Are you joking me ?

[Woe☆]

As the owner of the account, I want to sell the remaining items and I cannot sell them. Steam guard does not receive confirmation. THE THIEF STEALING THE ACCOUNT CAN SELL, BUT THE ACCOUNT OWNER CANNOT. You are pathetic.

[.EteRnal.]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Breakpoint:

Diposting pertama kali oleh crunchyfrog:

And?

The point is that these implemntations changed things as I said so that demonstrates they were necessary.

That's the point.

Maybe they were necessary in the past. They are not necessary today.

It is necessary today. You have been told why it is necessary you just refuse to listen to anything anybody has to say. If you have such a problem with it go enable the mobile authenticator.

[Skeletor]

Diposting pertama kali oleh .EteRnal.:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Breakpoint:

Maybe they were necessary in the past. They are not necessary today.

It is necessary today. You have been told why it is necessary you just refuse to listen to anything anybody has to say. If you have such a problem with it go enable the mobile authentication.

You have no vision. You always do what the others told you. You accept what they give you. I don't care mainstream Steam accounts.

[.EteRnal.]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Breakpoint:

Diposting pertama kali oleh .EteRnal.:

It is necessary today. You have been told why it is necessary you just refuse to listen to anything anybody has to say. If you have such a problem with it go enable the mobile authentication.

You have no vision. You always do what the others told you. You accept what they give you. I don't care mainstream Steam accounts.

Do you really think that Valve cares what you think? Or what I think for that matter? Of course i'm going to accept it. Your crusade to fix something that isn't broken will go nowhere.

[Skeletor]

Diposting pertama kali oleh .EteRnal.:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Breakpoint:

You have no vision. You always do what the others told you. You accept what they give you. I don't care mainstream Steam accounts.

Do you really think that Valve cares what you think? Or what I think for that matter? Of course i'm going to accept it. Your crusade to fix something that isn't broken will go nowhere.

Yes. They care.

[crunchyfrog]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Breakpoint:

Diposting pertama kali oleh crunchyfrog:

And?

The point is that these implemntations changed things as I said so that demonstrates they were necessary.

That's the point.

Maybe they were necessary in the past. They are not necessary today.

Cool, then you need to demosntrate how you know that.

[Skeletor]

Diposting pertama kali oleh crunchyfrog:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Breakpoint:

Maybe they were necessary in the past. They are not necessary today.

Cool, then you need to demosntrate how you know that.

Do you need to demonstrate why we shouldn't use a coal stove to heat a building in a city today?

[.EteRnal.]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Breakpoint:

Diposting pertama kali oleh crunchyfrog:

Cool, then you need to demosntrate how you know that.

Do you need to demonstrate why we shouldn't use a coal stove today?

Nice red herring, Try answering the question.

[crunchyfrog]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Breakpoint:

Diposting pertama kali oleh crunchyfrog:

Cool, then you need to demosntrate how you know that.

Do you need to demonstrate why we shouldn't use a coal stove to heat a building in a city today?

That's not how burden of proof works.

YOU made a claim so it's incumbent upon you to show yourevidence as to why you believe it.

See for yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

If you still don't understand it, by all means look on Youtueb for Matt Dillahunty's description of the "Gumball Analogy".

The point is the claimant ALWAYS has the burden of proof, and never the person saying they don't believe you.

[Skeletor]

Diposting pertama kali oleh .EteRnal.:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Breakpoint:

Do you need to demonstrate why we shouldn't use a coal stove today?

Nice red herring, Try answering the question.

I answered 50 times in this thread and you completed your loop and turned your first message.

[Crazy Tiger]

The amount of accounts getting hijacked nowadays shows that the security measures are still more than needed.

People can deny that all they want, it doesn't matter.

[crunchyfrog]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Breakpoint:

Diposting pertama kali oleh .EteRnal.:

Nice red herring, Try answering the question.

I answered 50 times in this thread and you completed your loop and turned your first message.

Answering is not evidence - that's mere assertion.

I'm asking you hwhat evidence you have to show how you know it's not needed to day.

That's YOUR claim, and requires a substantial burden of proof.

As Crazy Tiger rightly says, the fact that there are still so many cases posted every day that we see demosntrates it is still necessary.

[Skeletor]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Crazy Tiger:

The amount of accounts getting hijacked nowadays shows that the security measures are still more than needed.

People can deny that all they want, it doesn't matter.

If there are so many hijacked accounts, this means the site has some security issues. But this doesn't give enough information. How many of these accounts were using mobile authenticator and how do you know that? Do you know how many accounts were hijacked in the last month, last year?

[Skeletor]

Diposting pertama kali oleh crunchyfrog:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Breakpoint:

I answered 50 times in this thread and you completed your loop and turned your first message.

Answering is not evidence - that's mere assertion.

I'm asking you hwhat evidence you have to show how you know it's not needed to day.

That's YOUR claim, and requires a substantial burden of proof.

As Crazy Tiger rightly says, the fact that there are still so many cases posted every day that we see demosntrates it is still necessary.

Do you have any proof? You only say that "So many accounts are hacked". How do you know? Where did you get that stats? How many of these accounts were using mobile authenticator?

[.EteRnal.]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Breakpoint:

Diposting pertama kali oleh crunchyfrog:

Answering is not evidence - that's mere assertion.

I'm asking you hwhat evidence you have to show how you know it's not needed to day.

That's YOUR claim, and requires a substantial burden of proof.

As Crazy Tiger rightly says, the fact that there are still so many cases posted every day that we see demosntrates it is still necessary.

Do you have any proof? You only say that "So many accounts are hacked". How do you know? Where did you get that stats? How many of these accounts were using mobile authenticator?

Stop deflecting, the burden of proof is on you to backup your claim that it "isn't needed anymore"

[crunchyfrog]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Breakpoint:

Diposting pertama kali oleh crunchyfrog:

Answering is not evidence - that's mere assertion.

I'm asking you hwhat evidence you have to show how you know it's not needed to day.

That's YOUR claim, and requires a substantial burden of proof.

As Crazy Tiger rightly says, the fact that there are still so many cases posted every day that we see demosntrates it is still necessary.

Do you have any proof? You only say that "So many accounts are hacked". How do you know? Where did you get that stats? How many of these accounts were using mobile authenticator?

How do I know?

I already told you earlier - by being on here over ten years and seeing how things have progressed on these forums.

I already explained how before these things were introduced how much of the posts were asking for help with hijacked accounts. When they introduced the things you're complaining about, it went down by a matter of some magnitude literally overnight.

That's how we know - because with such a pool of data we can extrapolate that across the board pretty well.

Simples.

And the above poster is correct - YOUR burden of proof. You made the claim and I disbelieved it. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the claimant.