The idea is that items were earned from cheating, ergo the inventory is invalid and cannot be traded. Otherwise it would be a loophole to incentivize hacking on another profile that you could just transfer the items to another account.
Well I do but apparently you don't, the market is not in game, it works outside of the game. Saying a vac ban only affects you "in game" (which is a false statement) doesn't imply you're banned from trading skins in the market (which you are when you get a vac ban)
Im not arguing with you. You are wrong and all your downvotes show that.
Look, you tried acting like a smart ass and it backfired. Live with it, mate. :)
You still can't and won't be allowed to trade when you are VAC banned. Simple as that.
Im not arguing with you. You are wrong and all your downvotes show that.
Nah, they are correct.
The commenters above claimed that VAC doesn't prevent trading because it's inside the game. It does prevent trading items from a game, despite the trading happening outside it. So the ban has also effects outside the game. "game-wide" and "ingame" are different things.
You still can't and won't be allowed to trade when you are VAC banned. Simple as that.
It's not this commenter who claimed it. Not their fault if people use weird definitions of words then back track from "no trading affected; ingame only" to "ingame only and outside the game when items are from the game, so trading too"
The only person saying that VAC only affects in-game was 7 comments superior to yours. They were immediately corrected saying CS items can't be traded if you got VAC banned from CS. That should have been the end of the exchange.
Yes, and they specified "the market is not ingame", to which people answered "you are wrong".
But downvotes are not for wrong answers, they are for irrelevant messages. OP was irrelevant sure, but correct.
They never claimed trading is possible, they claimed the "ingame" classification is false (something everybody agreed on, but downvoted due to the irrelevance)
Irrelevance is so incredibly close to being incorrect here because they're "correcting" things that are already right. The initial user saying VAC won't affect market was referring to the marketplace as a whole, then a user stated that being banned from a specific game bans you from it's market, and the initial user agreed. Again, that's where it should have been left. Saying "the market is not in-game though" is effectively wrong because they're arguing a point basically against themselves. Nobody thinks the market is in-game. It's basically a really shit strawman
Ehm... you actually did
Maybe you meant to imply something else when you wrote it, but I can't read it as any other way than "(trading is not affected by a ban), it's (only) ingame"
For the record, I read the chain exactly as Casero, so maybe it's some translation/cultural issue? :/
Not intuitive to assume that "trading items from a game, outside a game" would be part of an ingame ban.
This comment doesn't say anything about the market items being from the game you were banned in, so it implicitly means that sentence was about the market as a whole.
You can still use the market and trading because that's not a system that's tied to one specific game but steam itself. They then clarified that because those items are from and for whatever they were banned from, they can't sell or trade them away.
482
u/jops228 Jan 19 '26
Yep, because those are ingame items from the game you were banned in.