1. There is no such thing as a "pending" ban or Steam admin. Anyone threatening your account is a scammer trying to scare you. Read more.

Did many innocent people become SteamRep banned due to Mattie trying to protect his own interests?

Discussion in 'SteamRep General Discussion' started by BigMac187, May 2, 2016.

  1. Rosalina

    Rosalina New User

    Messages:
    83
    Steam:
    STEAM_0:0:64197455
    The fact that BigMac hasn't been permanently banned from the forums and is still getting attention triggers me IRL.
  2. Katpolice

    Katpolice New User

    Messages:
    303
    Steam:
    STEAM_0:0:92954363
    Sorry to post this. (I normally don't post in these kinds of "threads") But, shouldn't BigMac be banned by now? I mean by doing a quick glance thoguht his post/thread history. It's pretty clear that this guy isn't going to give up. Even, after his countless amount of warnings, temporary bans, complains and whatnot. ._.
  3. You Are The One

    You Are The One Appeals SteamRep Admin

    Messages:
    11,368
    Steam:
    STEAM_0:1:41038663
    We don't ban users from the forums for disagreeing or being critical of SR. Other then what @SilentReaper(SR) already mentioned on that, nothing left to say. Now please dont post unless its on topic. @Rosalina @Katpolice
    BigMac187 and Katpolice like this.
  4. BigMac187

    BigMac187 New User

    Messages:
    313
    Steam:
    STEAM_0:0:32620293
    I like to smoke a blunt from time to time but no I wasn't high on something. Yes all that is irrelevant, I understand all that but it's when it doesn't answer the question of "Has there been a single trade before the cursed TC where someone had been banned for a single trade (not scammed / fenced)"

    What I am trying to highlight is that a precedent was set by this case, it created a situation where users could be banned for simply trading where before that you will need to have scammed or fenced an item to be banned. This precedent then caused many innocent people to be banned as you said, the witch hunters were then in full force digging through trades and then reporting cases, without that precedent being set there then the whole trading with scammer rule circus would have been avoided as people would only have been banned for scamming or fencing and not opened the possibilities for bans for single (non scamming / fencing ) trades.

    This is a fraud protection group and a strong precedent was set via a suspect case, don't you feel it's fair for me to question this case / ruling?

    Was he wearing a BMOC at the time? The time of when he last played isn't really relevant, him giving away keys also isn't relevant... So you don't see motivation in someone trying to protect a copy of an item they own floating around ($18,000) because they once handed out roses and patted butterflies.

    Lets not cloud the situation: Simply $18,000 item dupe hit the market, New precedent was set that you can be banned for a single trade (not scamming / fencing) which stopped the spread of those items, the said owner of the group that has worked into a position to police the community owns that item. It was then followed by many innocent people being banned. Can you not see how this is all suspect?

    This is what I'll like to focus on, It's really seems clear to me that the Cursed Burning TC was the root to all this and the fact that no admin has pointed to another single case of a similar nature before that case highlights it even more. It being high value should in no way be a reasoning to add a precedent that you can be labeled as a scammer when you have never scammed.

    You did say that but you then followed it by noting incorrect assumptions
    (making up a story about SR being offline when records show it wasn't, you were lying, and you traded with the scammer knowingly and willingly)
    to help justify a reasoning when you left out many things that points to me not knowingly trading with a banned user. (making up a story about SR being offline when records show it wasn't, you were lying, and you traded with the scammer knowingly and willingly)