Talk:Fraud and Scam Center/@comment-124.183.82.3-20121212015939/@comment-98.150.129.129-20121215185630

You make valid points as well, and I agree, it is difficult to distinguish what is or isn't a empty trade/ scam. I think it is something that has to be evaluated on a case by case level, with the accuser providing enough information for you folks to make a informed descision of whether or not you folks want to post the name of the supposed perpetrator.

IMO, if there was some discussion between two parties on a deal before hand, yet a blank (or lowball) trade was sent, then it is possible it could have been an honest mistake. ex.) card for 100ed trade, but the other party sent only 10ed... typo, or lowball? Usually, a refusal of the trade, and some communication can resolve the issue; but what about if the other party accepted without checking carefully, only to realize their mistake after the fact? If the other party doesn't uphold their part of the bargin (delivering the other 90ed), then IMO it turns into a scam as well. Just because one party was incompetent, doesn't mean they need to be punished for a moment of carelessness.

In any case, you folks are law here on this board, and decide what goes or not. I just wanted to throw in my pennies. I think putting a definition (yours of otherwise) of what a scam/ empty trade is at the top, kind of binds of you folks in a way. If you state at the top that you folks will take each 'accusation' as a case-by-case situation, you have more room to adjust your descisions based on the circumstances of each case. You folks are still doing a great job, nevertheless.