Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HarryG

Force +trusts detailing lending of items and successful return to have proof

Recommended Posts

HarryG    1199
HarryG

There are lot of times that I see people with tons of +trusts that just say something along the lines of "i lent him an item and he gave it back" or "i had second thoughts and he gave me my hat back" from accounts with pretty much no backpack value and no reputation themselves. Now I'm sure that most if not all of these are legitimate, but for something this vague I think it makes a lot more sense if the user leaving the +trust actually leaves some evidence that they traded with the person, because people collect these kinds of +trusts in a similar vein to how people collect +trusts for like, 30 separate 1 key paypal transactions and it's just kind of ridiculous. Here's the kind of trusts I mean: 

849efa028bc4600e98b42d23d49a8040.png

789ca8b7cc3a0d3c6869298b86e68910.png

eda65cf9c4ea30ff8e750564b91374f2.png

6e85abcaedfaa600f450fe3ad0e00530.png

 

042030b0fa792b913e8c60a35be635f2.png

Let me know what you guys think about this below.

 

Thanks,

HarryG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mrs TS    213
Mrs TS

At the least, they should have to post some proof from their trade history.  Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat    2239
Teeny Tiny Cat

How would this be implemented at this point, when we have 5+ years of trust history built up? It's not a bad idea, it's just a little bit too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePickleCat    205
ThePickleCat
13 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

How would this be implemented at this point, when we have 5+ years of trust history built up? It's not a bad idea, it's just a little bit too late.

Not retroactive, make proof start with trusts after a certain date. It would be way too hard to go back to get people to prove all their trusts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HarryG    1199
HarryG
30 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

How would this be implemented at this point, when we have 5+ years of trust history built up? It's not a bad idea, it's just a little bit too late.

I mean, while I was looking for this stuff I found a bunch of +trusts that are invalid that have been there for like a year or more. You could just implement it starting at a certain point and then have people report the old ones. If there's a 5 year old +trust that doesn't fit rules then it would still get removed when reported. Not all of the trust rules have been around that whole time is what I'm saying so it's not like reporting old stuff that doesn't fit new rules would be new

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mrs TS    213
Mrs TS

I know it would be time consuming, but it wouldnt be impossible.  Trade history is permanent so, if a trust is important to that person, they could simply have a box under each trust rating where only they could post and they could add the required proof and that particular trust could be marked as VERIFIED if they provided it. 

 

Again, it would be a time suck but certainly not impossible.    When TRUST is used as a bases for many a paypal trade, it would certainly prove if it was a justified trust or if it were total BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat    2239
Teeny Tiny Cat
43 minutes ago, ThePickleCat said:

Not retroactive, make proof start with trusts after a certain date. It would be way too hard to go back to get people to prove all their trusts.

 

26 minutes ago, HarryG said:

I mean, while I was looking for this stuff I found a bunch of +trusts that are invalid that have been there for like a year or more. You could just implement it starting at a certain point and then have people report the old ones. If there's a 5 year old +trust that doesn't fit rules then it would still get removed when reported. Not all of the trust rules have been around that whole time is what I'm saying so it's not like reporting old stuff that doesn't fit new rules would be new

 

18 minutes ago, Mrs TS said:

I know it would be time consuming, but it wouldnt be impossible.  Trade history is permanent so, if a trust is important to that person, they could simply have a box under each trust rating where only they could post and they could add the required proof and that particular trust could be marked as VERIFIED if they provided it. 

 

Again, it would be a time suck but certainly not impossible.    When TRUST is used as a bases for many a paypal trade, it would certainly prove if it was a justified trust or if it were total BS.

 

These things aren't really compatible points. Picklecat's doesn't make sense because if we need more accurate trust which includes proof, there is no logical reason to leave old trusts as they were. Harry's wouldn't really be fair to people who have spent years building trust rep - they'd have to track down every person they previously did a trade with to have the trust replaced, just because we changed our system 5 years in - and how would they even find them if the trust had already been removed? That's mod time not only to clear trust (and there are hundreds of thousands of trust ratings on the site) but to also provide lists of names to users to go get people to replace it? That's just not manageable. 

 

Mrs TS's suggestion makes some sense but is moving from a rule change to a website re-write, and we already have a lot more things pressing that the devs could do with working on, like re-writing our entire report system.

 

I dunno. I can see where you guys are coming from but this was a suggestion which should have been made years ago. It's not really practical with the staff we have to be making such an enormous change at this stage. Trust is what it is - you can choose to put as much faith in it as you want to and request further proof if you feel you need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mrs TS    213
Mrs TS
3 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 Trust is what it is - you can choose to put as much faith in it as you want to and request further proof if you feel you need it.

The problem is, its always the newer traders that might be harmed since they see something positive on a trusted site such as bp.tf and take it as gospel. Whereas the seasoned traders will notice the trust as possibly fake due to the backpack values involved, the new person sees 3 or 4   +trust and think they can safely trade with someone for perhaps a paypal trade and when all is said and done, they get screwed.

 

Whether bp.tf likes it or not, it IS most likely the main informational site when it comes to trading. Even though the devs may be busy, p.tf needs to recognize their role in the trading community and change accordingly.    While you make a valid point that this should have been mentioned years ago, I suppose back then it wasn't very important to many people at that time.   But just because something wasn't identified as being needed back then, doesn't mean it should not be given proper attention after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat    2239
Teeny Tiny Cat
4 minutes ago, Mrs TS said:

The problem is, its always the newer traders that might be harmed since they see something positive on a trusted site such as bp.tf and take it as gospel. Whereas the seasoned traders will notice the trust as possibly fake due to the backpack values involved, the new person sees 3 or 4   +trust and think they can safely trade with someone for perhaps a paypal trade and when all is said and done, they get screwed.

 

Whether bp.tf likes it or not, it IS most likely the main informational site when it comes to trading. Even though the devs may be busy, p.tf needs to recognize their role in the trading community and change accordingly.    While you make a valid point that this should have been mentioned years ago, I suppose back then it wasn't very important to many people at that time.   But just because something wasn't identified as being needed back then, doesn't mean it should not be given proper attention after the fact.

 

I can't force the devs to re-write the system. So what would you do? Wipe ALL trust and start from scratch? Because our few report mods do not have the time to pick-and-choose through hundreds of thousands of trust ratings. 

 

Even if it did get re-written, people fall for impersonators constantly. The new players who are at risk aren't the ones who know backpack.tf, a verified check on a trust rating wouldn't mean anything to them. And once again that would require mods manually reviewing all trust  to verify it which we simply do not have time to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HarryG    1199
HarryG
1 minute ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

So what would you do? Wipe ALL trust and start from scratch? Because our few report mods do not have the time to pick-and-choose through hundreds of thousands of trust ratings. I can't force the devs to re-write the system.

Good point, makes more sense when looking at it from the prespective of thousands of potential reports on mod's end opposed to the few reports that I see made from my end. I agree 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ḎℰѦÐ! Boom    563
ḎℰѦÐ! Boom

I would say implement a url or picture link or give them the option to add a file proof image like on steamrep reports.

 

But only from now on.

 

But then again you get those people you deal with who are too lazy to do that, but eh, if it was a thing you told everyone then implemented a bit later, wouldnt be too bad. (and keep previous trusts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diamond jozu    134
Diamond jozu

This is what i usually do.i always ask my clients to take screenshots and post it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×