am happy with the change I am critical of the rule as it is not clear and opens up the window for assumption based bans from different communities. If as possibly implied you can still be banned for trading with a scammer (without evidence of a partnership) then that Not taggable anymore point needs to be updated.

Can you or can't you be banned for trading with a scammer if it's not evident that they have partnered up with a scammer?

To be clear I said "If I trade 10 scammers today and keep the items will I get a marking?"

You not only misquoted me but you put an italic over the misquoted word to emphasize it and then continued to type what your assumptions were on something on what you had misquoted.

How have you? I must have missed it. Can you please point me to your answer?

Can't you see how it's not clear to me in the slighted as the rule says one thing but a senior admin has said another.

Wow, how about you quote me instead of what you think he is interpenetrating what I had typed. Can you now see why I feel like your trying to discredit me. Lets just stick to fact driven arguments and not assumption driven arguments.

I am still unclear of the below, if you can't clarify for me who can?

Can you or can't you be banned for trading with a scammer if it's not evident that they have partnered up with a scammer?

It's a simple yes or no answer.

If you read his response correctly, you would already understadn it is not a simple yes or no question. In some cases, you will get marked for 10 trades with scammers, in some you won't. Because the ammount of trades is not the only criterion - there are others.
If you generalise it - random trade with scammer - not a problem. Repeated trade with a scammer where you directly help him based on some form of deal - you're a fence -> you get marked.

This is like asking - is it illegal to shoot a guy?
Answer - usually yes, i nsome cases no. It's illegal unless it's in obvious self defence. Not a yes-no qeustion.

It is a yes or no question though, like the question I am asking is "Can you or can't you be banned for trading with a scammer if it's not evident that they have partnered up with a scammer?"

If it is as you say then the answer is yes and they should answer yes. But if the correct ruling is to base it off the rule then it's a no.

This is why I am saying if what SilentR said was correct then that bullet point in the OP needs to be updated for clarity. It is still unclear to me though and really a question as simple as mine should be answered in an official non speculative matter.

It is, all of it. It just requires to be able to read the rules and understanding them fully, instead of only the face value of nitpicking. "Read between the lines" is what that is often referred to. There will be leeway and extremity here and there, such is the nature of the beast. The only thing you can't see are the discussions we've had with partners, when they see an edge case or are reviewing their old cases etc. We cannot help it that you aren't able to read "guideline" / "soft" rules to their full depth.

To make an analogy for you, you ask about a policy like on a lawn is a sign saying "Don't walk on the grass" and you're asking about the mowed grass lying on the pad you're walking on, the lawnmower on the lawn mowing it, the person behind it raking the mowed grass, the animals that are on the grass, etc. All this while the rule's intend is to stop people walking on it so it can grow instead of been trampled into the ground making it a bald patch of land.

As for your "hypothetical" questions for 10 trades, I took those at face value. If I would see somebody that traded 10 different scammers/times with scammers in a day, I'd ban 'm for fencing/brokering/working with scammers. Lava already explained different parameters that would come into view with those, not going to repeat that or redefine it, or expand, I see no point, as his reply is more then adequate. Keeping items is not an argument, for while it may be true you still kept it currently, you can sell / give them away tomorrow.

That was already much, much more then I was planning to answer you on.

Hidden Content:

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

To understand the rules fully I feel questions need to be asked and the questions need to be answered. I am not nitpicking when my concern is with the entire statement of the rule: This is the rule - Not taggable anymore. No new bans or cautions will be tracked on SteamRep for cases where a normal trader (i.e. not green tagged) trades, sells, or purchases items from a banned user. What of this statement is fact?

Regarding your analogy about the sign it's pretty off imo and really doesn't translate well to your rule. A. animals (besides humans) can't read the sign, so it's not expected that they follow the rules B. The sign you mentioned doesn't have mention of any punishment C. I don't see a connection at all.

A better suited sign analogy will be:

Smoking At This Venue Is Now Allowed. No new bans or cautions will be tracked at this venue for cases where someone has been caught smoking.

But the venue owner has then come out and said, but if we see you smoke 10 cigarettes or a certain type of cigarette then we can still ban you.

Can you see how that sets it up for confusion.

Ideally to clear up the confusion that bullet pointed statement should be updated as it's not a true statement.

Unless you update the bullet points then keeping the items remains a logical argument with the rules you have provided.

The rules state that you can't be banned unless you are partnering up / brokering. Not selling the items is evidence (for that time being) on not brokering. For it to be evident that the items are being brokered then a sale needs to be made yet you are now saying you can banned on assumption of partnering / brokering without evidence.

I rescind my statement. If this isn't real life, please let me disappear. I can't take the idiocy coming from bigmac, there's only one way out.