I got scammed :(

i have no idea what he said
but great response :)

It's sad that people in this community care about given–received ratios on a giveaway site like SteamGifts, but I applaud you for the polite but pointed response; as many people can attest, I probably wouldn't have demonstrated such tact.

+1, I'm jobless atm and i won a lot in a short time... one day i'll give back more than i won but for now i use it like a true giveaway.

+1 back at you
plus, check my profile GA wink wink

It's an honest comment, which states the reality - it was victim's fault.

However, when a scammed person is convinced that fault isn't theirs, a victims tries to find someone else who is responsible for their own blunder. Here, we see Valve being blamed for allowing to send gifts without waiting 30 days. Because of this process we get more or less disliked features like: requirement of having steam guard to trade; items bought from market being untradable for a week; untradable gifts for a month; or infamous escrow, which seems to be the worst of all so far. And I bet there is more to come soon.

Valve tries to at least show that they care about security by making trading harder for the most of users, or even limiting it. Yet these endeavours are ineffective as the issue lies somewhere else.

I hope Valve does not read this discussion, because blocking gift fo30 days would be a real trouble for this site.
I'm not going to blame you, you are a victim of scam in this case, but you really should be more careful when trading for gifts not via trade window. And even more careful when trading for steam keys. Try to check that trader you dealing with, check his profile on steamrep and here on steamgifts, try to google for his nickname and profile link. That would not make deals 100% safe, but at least this would minimize the risks. That's how trading works - you get games cheaper then in store, but the cost is more risk of being scammed. Also, if trader is not going to solve the situation, make sure you report him on steamrep, on steam community, and if he had an account here - give him a -rep with all the details of the issue, to warn anyone who would want to deal with him.

What? Then you might as well have just waited 30 days to trade for it if that's how you feel. Why does everyone else have to suffer because you decided to take the risk? It's this kind of mentality that brought escrow about. No thanks.

Under what conditions is one culpable for one's own negligence? In other words, at which point is one's negligence blameworthy? I suggest the following criteria:

• Risky activities should be imputed to the victim's liability domain whenever (1) the action remains within the domain of what was organized jointly by victim and offender, (2) the victim's behavior was not instrumentalized by the offender (i.e., he did not take advantage of the victim's lack of sufficient knowledge to be considered self-liable), and (3) the offender does not have a specific duty to protect the victim's interests.

[Source: Victims and Self-Liability in Criminal Law: Beyond Contributive Negligence and Foreseeability (Without Blaming the Victim)]

While we're obviously not dealing with criminal law, I think the above criteria is easily applicable to cases of general considerations regarding culpability. Given the above criteria, it would be unfair to blame the victim of a scammer for "not being careful enough" because the scam was outside the domain of what was jointly organized (typically a trade) and the scammer took advantage of the victim's ignorance, trust, and/or knowledge of trading protocols. Moreover, you are presuming that the victim did not take reasonable precautions or countermeasures (to the best of their knowledge and ability at that time) to prevent or decrease the likelihood of being scammed, which is unfair to the victim. Therefore, you are not only blaming the victim for being the victim of the scammer's actions, but you are unreasonably expecting the victim to make decisions that very well may have required knowledge, experience, or judgment that they did not have before or during the incident.

Should Valve be blamed for the scam? Unless its actions or policies caused the scam, either directly or indirectly; or it is culpable of nonfeasance, misfeasance, or malfeasance related to the incident, I see no reason to consider Valve anything more than a third party providing a platform that was abused by the scammer. In this particular case, I would have to know more about what happened before concurring with Asayus on Valve being partially responsible for the alleged scam he experienced. Did any of Valve's actions or policies cause the scam in any direct or indirect way? Were any of them nonfeasance, misfeasance, or malfeasance in relation to the scam? I'm inclined to say no, but one could possibly argue that Valve failed to take adequate measures to prevent or limit the occurrence of scams of this nature, or trade ban the scammer, or take some other action that could have prevented or decreased the likelihood of the event from occurring; and that Valve has a duty to do so due to the special relationship it has with the first and second parties, thereby rendering it partially and indirectly responsible for the scam (though to a much smaller degree than the scammer). This assumes that Valve has a special relationship to the first and second parties (both subscribers of its services), however, which can easily be an area of dispute on multiple grounds.

He pretty much deliberately went out of his way just to make the trade unsafe.

That's absurd. What indication is there that Asayus deliberately "went out of his way just to make the trade unsafe"? You're literally claiming that Asayus intentionally put himself in a compromising position in order to be scammed. Unless you have evidence for that—and I would not consider any of his statements thus far as even suggesting as much—then that is nothing more than a baseless accusation.

That's like me saying my bank is at fault because my credit card incredentials got stolen, even though I specifically went out of my way to pay some shady street dealer by giving him my credit card + all the other information needed to steal things from it.

Except that there is no indication that Asayus specifically sought a scammer or someone he thought was likely to scam him, initiated contact with that person, and willingly gave them the item(s) that he claims was stolen from him. Therefore, your analogy does not fit that to which you are comparing it whatsoever.

So, of course, in this case, the shady street dealer would be at fault, but not the bank. In this case, I would be at fault just as much as the shady street dealer, since I specifically went out of my way to make the trade unsafe.

I don't know whether the culpability would be equal between you two, but the situation you're describing is essentially an intentional attempt at being scammed that borders on aiding and abetting. This does not appear to be remotely close to a situation of that nature, so the case you presented is irrelevant in determining the Asayus' culpability in relation to this incident.

Yes, that case sounds a lot more plausible and realistic to reverse a gift activation too.

This is why I wanted a summary, because it seems to lack that information. Although, see the answer above yours…

You know us too well xD

Oh lol, better not! Let me correct this mistake so Gaben won't get it from there :P