Frustrations with community market fraud prevention measures

[Shadowraith]

Until recently I hadn't bought anything on the Steam store for over a year (didn't think it was that long) and I only noticed when I saw that I can't sell any items on the community market until 30 days after a recent purchase to prevent "fraudulent buying and selling of items."

I contacted Steam support wanting the block on my account removed, only to be told that's not possible, and when I expressed my frustrations with the matter I was told I can post here about it and that my feedback would be forwarded to the appropriate department, which was a more satisfying response but still disappointing since my account is still blocked from selling items until the 22nd.

So, my suggestion is that Steam support should be able to remove this kind of restriction from accounts that trigger it and request for it to be removed. In my case at least, there's no valid indication of any kind of fraudulent activity (other than the questionably effective measures in place now) on my account since I use my Steam account daily and regularly browse the store for games I might want. This also brings me to my next point that there should be more criteria in place before somebody's account is blocked from the market, such as long periods of inactivity or no Steam guard enabled or any past issues with possible fraud; none of which applies to my account by the way, which is why I'm a little annoyed about the issue and why I'd like to see it changed.

[Falro the Great]

Interesting--I'd like to hear other peoples' thoughts about criteria-based restrictions. I feel it would certainly help remove some of the posts on here, if anything.

[Τhe Rolling Cheese Wheel]

I see that yearly purchase requirement as kinda like a maintenance fee to use the market place.

[Tito Shivan]

If support could lift the restriction, everybody would ask their restrictions to be lifted, no matter the motives.
The restriction is not only to protect you from fraud, but to protect the rest of users from being collateral damage on a fraud case.

Given the volatility of the marketplace transactions, Using a stolen CC can affect a huge number of different users, on a really short time period.

It's frustrating, but the alternative is way worse.

[Shadowraith]

Well I assume that the restriction wouldn't be lifted for some sketchy account with 1 game that's less than a year old or something but (not to brag) my account is a little over 9 years old now with a pretty healthy collection of games, no VAC bans or past issues with any kind of fraud, and the account is secured by Steam guard.

I just don't see the harm in being able to ask Steam support to lift the restriction at their discretion, especially with how relatively simple it is to trigger it. I'm also not saying that only accounts with credentials like mine should be able to request it be removed (or at the very least reduced) but surely there's a number of things to look at and say "this account is perfectly legitimate so there's no real reason to block them from using the market."

[Satoru]

Shadowraith lähetti viestin:

Well I assume that the restriction wouldn't be lifted for some sketchy account with 1 game that's less than a year old or something but (not to brag) my account is a little over 9 years old now with a pretty healthy collection of games, no VAC bans or past issues with any kind of fraud, and the account is secured by Steam guard.

Accounts with 10 years, or no VAC bans, or anything else are just as succeptable to hijacks and thus are just as appropriate to apply them. The system judges by the current behavior, not past ones.

[Shadowraith]

Satoru lähetti viestin:

Accounts with 10 years, or no VAC bans, or anything else are just as succeptable to hijacks and thus are just as appropriate to apply them. The system judges by the current behavior, not past ones.

I don't see what that has to do with not buying anything for a while and then getting blocked from the market, and Steam guard does show that the account is more secure.

[Satoru]

Shadowraith lähetti viestin:

I don't see what that has to do with not buying anything for a while and then getting blocked from the market, and Steam guard does show that the account is more secure.

It's also to prevent the creation of alts to bounce around things on the Market with. The 30-365 day purchase requirement ensures that only ACTIVE users are allowed to use the Market. This isn't some incredibly arduous requirement. It's not like Steam doesn't do mega sales where they practically givde away games for almost nothing almost every other month.

The restrictions in in place for a reason. It applies to all accounts. Legitimate users shoudl ahve almost no issues meeting the requirments. The odds of it being changed are close to zero.

[Tito Shivan]

Shadowraith lähetti viestin:

Well I assume that the restriction wouldn't be lifted for some sketchy account with 1 game that's less than a year old or something but (not to brag) my account is a little over 9 years old now with a pretty healthy collection of games, no VAC bans or past issues with any kind of fraud, and the account is secured by Steam guard.

I just don't see the harm in being able to ask Steam support to lift the restriction at their discretion, especially with how relatively simple it is to trigger it. I'm also not saying that only accounts with credentials like mine should be able to request it be removed (or at the very least reduced) but surely there's a number of things to look at and say "this account is perfectly legitimate so there's no real reason to block them from using the market."

The problem is EVERYONE would ask to support. Regardless of them complying with whatever rule is set to lift the restriction.
Thousands upon thousands of "Can I has unban" requests bloating the Support system even more. The legit requests drowned upon myriads of pointless requests.

It already happens and they don't lift the restrictions, ever.

The cost of lifting some restrictions outweight the benefits in several orders of magnitude.

[Shadowraith]

Satoru lähetti viestin:

It's also to prevent the creation of alts to bounce around things on the Market with. The 30-365 day purchase requirement ensures that only ACTIVE users are allowed to use the Market.

Except my account is active enough to get a booster pack or 2 of trading cards yet I'm still getting punished.

This isn't some incredibly arduous requirement. It's not like Steam doesn't do mega sales where they practically givde away games for almost nothing almost every other month.

I never said it was a harsh requirement.

The restrictions in in place for a reason. It applies to all accounts. Legitimate users shoudl ahve almost no issues meeting the requirments. The odds of it being changed are close to zero.

If legitimate users are getting caught by it then it sounds like there's a problem.

Tito Shivan lähetti viestin:

The problem is EVERYONE would ask to support. Regardless of them complying with whatever rule is set to lift the restriction.
Thousands upon thousands of "Can I has unban" requests bloating the Support system even more. The legit requests drowned upon myriads of pointless requests.

It already happens and they don't lift the restrictions, ever.

The cost of lifting some restrictions outweight the benefits in several orders of magnitude.

Some arbitrary minimum requirements such as owning XX number of games and the account must be X number of years would stop the vast majority of those requests from "flooding in."

[Satoru]

Shadowraith lähetti viestin:

Except my account is active enough to get a booster pack or 2 of trading cards yet I'm still getting punished.

Trading cards and the Market are separate things. Access to one isn't relevant to the access of the other.

I never said it was a harsh requirement.

Then what are you whining about?

If legitimate users are getting caught by it then it sounds like there's a problem.

So it's not a harsh requirement but people are 'caught up' in the 'problem'? Sorry you don't get to say one thing then say the exact opposite in the next sentence.

The requiremeents are the same for all userse. Want to use the market. BUY SOMETHIGN ON STEAM.

[Shadowraith]

Satoru lähetti viestin:

Trading cards and the Market are separate things. Access to one isn't relevant to the access of the other.

It proves my account is active enough to obtain more trading cards that way, you claimed that only "ACTIVE" users are allowed to use the market and only "ACTIVE" users tend to get booster packs.

Then what are you whining about?

So it's not a harsh requirement but people are 'caught up' in the 'problem'? Sorry you don't get to say one thing then say the exact opposite in the next sentence.

It doesn't have to be a harsh requirement to still be annoying and unnecessarily affect legitimate users no matter what their reasons are for not buying anything for a while; automatically assuming it's because they're cooking up some fraud is retarded.

The requiremeents are the same for all userse. Want to use the market. BUY SOMETHIGN ON STEAM.

If that's what it's all about then why even bother saying it's to prevent fraud? Oh right, because that would show how stupid it is.

[Τhe Rolling Cheese Wheel]

Valve is under no obligation to continue giving you free services that includes trading and marketplace. Therefore the "fee" requirement that is to buy anything/something on steam once every year/365 days is hardly an issue.

[Shadowraith]

ᵀʰᵉ ᴿᵒᶫᶫᶦᶰᵍ Christmas Tree lähetti viestin:

Valve is under no obligation to continue giving you free services that includes trading and marketplace. Therefore the "fee" requirement that is to buy anything/something on steam once every year/365 days is hardly an issue.

If that's how it is then I'd be satisfied if they just said it was a fee instead of "fraud prevention" if only because I'm pretty confident of the ♥♥♥♥ storm of complaints it would bring.

[Τhe Rolling Cheese Wheel]

Shadowraith lähetti viestin:

ᵀʰᵉ ᴿᵒᶫᶫᶦᶰᵍ Christmas Tree lähetti viestin:

Valve is under no obligation to continue giving you free services that includes trading and marketplace. Therefore the "fee" requirement that is to buy anything/something on steam once every year/365 days is hardly an issue.

If that's how it is then I'd be satisfied if they just said it was a fee instead of "fraud prevention" if only because I'm pretty confident of the ♥♥♥♥ storm of complaints it would bring.

It is still fraud prevention because there are many scammers out there that mule accounts in to the hundreds. You will be pretty much indistinguishable from these lot. I'm just calling it a fee to make you feel better.

[Shadowraith]

I'm just calling it a fee to make you feel better.

What a convenient argument.