How does anyone or admins battle fake screenshots in this community?

[OverduePixels]

I did not bump into this until I saw Grim's status update today where he posted the link to the suggestion. I would have definitely posted this if I saw that suggestion around that time.

 

Anyways, the question here is how does anyone or admins battle fake screenshots in the community? Look at the suggestion here :

http://backpack.tf/vote/id/544d3db7ba8d88c00f8b4c1c

 

Sure  this got a bunch of thumbs up from almost everyone.  Few were confused at first but later believed the guy. Everything went downhill for that guy when Khal00D posted the real version of the screenshot (Thank you, Khal00D for that). He closed the suggestion when Khal00D posted real version of the sale. Tell me, do you see any difference between any of them? Because none did when the suggestion was up.

 

Fake screenshot :

 

Involving Khal00D

http://i.imgur.com/zzi9Ta5.png

 

Real Screenshot :

http://i.imgur.com/9GvWuJM.jpg

 

I know that there is backpack history but what if it didn't record when this was sold? Because sometimes not all dates are recorded. What if this involved a legit private backpack user? We know that it can't record anything if backpack is private at the time of the sale.

 

If you go through Touka's backpack history, you will have hard time finding what exactly took place.

http://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198056132900?time=1414134000 --> Before

http://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198056132900?time=1414220400 --> After.

 

Its the opposite when looking at Khal00D's backpack history but lets focus on Touka's backpack history. As you can see, little has changed on Touka's backpack, even going through history, many of the buds include Khal00D in the history which might lead to many people thinking those buds were involved. 

 

Similar case took place few months back but that involved using fake alts/friends to bring up the price of a certain non-unusual item. The culprit never got any sort of punishment for it (evidence was posted), simply closed the suggestion and moved on. 

 

Now what if it was not possible to get the seller's (Khal00D's) backpack history or neither backpack history of buyer/seller history was recorded? What if Khal00D never commented on it or talked about it? How would anyone battle this out? Would it end up getting accepted if it never appeared anywhere on the market anytime soon? 

 

How does anyone battle fake screenshots in this or the community? Is it not possible to if others method like history checking doesn't work?

 

Too long to read? Long version short :

 

A suggester posted an unusual suggestion which consisted of fake screenshot until one of the previous owner caught up to him in the suggestion and suggester got caught red handed then he decided to close the suggestion and run. Admins saw what took place and now he is permanently banned. 

 

To add, this is a problem that is hardly ever brought up by anyone in this or the whole steam community. Not everyone tries this but there are few like the suggester posted above.

[Gent♥]

Touka's perma-banned? Thank god for that.

 

Anyway there was no proof of effect in either of those screenshots, which would A: Be mandatory and B: Be much more difficult to fake.

And for such and obviously stupid value as that one, backpack histories and such would be investigated. The spike in value would be obvious, for one.

 

I doubt this'll be a serious issue we need to combat. I'm fairly sure this is the first time I've seen this happen, first of all.

[Tanner the Original Scout™]

Touka let greed get to him. He tried to manipulate the market, but, unknowingly to him, he got caught red-handed by the seller and ran. The lesson here? Don't let greed get to you.

[λngelღмander]

There is no solution, fake screenshots look too legitimate. We just have to hope that the community doesn't suffer a plague of users whose intentions are to use falsified screenshots to raise prices. Besides, if a price seems too outrageous, it deserves a second look. 

[Grimes]

There is no solution, fake screenshots look too legitimate. We just have to hope that the community doesn't suffer a plague of users whose intentions are to use falsified screenshots to raise prices. Besides, if a price seems too outrageous, it deserves a second look. 

 

 

You can always just check bp.tf inventry histories to work out what actually happend.

[OverduePixels]

Touka's perma-banned? Thank god for that.

 

Anyway there was no proof of effect in either of those screenshots, which would A: Be mandatory and B: Be much more difficult to fake.

And for such and obviously stupid value as that one, backpack histories and such would be investigated. The spike in value would be obvious, for one.

 

I doubt this'll be a serious issue we need to combat. I'm fairly sure this is the first time I've seen this happen, first of all.

 

Not talking about this incident but overall. This is an issue that is hardly ever brought up by anyone but this is very much possible as you can see. In this case, this involved a known suspicious character but what if it was a suggester that went rogue and decide to try this method using a very rare item that is hardly ever are thrown into the market again?

[λngelღмander]

You can always just check bp.tf inventry histories to work out what actually happend.

That's what I meant by "A second look". Should have been more specific.

[ParmesanChicken]

Yeah agree this screenshots should be look into

[Darklunerninja]

Wouldn't it be easier to fake proof with Paypal?  It would be a lot harder to disprove (ie. you and a friend "exchange" money for something that rarely sells).

[cranwell96]

Anyway there was no proof of effect in either of those screenshots, which would A: Be mandatory and B: Be much more difficult to fake.

 

 

It took almost no effort to fake it. (Right click while hovering so that the item doesn't disappear as you go back to the inspector)

[λngelღмander]

Notice how cranwell gets marked for trading with a few scammers, just a few, and this guy tries to profit like 700 percent on a deal by faking screenshots and there is no steamrep report against him, is there? (there is one, but not because of this. He's also unbanned on outpost)

 

I love this community.

 

 

Edit: There was no deception involved in what cranwell did. Cranwell found a scammed hat, and wasn't willing to lose a good deal because it was scammed. This guy actively tried to deceive an entire community with the sole purpose of making buttloads of profit, we all know who the real "shadier" trader was here. Yet who was punished more severely?

[Seminal Inhalation]

Notice how cranwell gets marked for trading with a few scammers, just a few, and this guy tries to profit like 700 percent on a deal by faking screenshots and there is no steamrep report against him, is there? (there is one, but not because of this. He's also unbanned on outpost)

 

I love this community.

We're still doing better than when Valve interfered... 

[cares]

Scrubs.

 

[fluffyy]

Scrubs.

 

the bobsplosion text is a bit fuzzy unless you didnt edit that

[cares]

the bobsplosion text is a bit fuzzy unless you didnt edit that

 

?

[fluffyy]

?

nvm my eyes were blurry

[A n d y]

Scrubs.

 

R.I.P Festive Sniper Rifle

[Gent♥]

Notice how cranwell gets marked for trading with a few scammers, just a few, and this guy tries to profit like 700 percent on a deal by faking screenshots and there is no steamrep report against him, is there?

Because fiddling some numbers on a third party site and trading with scammers are two COMPLETELY different, COMPLETELY incomparable things, maybe?

You use Cranwell as an example but I'm sure there's a name you would have rather said in there...

 

Regardless, how many times has this happened before? Anyone? Because I suspect the answer is 'zero'. Anyone smart enough to do it well is smart enough to not do it at all, and anyone dumb enough to try it is too dumb to get away with it.

[♠Derpeh♤]

There was a website used before which processes it quickly to see if it is photoshopped you end up with lines and stuff all over your photos and if too many of them at together chances are bit is photoshopped. I'll link it when I get back home

 

EDIT: nvm site got taken down due to disputes :l

[cares]

There was a website used before which processes it quickly to see if it is photoshopped you end up with lines and stuff all over your photos and if too many of them at together chances are bit is photoshopped. I'll link it when I get back home

 

You don't need to use photoshop as you can see with my image.

[HusKy]

There is no way to tell if a screenshot shows fake trade or not since you can easily modify the webpage in your browser (as shown by cranwell96). You can just hope that people won't do this on a large scale.

[polar]

Not talking about this incident but overall. This is an issue that is hardly ever brought up by anyone but this is very much possible as you can see. In this case, this involved a known suspicious character but what if it was a suggester that went rogue and decide to try this method using a very rare item that is hardly ever are thrown into the market again?

 

Let me address how unusual suggestions are handled in general. First, most active mods handling unusual suggestions (me, Kaushu, Michael, occasionally Bucket and Woifi) have a lot of experience with unusual trading. When you accept ~1000 suggestions a month and trade 50+ hats a month, you get a pretty good idea about hat values at any tier. ANY suggestion that looks off ends up in the backlog and sits on the site for 2 weeks. I usually handle backlog suggestions and go through these much more carefully. These are ones for which I will look at inventory histories. When it's unclear I add the SELLER (not the buyer) to see what it sold for. And occasionally, by leaving a suggestion up for 2 weeks, you get helpful information - other users will help mods by doing some digging, the seller himself may comment about validity (what happened here), or more sales may happen. I am a big proponent of leaving all suggestions that don't pass the eye test up for 2 weeks. This method of handling unusuals almost always lets us catch discrepancies.

 

In the year+ and tens of thousands of suggestions I have seen, I have banned maybe 5-10 users for falsifying proof. Out of these suggestions, I can only recall one suggestion accepted that was based on falsified proof. That was not a fake screenshot but rather a trade with an alt that was used as proof. This was discovered later by a mod since the person was involved in other scams and Brad manually undid the suggestion. Is it possible there are other missed cases? Sure. Do I lose sleep over it? No. These are suggestions that pass the eye test and would be about where one would expect them to fall anyways. 

 

Notice how cranwell gets marked for trading with a few scammers, just a few, and this guy tries to profit like 700 percent on a deal by faking screenshots and there is no steamrep report against him, is there? (there is one, but not because of this. He's also unbanned on outpost)

 

I don't think you understand the chronology of what happened. He didn't use the proof of the sale at 20 pure to help sell the hat. He already sold it and THEN made the suggestion. Probably faked it to make a reasonable range of what he thought it was worth - not to help sell the hat because it already sold.

 

EDIT: Only example of falsified proof I can think of on the top of my head.

http://backpack.tf/vote/id/5219b8784f96f4be45000001

[OverduePixels]

Let me address how unusual suggestions are handled in general. First, most active mods handling unusual suggestions (me, Kaushu, Michael, occasionally Bucket and Woifi) have a lot of experience with unusual trading. When you accept ~1000 suggestions a month and trade 50+ hats a month, you get a pretty good idea about hat values at any tier. ANY suggestion that looks off ends up in the backlog and sits on the site for 2 weeks. I usually handle backlog suggestions and go through these much more carefully. These are ones for which I will look at inventory histories. When it's unclear I add the SELLER (not the buyer) to see what it sold for. And occasionally, by leaving a suggestion up for 2 weeks, you get helpful information - other users will help mods by doing some digging, the seller himself may comment about validity (what happened here), or more sales may happen. I am a big proponent of leaving all suggestions that don't pass the eye test up for 2 weeks. This method of handling unusuals almost always lets us catch discrepancies.

 

In the year+ and tens of thousands of suggestions I have seen, I have banned maybe 5-10 users for falsifying proof. Out of these suggestions, I can only recall one suggestion accepted that was based on falsified proof. That was not a fake screenshot but rather a trade with an alt that was used as proof. This was discovered later by a mod since the person was involved in other scams and Brad manually undid the suggestion. Is it possible there are other missed cases? Sure. Do I lose sleep over it? No. These are suggestions that pass the eye test and would be about where one would expect them to fall anyways. 

 

EDIT: Only example of falsified proof I can think of on the top of my head.

http://backpack.tf/vote/id/5219b8784f96f4be45000001

 

Ah, thank you very much for the thorough answer. It is very understandable for some falsified suggestion slipping pass through, we are all humans after all. Nothing can be 100% strictly regulated. I am just glad that things like this is not carried out often by people. Pretty easy to make a fake screenshot(s) nowadays but gladly this is not done often here on backpack.tf. 

 

Thank you for not taking the question wrong way. I was just curious to find the answer to it as to how anyone or admins counteract things like this. Nothing more than that 

[ProPain]

It's pretty hard to detect fake screenshots

[A Delicious Cashew]

Let me address how unusual suggestions are handled in general. First, most active mods handling unusual suggestions (me, Kaushu, Michael, occasionally Bucket and Woifi) have a lot of experience with unusual trading. When you accept ~1000 suggestions a month and trade 50+ hats a month, you get a pretty good idea about hat values at any tier. ANY suggestion that looks off ends up in the backlog and sits on the site for 2 weeks. I usually handle backlog suggestions and go through these much more carefully. These are ones for which I will look at inventory histories. When it's unclear I add the SELLER (not the buyer) to see what it sold for. And occasionally, by leaving a suggestion up for 2 weeks, you get helpful information - other users will help mods by doing some digging, the seller himself may comment about validity (what happened here), or more sales may happen. I am a big proponent of leaving all suggestions that don't pass the eye test up for 2 weeks. This method of handling unusuals almost always lets us catch discrepancies.

 

In the year+ and tens of thousands of suggestions I have seen, I have banned maybe 5-10 users for falsifying proof. Out of these suggestions, I can only recall one suggestion accepted that was based on falsified proof. That was not a fake screenshot but rather a trade with an alt that was used as proof. This was discovered later by a mod since the person was involved in other scams and Brad manually undid the suggestion. Is it possible there are other missed cases? Sure. Do I lose sleep over it? No. These are suggestions that pass the eye test and would be about where one would expect them to fall anyways. 

 

 

I don't think you understand the chronology of what happened. He didn't use the proof of the sale at 20 pure to help sell the hat. He already sold it and THEN made the suggestion. Probably faked it to make a reasonable range of what he thought it was worth - not to help sell the hat because it already sold.

 

EDIT: Only example of falsified proof I can think of on the top of my head.

http://backpack.tf/vote/id/5219b8784f96f4be45000001

http://backpack.tf/vote/id/5283fd014dd7b852778b4568http://backpack.tf/vote/id/528a559b4cd7b8cb678b456a Here's the only example I can think of. I've never banned anyone for falsifying evidence, stuff like this is extremely rare