• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Steam Support has deleted or renamed my account's login (posting for Neo Member Kaby)

theclaw135

Banned
Okay so the tool is official. But one should've stopped and realized something was amiss when the community ban was lifted, and reported a problem with the tool (without too overtly requesting an unban, since that's implicit considering the circumstances).

Showing friends how to ban and unban their accounts in a manner they aren't supposed to breaks the spirit of the TOS. Even if not a direct violation, Valve would see that as suspicious behavior.
 

Kaby

Banned
realized something was amiss when the community ban was lifted
I have contacted russian Steam Support when my temporarilly ban was revoked by that "self-locking" tool. They are closed my ticket without answer and banned my main account in the Steam Support system for one month.

Few days later I got this:

"Your account has been blocked from participating in the Steam Community.

This suspension will be lifted on January 19, 2038 at 08:14 AM.

If you need to know more, check out support."
 
Steam have bunch of the Steam Support articles like "How to buy a game" and so on:


And also profiles showcases like "Games Owned", "Games purchased", "DLC Owned" and so on.

Right, but this is why it is called the "fine print": It supersedes everything else. I guess you could try to argue false advertising? I wouldn't expect much to come of that. That fine print did make me nervous when I signed up a decade ago. Starting to read this thread made me a little feel nervous again, but I'm not worried about Valve. These days I'd hope I could recognise, myself, when to stop digging the hole or whether I'm even in a hole. Very easy to get attached and hold onto hope for something you hold dear.

My condolences - treat it as a learning experience.
As this user has pointed out the SSA supersedes information on the interface.
 

Velius

Banned
I don't understand what the hell is going on.

What is a self-locking tool? What does it do?

And why would you do ANYthing after they warned you?

You really do have my sympathies but it looks like they gave you tons of warnings. I'm curious, what was your mindset after they warned you?
 

Kaby

Banned
What is a self-locking tool? What does it do?
This tool allow any Steam user to lock own account. Read more info about this tool: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=6416-FHVM-3982

But how does it protect my account? What does it restrict exactly?
The lock that is applied to your account restricts all major actions that can impact you and other Steam users. These include the following:
  • Purchasing
  • Playing on VAC enabled game servers (VAC Ban Protection)
  • Gifting
  • Trading
  • CD-Key activation
  • Steam Community access
 

Mattyp

Gold Member
eh no you're entitled to read all of it, because it's legally binding as much as you wanna say no no no it's not. It really is. You signed it, and it's your fault that you got banned.

It's not legally binding and I didn't put my pen to paper or sign anything, Steams TOS is universal, just because something's legally binding in the U.S does not mean it's the same across the world. They have to follow that countries laws that they operate in regardless of where valve is based.

I'm fine with them banning OP from the storefront, multiplayer and community for he's misconduct but not with them removing access to goods he's paid for.
 
It's not legally binding and I didn't put my pen to paper or sign anything, Steams TOS is universal, just because something's legally binding in the U.S does not mean it's the same across the world. They have to follow that countries laws that they operate in regardless of where valve is based.

I'm fine with them banning OP from the storefront, multiplayer and community for he's misconduct but not with them removing access to goods he's paid for.
He hasn't paid for goods, he's paid for access to licenses via a subscription. Valve has made this iron clad and impossible to litigate regardless of laws.

When you purchase subscription rights to a game license you are expressly purchasing this access under the stipulation and prerequisite that it is a license subscription and that any violation of the SSA can result in access termination.

Any user of Steam is bound by this regardless of laws or location. They're not taking his games away, they are terminating his subscription to platform licenses and services.
 
Last edited:

Arksy

Member
He hasn't paid for goods, he's paid for access to licenses via a subscription. Valve has made this iron clad and impossible to litigate regardless of laws.

When you purchase subscription rights to a game license you are expressly purchasing this access under the stipulation and prerequisite that it is a license subscription and that any violation of the SSA can result in access termination.

Any user of Steam is bound by this regardless of laws or location. They're not taking his games away, they are terminating his subscription to platform licenses and services.

False.
 

theclaw135

Banned
It's more the case that every single thing you posted previously, every single line, is patently incorrect.

Perhaps. The question is who's going to do something about it, and when?
It could take a major crack down by the courts, to keep Steam from trying to skirt common sense by acting like they're selling subscriptions.
 
Last edited:

Blam

Member
It's not legally binding and I didn't put my pen to paper or sign anything, Steams TOS is universal, just because something's legally binding in the U.S does not mean it's the same across the world. They have to follow that countries laws that they operate in regardless of where valve is based.

I'm fine with them banning OP from the storefront, multiplayer and community for he's misconduct but not with them removing access to goods he's paid for.
Except you did. A electronic signature still is valid in a lot of places. You did yourself a disservice not reading it. The TOS has a one for EU, etc etc. Microsoft has the same shit in their TOS, and so does Sony. All legally binding. You paid for a license. You don't believe me? Look at your steam account.

https://store.steampowered.com/account/

It says license. You don't own the games you buy on Steam. You own the license to play them, and that license is revokable. Plain and simple.
 

Velius

Banned
This tool allow any Steam user to lock own account. Read more info about this tool: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=6416-FHVM-3982

But how does it protect my account? What does it restrict exactly?
The lock that is applied to your account restricts all major actions that can impact you and other Steam users. These include the following:
  • Purchasing
  • Playing on VAC enabled game servers (VAC Ban Protection)
  • Gifting
  • Trading
  • CD-Key activation
  • Steam Community access
Okay but why did you keep pressing the matter when they warned you over and over?
 

Trogdor1123

Gold Member
Perhaps. The question is who's going to do something about it, and when?
It could take a major crack down by the courts, to keep Steam from trying to skirt common sense by acting like they're selling subscriptions.
It's already happened, there is significant case law in this area.
 
It's more the case that every single thing you posted previously, every single line, is patently incorrect.
Again, you're talking a bunch but not saying anything.

Except you did. A electronic signature still is valid in a lot of places. You did yourself a disservice not reading it. The TOS has a one for EU, etc etc. Microsoft has the same shit in their TOS, and so does Sony. All legally binding. You paid for a license. You don't believe me? Look at your steam account.

https://store.steampowered.com/account/

It says license. You don't own the games you buy on Steam. You own the license to play them, and that license is revokable. Plain and simple.
We can take it a step further than this for those amongst us simply not grasping this.

licenses.png
 

Kaby

Banned
Hello,

Here is some news regarding my dead Steam account.

On 25th May my account's custom URL-address was removed from my account by a member of Steam Support (probably contractors did that).

They gave my personal link to an empty account that has nothing to do with me. Here's the account: https://steamcommunity.com/id/kaby/namehistory

However, Valve webserver has the issue with "memcached" technology...

Here is a new bug:

My account: https://steamcommunity.com/id/Kaby/
The account of unknown user (or Valve employee): https://steamcommunity.com/id/kaby/
 

Redshirt

Banned
What I find interesting about Steam and all other storefronts is that its a third party.

When I purchase Just Cause 3 via Steam, I'm purchasing a license from Square Enix. Steam is just the facilitator of the transaction.

What Steam is doing is condensing all the licenses we purchase into a single EULA. If Steam bans my account and revoke access to Just Cause 3, it's not consulting with Square Enix first.

Steam's right to do this hasn't been challenged in U.S. court afaik. I'm pretty confident I'm right on this but would like to see the receipts if not.
 
What I find interesting about Steam and all other storefronts is that its a third party.

When I purchase Just Cause 3 via Steam, I'm purchasing a license from Square Enix. Steam is just the facilitator of the transaction.

What Steam is doing is condensing all the licenses we purchase into a single EULA. If Steam bans my account and revoke access to Just Cause 3, it's not consulting with Square Enix first.

Steam's right to do this hasn't been challenged in U.S. court afaik. I'm pretty confident I'm right on this but would like to see the receipts if not.

You are completely omitting that indeed, Steam is a storefront and is regulated by the same local and international laws as other store-fronts. The fact that you buy a PS4 from Amazon means everything products related is up to the product-maker, Sony, but everything purchase, delivery or access related is Amazon's responsibility.

Now as far as the U.S. go, I stand on the principle that it's not a civilised democracy with a complete absence of rights for it's "citizens" so anything goes, however outside of the US it is an absolute certainty that as the digital store-front they ABSOLUTELY (and I asked two lawyer friends to get a second opinion) no right of preventing or removing access to legally dully purchased products.

Hello,

Here is some news regarding my dead Steam account.

On 25th May my account's custom URL-address was removed from my account by a member of Steam Support (probably contractors did that).

Keep html pages, they might be trying to screw you in case of a court suit, keep every info (screenshots don't count, only data and cache do) you can.
 
Last edited:

Redshirt

Banned
You are completely omitting that indeed, Steam is a storefront and is regulated by the same local and international laws as other store-fronts. The fact that you buy a PS4 from Amazon means everything products related is up to the product-maker, Sony, but everything purchase, delivery or access related is Amazon's responsibility.

When you purchase a PS4 from Amazon, Amazon doesn't override the EULA.

Plus, it's a big difference when discussing physical vs. virtual goods.
 
You are completely omitting that indeed, Steam is a storefront and is regulated by the same local and international laws as other store-fronts. The fact that you buy a PS4 from Amazon means everything products related is up to the product-maker, Sony, but everything purchase, delivery or access related is Amazon's responsibility.

Now as far as the U.S. go, I stand on the principle that it's not a civilised democracy with a complete absence of rights for it's "citizens" so anything goes, however outside of the US it is an absolute certainty that as the digital store-front they ABSOLUTELY (and I asked two lawyer friends to get a second opinion) no right of preventing or removing access to legally dully purchased products.



Keep html pages, they might be trying to screw you in case of a court suit, keep every info (screenshots don't count, only data and cache do) you can.
I don't know how many different ways this can be explained to you, you're not purchasing a product, you are not actually buying licenses to these games you are paying for. The whole system is a loophole which voids any rights or ownership to products and services, this is all made 100% clear in the SSA which you have to agree to before engaging in use of the platform. You are purchasing subscriptions for access to game licenses.

Think of this like Xbox's GamePass, you pay $10 a month for this subscription service and get access to digital game licenses. When you fail to renew this subscription for the next month your access is revoked, the only difference here is your are paying the asking price of each game individually and these subscriptions with Steam for licenses runs in perpetuity, there's no maturity date. When Valve disables access to your account or voids subscriptions they are not taking goods or owned products away from you, they are revoking your subscriptions which in turn removes your ability to access these licenses.

There's zero legal work around for this regardless of where you come from.
 
I don't know how many different ways this can be explained to you, you're not purchasing a product, you are not actually buying licenses to these games you are paying for. The whole system is a loophole which voids any rights or ownership to products and services, this is all made 100% clear in the SSA which you have to agree to before engaging in use of the platform. You are purchasing subscriptions for access to game licenses.

Think of this like Xbox's GamePass, you pay $10 a month for this subscription service and get access to digital game licenses. When you fail to renew this subscription for the next month your access is revoked, the only difference here is your are paying the asking price of each game individually and these subscriptions with Steam for licenses runs in perpetuity, there's no maturity date. When Valve disables access to your account or voids subscriptions they are not taking goods or owned products away from you, they are revoking your subscriptions which in turn removes your ability to access these licenses.

There's zero legal work around for this regardless of where you come from.

I don't how may different ways this can be explained to you: you are right on the ways Valve wrote it's SSA, and you are wrong (unless in the US) on the way this actually applies with laws, which is that it doesn't. The way Valve tries to skirt the actuals laws, but it doesn't matter how they contractualise it as long as long as what you describe is in no way distinguishable from purchasing a product. The act of purchasing a good under intellectual propriety laws whether it's a vinyl or a digital game is absolutely qualified in the same core way.

I've asked two friends, showed them the SSA you posted earlier and they were categorical: this is not legal (I didn't say illegal either), this is a contractual definition that is in any cases superseded by the actual laws to which usual licensing applications and restrictions applies. Now there is no precedent that I know of in Europe in which these companies have been sued and therefor a legal precedent to establish it firmly, but Valve SSA definition does not stand a chance in any European court trials as no cases where contractualisation trying to circumvent the common legal sense has every worked.
 
I don't how may different ways this can be explained to you: you are right on the ways Valve wrote it's SSA, and you are wrong (unless in the US) on the way this actually applies with laws, which is that it doesn't. The way Valve tries to skirt the actuals laws, but it doesn't matter how they contractualise it as long as long as what you describe is in no way distinguishable from purchasing a product. The act of purchasing a good under intellectual propriety laws whether it's a vinyl or a digital game is absolutely qualified in the same core way.

I've asked two friends, showed them the SSA you posted earlier and they were categorical: this is not legal (I didn't say illegal either), this is a contractual definition that is in any cases superseded by the actual laws to which usual licensing applications and restrictions applies. Now there is no precedent that I know of in Europe in which these companies have been sued and therefor a legal precedent to establish it firmly, but Valve SSA definition does not stand a chance in any European court trials as no cases where contractualisation trying to circumvent the common legal sense has every worked.
This logic might hold weight if people were forced or compelled to use the service however they're not, it's an optional service to which end users regardless of location agree to the terms therein and understand the implications of what a purchase actually nets them. There's zero legal work around for this, none, it can't be arbitrated because the very act of using the platform and making a purchase clearly discloses to the end user that they are not actually purchasing a game, they are not actually purchasing a license, they are purchasing a subscription which grants access to a license.

Obviously there's a morality issue at play here but the terms are as clear and day, black and white, no one is being misled and when optionally using the platform and making purchases you are of sound mind making a conscious decision to accept and be held by these terms. A clickwrap is a legally binding contract if the issuer provides opportunity and reasonable notice to review the terms before agreeing, that of which Valve does for the Steam platform. Furthermore even if there were some kind of arbitration to result from all of this, what is the intended result and what would the rationalization be to arbitrate and be awarded something?

Your anecdotes are meaningless in the face of clear text that tells you exactly what you are purchasing. You're not purchasing games, you're not purchasing licenses, you are purchasing subscriptions. How can one arbitrate against a subscription which has no intrinsic product ownership behind it? The court can't grant you licenses, the court can't grant you games, the court can't grant you your money back as it was used in service of the subscription which was voided, so what exactly would be the goal here and how would it be enacted?

This is ironclad, you're like a fish out of water right now.
 

theclaw135

Banned
IMHO it more demonstrates how inadequate countries' legal frameworks are for the digital age.

Couldn't the court rule digital subscriptions that can't be traded or resold are illegal?
 
Last edited:

Kaby

Banned
IMHO it more demonstrates how inadequate countries' legal frameworks are for the digital age.
We are all will become to digital world sooner or later. An exception only for food and other necessary goods.
 
Last edited:

Arksy

Member
This logic might hold weight if people were forced or compelled to use the service however they're not, it's an optional service to which end users regardless of location agree to the terms therein and understand the implications of what a purchase actually nets them. There's zero legal work around for this, none, it can't be arbitrated because the very act of using the platform and making a purchase clearly discloses to the end user that they are not actually purchasing a game, they are not actually purchasing a license, they are purchasing a subscription which grants access to a license.

Obviously there's a morality issue at play here but the terms are as clear and day, black and white, no one is being misled and when optionally using the platform and making purchases you are of sound mind making a conscious decision to accept and be held by these terms. A clickwrap is a legally binding contract if the issuer provides opportunity and reasonable notice to review the terms before agreeing, that of which Valve does for the Steam platform. Furthermore even if there were some kind of arbitration to result from all of this, what is the intended result and what would the rationalization be to arbitrate and be awarded something?

Your anecdotes are meaningless in the face of clear text that tells you exactly what you are purchasing. You're not purchasing games, you're not purchasing licenses, you are purchasing subscriptions. How can one arbitrate against a subscription which has no intrinsic product ownership behind it? The court can't grant you licenses, the court can't grant you games, the court can't grant you your money back as it was used in service of the subscription which was voided, so what exactly would be the goal here and how would it be enacted?

This is ironclad, you're like a fish out of water right now.

The misinformation here is staggering.

1. The idea that being an optional service gives it a legal opt-out is false. You have to abide by the laws of the countries you are selling to. Valve falls under Australian jurisdiction when selling to Australia. This was decided with respect to the company in question in ACCC v Valve Corporation and upheld on appeal. (Although I find the idea that they tried to even argue it somewhat laughable).

2. There is considerable debate in legal circles in many jurisdictions as to whether clickwrap is a legally binding contract. In some jurisdictions the case law is settled, in the relevant jurisdiction, it is not. Regardless, the idea that it would somehow take paramount to the Competition and Consumer Act is absurd.

3. The remedy would be to put the aggrieved party back in the position they were in but for the breach. Most likely it would be damages in the form of a refund for every penny spent. It would be unlikely that a court would compel Valve to lift the ban.

4. The court in the same case confirmed that what Valve was selling was indeed a good and actionable under the relevant legislation. Courts commonly ignore what something is called and use abductive reasoning. See Rent Controls Act in the UK as one of the thousands of examples of this.
 
Last edited:

Kaby

Banned
I hope I will not violate the rules by bumping this thread...

I need your opinions guys. Really... :sneaky:
 
Last edited:

Cato

Banned
Yeah, it's also funny. I have no idea how they are determined "other accounts". (Of course, I had an empty one without games). And I did not contacted them after this conversation.

Don't understand the problem.
You were an ass on their platform and the temp banned you.
You doubled down and dialed being an ass up to 11.
Then they permabanned you ?

Don't be an ass and don't try to hack their platform and you will not be banned.
So far I think it looks like it is good they banned you.
 
Last edited:

Kaby

Banned
So far I think it looks like it is good they banned you.
Thanks for the kindness. I think I must to go through window. :confused:

This exploit was so outdated and it's not fixed nowadays yet. I was banned in May of 2017 (for exploiting) a one year ago...

But the main question of this thread is that my account was permanently suspended for annoying the Steam Support.
 

Cato

Banned
Thanks for the kindness. I think I must to go through window. :confused:

This exploit was so outdated and it's not fixed nowadays yet. I was banned in May of 2017 (for exploiting) a one year ago...

But the main question of this thread is that my account was permanently suspended for annoying the Steam Support.

And still, you admit you used the exploit and then they banned you?
Again, why should I care ? Them perma-banning you for knowingly using an exploit sounds like the correct action from them.
Why should I care? Steam is probably better off without you.
 

Kaby

Banned
And still, you admit you used the exploit and then they banned you?
Again, why should I care ? Them perma-banning you for knowingly using an exploit sounds like the correct action from them.
Why should I care? Steam is probably better off without you.
1. Re-read OP's post again. I got only six-months Steam Ban for abusing of the exploit. And then got permanent ban for using the official tool.
2. I am a Steam Community Translator https://steamcommunity.com/id/Kaby/badges/9
 
Last edited:

Shifty

Member
1. Re-read OP's post again. I got only six-months Steam Ban for abusing of the exploit. And then got permanent ban for using the official tool.
2. I am a Steam Community Translator https://steamcommunity.com/id/Kaby/badges/9
So as I understand it, you used an exploit and got banned for 6 months, then used an official tool to undo that 6 month ban, which then caused steam support to permanently ban you. Is that accurate?

Because, assuming that to be correct, you're still in the wrong here. Just because the official tool allows you to reverse a ban performed by a moderator (presumably through some unintentional oversight) doesn't mean you should use it for that purpose.

Think of it like this: If you get kicked out of a bar and told not to come back for a week, then manage to sneak back in before that week is up because somebody left a door open, you're still violating the explicit order to not come back.
Yes, the fact that you were able to get back in is an oversight/exploit, but that doesn't negate the fact that you were told not to.

I understand that a lot of the replies in here must seem pretty unsympathetic, but based on the way you've presented both the situation and the reasoning behind your actions, the outcome seems pretty cut-and-dry. You were told to stay away for 6 months, and you didn't.
 
Last edited:

Kaby

Banned
Is that accurate?
Yes, it's correct.
I understand that a lot of the replies in here must seem pretty unsympathetic
I can understand the each user (participants) of this thread. It's normal. But I unable to understand Valve Employees and Web-developers, because this exploit is still there on Steam. (I have reported this exploit long time ago, before starting "abusing" this). Self-locking tool has nothing to do with exploits (this tool automatically reversed the ban from my account). I did not known before that is even possible.
 
Last edited:

prag16

Banned
Sounds like the OP deserved everything that happened. Except for losing access to offline play of his library. That's shitty. Everything else, online, community, purchasing, etc, Valve seems justified in permanently suppressing all that given the circumstances. But permanently locking him out of his entire library isn't cool.
 

Shifty

Member
Yes, it's correct.

I can understand the each user (participants) of this thread. It's normal. But I unable to understand Valve Employees and Web-developers, because this exploit is still there on Steam. (I have reported this exploit long time ago, before starting "abusing" this).
I feel like the exploit still being present is a case of 'Valve gonna Valve'. Big Picture is still an unstable trash fire half the time, and that's a high-visibility user-facing issue that people actively berate them to fix.

Self-locking tool has nothing to do with exploits (this tool automatically reversed the ban from my account). I did not known before that is even possible.
If your reversing the ban using the official tool was an accident rather than something done with intent then the situation is pretty unfortunate and probably deserving of more sympathy.
There's an argument to be made that you shouldn't have been using the tool if your account was suspended, but by the same token you can also argue that Valve's systems should be smart enough to know the difference between a moderator ban and a 'self ban' done with officially-supported software.

I guess Valve support could probably have handled it better too, but the prior ban likely set a precedent that made it that much easier for them to ignore the situation and go straight to "nope, we're done".
 

Kaby

Banned
I guess Valve support could probably have handled it better too, but the prior ban likely set a precedent that made it that much easier for them to ignore the situation and go straight to "nope, we're done".
Indeed. Easy way for them - just banning users in manual mode and not fixing the issue or the source of the problem.
 
Come on, Kaby. Steam are Legendary for being pricks and zero tolerance. It's why I stay away from the forums and just game with my home slices that I have known since forever now.
I have zero infractions. It's not hard to play by the rules. If they tell you not to do something you should oblige!

Steam is a privately owned company. Keep that in mind.
 

Kaby

Banned
I have zero infractions.
I had 33 thousands of posts on the Steam Community users discussions and around 2k on the old SPUF vBulletin forum which was closed for unknown reason.
I never got any type of infractions (only 4 warnings).
hpbRVvH.png
 
Last edited:
Fair, fair enough. Let me ask you, did you have any vac bans? I mean, this is just banter at this point, given that Steam will not reverse it's decision to nuke your account. I mean, there is no point in debating whether or not you can get a reverse. That's just how I look at it.

You openly admitted that you exploited a flaw in their system and kept hammering support when they explicitly told you not to.
You brought this upon yourself and while I know it's fucked up, I am somewhat sympathetic, but you have got to listen to what people say so you understand what's going down.

If you refuse to listen, you will never learn.
 
No, for the 9+ years of using this account I have never received any type of VAC-bans or a Game bans (bans from the game developers).

I have 12 years myself. What do you plan to do now? Will you start over on Steam or moving on to something else? You realized you made a big mistake that led you to this point, right? If you can at least admit that, then I think you'll be fine. It's just a lesson. One of many in life. Lol.
 
Yes, it's correct.
What the heck dude? Have a little common sense. You absolutely deserved to get permabanned for that, no chance to appeal, you're done.

THAT SAID, taking away your offline games collection is total bullshit. For that you have this random stranger's sympathy. Stories like that are why I always check if it's available on gog first before buying on steam.
 
Probably, nothing... I can't do anything in this situation...

Except hire a lawyer, which is not cheap, or consult your local consumer associations. What they're doing is absolutely and definitely illegal everywhere except in the US.

They can ban you from every functionalities that is not tied to a purchase action, but this is absolutely illegal to prevent access to things you've legally bought with your money no matter any twisted EULAs argument.
 
They revoked access to products you paid for. I would demand arbitration per the user agreement.

If I buy a dvd from Best Buy, and then get banned from Bedt Buy, they don’t block my access to products I have purchased.

Digital vs physical, but principle is the same.

A good lawyer would even get this kicked out of arbitration and back into court because it seems like it might violate consumer protection laws. This occurs quite often.

You could also complain to the trade commission and explain that even though they were right to block you, they are abusing customers by revoking access to purchases. A formal complaint would be easy to do.

The last thing Valve wants is a judge or government agency investigation into their business.

That is, if I understand you correctly.

I have over 3,000 games on Steam. If I ever lost access to my games for any reason at all, I would raise hell wherever I had to.
 
Top Bottom