Bigmac: Trades with Scammer Policy, End of Life

Feel free to debate Logic YATO, that's all I'm doing here.

Is this rule fact?

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.

No it's not.

This is logic, SR is expecting me to read this in another meaning.

It's simple. Update the the bullet point or it's not true.

One or two purchases from a scammer will be ignored, but an abnormally large amount of purchases in a short amount of time from a small number of scammers (lets say 10 high priced items in a single day to a single scammer) would possibly raise flags, like SR admins have said, and would result most likely in a ban, but there are too many variables to make a defined ruling, because any ruling about "x trades with y scammers in z number of days will result in a ban" would be abused, like previously stated, because people would do x-1 trades with y-1 scammers in z+1 number of days.

Thanks Taco, yeah I understand that it's to hard to give a definitive value point / amount as it can be abused. For the point that different partners can have different value points thus causing inconsistent rulings remains to be see but it can be an issue. I guess that's a bridge that will be crossed once it's presented.

My issue is that the statement Not taggable anymore is not correct, as it is still taggable. As SilentR has confirmed you could still purchase x amount of items from a scammer and without evidence that your partnering up with the scammer you can still be banned based on assumption. This just makes the rule set given as incorrect.

A better rule will be:

Low number / low value trades with scammers are not taggable. 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 unless in the case we or community partners have evidence or are highly suspicious that you are partnering up with a scammer to sell their goods.

Something like the above gives more clarity then the current rule set which is a false statement.

I did not pretend I was confused. I also highlighted the fact that the statement is incorrect, this isn't a ego thing and the fact that it's me highlighting concerns shouldn't degrade the validity of the concerns. Adding with & to doesn't correct the invalid statement at all the rule still states Not taggable anymore when in fact it is still taggable.

I don't need to go through "gotcha" to make SteamRep look bad, you are judged by previous processes, backlog and any flawed logic you may present. If you want to ban people for presenting logical arguments and constructive criticism then that's on you and eats into the validity of your services.

Fact is that statement is still incorrect, feel free to correct it, argue it or ban me for presenting facts.

Dude, let it go.

Between Lava, Silent and Mattie answering your endless questions, it looks pretty clear to me that the rule is exactly as stated. No tags will be given for a simple trade with a banned user. However, if intent to broker/fence for said banned users can be shown, bans can still be given. Just on a case by case basis and not for simply trading. Why are we still talking about this?

So you can get a better idea of what's in my head and possibly others like me I'll tell you mind set. Feel free to answer my concerns or ban me.

I'm not aiming to be profit trading scammers or seeking items off scammers, but now I don't feel like I am forced / need to be checking SteamRep as much now due to the fact that if I ended up in a trade scenario unknowingly with a scammer (considering they can sell an item anyways) then buying an item off them really hasn't stopped them from trading so there is no real benefit in checking SteamRep when it comes to item for item trading. This is an honest statement.

Truthfully it's a relief not to, I didn't sign up to SteamRep when I installed TF2, I have been a honest member for 5 + years to a game i really enjoy playing but due to a process flaw in the previous rule I was then labelled as a scammer on different communities and my nephew had his account banned. You / SteamRep understood this flaw (as has been mentioned it has been discussed it for 1 year) and I'm sure knew that I was a legit member of the community (YOTO had deleted 15 pages of my reputation on SourceOP so he knew forsure) but even SR understanding the flaw in the previous process and knowing that I was an honest 5 year member of the community, you still chose to tell FoG they can ban me when they asked for your advice. (evidence here on their forum i can link it if requested) (I was also banned outside of SteamReps policy as it was a 1st offense and no evident was provided to say that I had done so knowingly) Everything is fact, and I can provide evidence. If your deleting me it's for presenting facts to highlight the reason for my concerns.

With all that being said, you can see why I don't trust your rules / process and am highlighting concerns.

Your new rule says you can't be banned but in reality you can. I'm am telling you this doesn't make sense but I am being met with responses of read between the lines. If I am to trust your rules they will need to be clear but but once again in the world of SteamRep Not bannable means bannable under certain conditions we can't tell you.

I still will check it for PayPal purchases or sales as there's a level or trust required there but when it's item for item trading and considering that the current rules still allow them to easily trade items then there is no reason for me check SteamRep.

Now with alllll that being said.

If I don't check SteamRep anymore and continue to trade as I normally would (not seeking out scammers for profit but using the system valve has provided) can I be banned on SteamRep? I ask this because of people like FortSP out there that sniffs up peoples asses trying to find out what they had for breakfast.

Will it differ if it was a 2nd or a 3rd offense?

If it's not bannable then it should never be banned right then why will it reach beyond a sole offense?

Also how will partners be successful in banning you if as you said it's no longer bannable?

Jesus, how the heck can someone be so freaking dense. They can ban you from their community. fFor example, a permaban from Outpost. What is wrong with you, I honestly don't get it. Why do you continue to waste the time of every single individual in this community.

Can we please ban bigmac187 from the SR forum, at this point?

Placing SteamRep markings not markings on their own community. Funny how the person that's responsible for many invalid ban requests is calling me a time waster.

I am stating facts here, I understand that the facts I present show SteamRep in a negative light but they are facts. If they want to ban me for stating facts that's fine.

What should I celebrate? That the group that implemented a shitty previous process that removed a lot of legit traders from the community have now decided to change their rule to a new rule that is incorrect in its meaning?

By it's previous dealings I have no reason to respect SR, so If I see s✿✿✿ that has the potential to affect users like it's done me in the past and many others in the past I'm going to raise questions. If SR can't answer simple yes or no questions and need to play the "I am assuming he meant" "while purposely misquoting me" then that's just added evidence of their unprofessional nature.

They have admitted to knowing about the previous flaw for 1 year (as they have been preparing this new rule for 1 year) yet people continued to still get banned. These are all facts. This is all evident. If it doesn't bother you then that's ok but it bugs me.

New
This is what I see with the two rules in place.

• 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 with, sells to, or purchases items from a banned user.
• Brokering still bannable. It is absolutely still the case that SteamRep and communities should ban for knowingly brokering or partnering with a scammer or hijacker. Such a ban should include evidence of active brokering for or partnering with a banned user. Evidence for these bans cannot solely focus on purchasing an item or two from a banned profile.

By SilentR comments it seems clear that evidence isn't required to prove someone as brokering and that it can be assumed that you are brokering to be labelled as a broker. Add in this rule bans cannot solely focus on purchasing an item or two from a banned profile. Then it sounds like it could be a 3 strike your out kind of scenario. Keep in mind SteamRep can be lenient but another community could adopt a strict approach (like FoG with the previous rule set) this new rule set opens it up for scenarios where FortSP goes through peoples trade histories in attempts to find 3 or more trades with scammers and then reporting them. What happens with these reports is yet to be know but they will be coming no doubt.

I'm being vocal and highlighting what I feel is a potential process gap so history doesn't repeat itself.

For explanation what happened here, please see:
http://forums.steamrep.com/threads/...-policy-end-of-life.119528/page-3#post-333672