Under Outpost Rule #6, I am a shark. Update #2 appeal denied [w/ pastebin]

[❤ΣκαπανέαςGr❤]

If they counted the steam market. Cranwell would have had to say good bye to outpost long ago. 

me too!!

I do exactly the same as sir j-j-j the 5% of my succesive trades is using a scanner the rest are market purchases

ppl do sell them for cheap in the first days

 

I feel sorry that they are so short minded.

 

long is accepting the risk of the item he buys it might worth less than he bought

 

for me is clear long is baned for using a scanner outside of outpost to trade.

sorry sneeza but the search on outpost is not perfect and there is a lot of nice tools

out there,i would love to say them to everyone. but i don't want to ruin the fun

 

i will keep send him a dalkoh every now and then

 

extraordinary good guy and very friendly no matter what.

 

Tf2 community is out of hand

before you know it you will get banned for selling your unusual for 0.04$ in market for counter sharking,

 

Bs...

[ERASER BY]

I do not consider that the use of knowledge (information) in order to obtain personal benefits some crime . Information - the motor trade , who owns the information - control of the situation .
Transactions are committed John, I think the laws. He suggested - the seller has agreed to a deal, I do not think that someone then addressed him and said
" You tricked me, return my items !!" . Was deception in transactions - yes was .But look here http://www.tf2outpost.com/ - everything is based on deception.
Purchase and sale: the purpose of making a profit - people are trying to sell items more expensive than bought - is also cheating.
All of us who trade - in fact deceive each other .No need to say that if I earned a 20% of the value it is not Sharking but if >20% it is Sharking .
Is obtained someone who sells 20% more expensive - honest than an person who sells more than 20% - full of delusions and delusional rules .
There is the question of ethics and morality ( but not the legality of his transactions ) - John administrator and perhaps should be a role model,

but if like that do everything (in trade) everything (including administrators) - why should he be what that in especial (holy sinless)? I do not think he has earned on these transactions is a huge fortune ,
and would not be fair to exclude him from the admins .

[❤ΣκαπανέαςGr❤]

I am forcing trade offers on my traders

you know there is no chat in trade offers right?

 

i never chat i see the offer if its goof i take it

if its bad i decline.

 

its not my job to inform about prices

 

if they preffer a mini dual game from my bp i will accept the trade and go for the next.

 

sharking is not that

sharking is defently not that.

 

in general i think sir j is baned for admiting using a scanner.

so what is bad about that?

what site doesn't use a kind of scanner.

backpack.tf does outpost does bazaar does hatsdb does.

 

 We need to change our standards about what is shark and what is not

if every trade you get more profit than you should is shark

you should ban me as well.

i only trade for profit.or not at all.

[❤ΣκαπανέαςGr❤]

the problem with not demoting him immediately is that it makes bptf look like an accomplice, which it really doesn't need. Bptf already takes a lot of shit about mods being manipulators. 

lol banned for truying to complete his collection.

so it's right ppl to sell them for 100$ in market when the cost of a collector dalkoh is 2 keys?

but if someone buy that for 2 keys he is a sharker!!

 

I love your collectors Dalokohs sir jjj take care.

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

lol banned for truying to complete his collection.

so it's right ppl to sell them for 100$ in market when the cost of a collector dalkoh is 2 keys?

but if someone buy that for 2 keys he is a sharker!!

 

I love your collectors Dalokohs sir jjj take care.

The market is entirely different from regular trading when it comes to sharking. It shouldn't be, but because of the way its implemented, it is. So you can't compare the marketplace to regular trading. 

 

With that said, my problem isn't as much with the sharking aspect, but rather about how its done (i.e. using a script to target inexperienced traders). 

[KoDoRiN]

So is manipulating counts as not telling what's the item is worth? I want to know the rule answer, not the moral answer. (If they have no solid answer for this, they need to define it immediately)

[ERASER BY]

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/15700537   - John compared to him child unborn !

Where you Outpost  administrators ??

[Zemnmez]

Ah, the issue of 'sharking', my old friend. After extensive discussions on sharking I have prepared this FAQ:

1. Why does TF2 Outpost ban sharks?
   
   Because as a sizeable trade website, we see it as our moral responsibility to whatever extent is reasonable create a place where both new traders and old traders can thrive, to prevent the strong preying on the week so to say. Though we have a very specific definition of sharking: "Sharking is defined as manipulating another user into trading/selling a valuable item for 10% or less of its accepted value (or 20% or less for users with less than 200 hours in that game).", when it comes down to it we expect traders to act in good faith when making a trade.
    
2. Is there some kind of maximum percentage of profit I can make for it to not be considered a shark?
   That's completely dumb and arbitrary.^[source]
   
   It is only as arbitrary as the many other actions that completely change their nature when in excess. The phrase "when push comes to shove" applies here.
    
3. But a shark doesn't always deceive, for example I not telling the users the value of my items and allow them to make low offers, surely that's no different than them making a rash decision, no different from buying weapons from the Mann Co. Store?^[source]
   
   
   The difference is that the telephone company does not contact you and tell you that it's a better deal than it is, telling you that it's profit margins are negative or smaller than they are, which would be false advertising, an illegality. In addition, phoning someone and asking them how much they want to pay would never work.
    
   The Mann Co. Store does not seek potentially weak individuals out to sell them items at higher prices, nor does it state that its prices are in any way competitive, that is a weak and unfitting comparison.
    
   On one hand you have people who would seek out those with valuables that are likely not to know their worth, and on the other hand you have people who wait for people to come to them and make no statement that their prices are good. The important thing is that by virtue of the fact that in order to encounter normal traders, one must be looking through trading websites, you are likely to see the true worth of an item, just as if you are looking through clothes shops you are more likely to get a good deal than if someone presents you with one, and presents you a limited and most likely false picture of the market.
   
   In addition, deciet is as much about not saying something as it is about saying something. It is much easier to decieve the user that they are receiving a good deal by not mentioning that the offer they are accepting is not at all fair. Quoting Truth and Lie in an Extra Moral Sense via my extensive explaination of why sharking is wrong:
   
   
   

    

   The liar uses the valid designations, the words, to make the unreal appear as real; he says, for example, "I am rich," when the word "poor" would be the correct designation of his situation. He abuses the fixed conventions by arbitrary changes or even by reversals of the names. When he does this in a self-serving way damaging to others, then society will no longer trust him but exclude him. Thereby men do not flee from being deceived as much as from being damaged by deception: what they hate at this stage is basically not the deception but the bad, hostile consequences of certain kinds of deceptions.

   
    

4. But, if you don't know the value of your item, you shouldn't be able to complain if someone pays under it, should you?^[source]
    

   The best example of an illegal system on this basis is a Ponzi scheme, where investors are paid using the investments of new investors. Should the investors not be able to complain if they didn't know it was a scheme before they invested?

    

   It's an interestingly common idea that somehow exploiting someone is not immoral, provided they don't know they've been exploited, or if they haven't done due diligence to understand trading, this comes under the 'no babying' argument, or the 'I was sharked when I first started trading, and it helped me learn not to be sharked' argument.

    

   In even the most mundane situations, good faith is expected even between strangers, just as telling someone to swim in the ocean isn't excused by "But he should have known that this beach had sharks!", it is true that the actions of sharks are legal, but that does not stop them from being immoral enough for us to want to keep it out of our site.

Feel free to bring some issues up I've missed, I'll address them. If your argument is addressed in this facepunch post, please answer that instead.

[jjjon123]

"Sharking is defined as manipulating another user into trading/selling a valuable item for 10% or less of its accepted value (or 20% or less for users with less than 200 hours in that game)."

Define manipulating.

 

If finding people, adding them, and offering and then trading 1 key for their 10 key item no other questions asked is defined as manipulating then I am guilty as charged.

 

I fear that that word is what makes this such a hot topic.

[KoDoRiN]

Feel free to bring some issues up I've missed, I'll address them.

Well is this recently just brought up and being implemented in the rules? Or did it exist a long time ago. Otherwise, I think you have to give them another chance. That's like saying "Oh you won a game hours ago, but we made another rule right now so you never won the game." or "Oh you're immediately disqualified from a game because we just implemented a rule 10 minutes ago that you violated 1 hour ago."

[jjjon123]

Well is this recently just brought up and being implemented in the rules? Or did it exist a long time ago. Otherwise, I think you have to give them another chance. That's like saying "Oh you won a game hours ago, but we made another rule right now so you never won the game." or "Oh you're immediately disqualified from a game because we just implemented a rule 10 minutes ago that you violated 1 hour ago."

It doesnt matter, I specifically stated that I do not plan to stop so there is no "another chance"

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

Well is this recently just brought up and being implemented in the rules? Or did it exist a long time ago. Otherwise, I think you have to give them another chance. That's like saying "Oh you won a game hours ago, but we made another rule right now so you never won the game." or "Oh you're immediately disqualified from a game because we just implemented a rule 10 minutes ago that you violated 1 hour ago."

But Ex Post Facto laws are the best. 

 

//i'm pretty sure its been a rule for a while.

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

Feel free to bring some issues up I've missed, I'll address them.

So i've said this earlier, the way i see it there are 3 types of sharks: manipulative, active, and passive. Manipulative sharks deceive, active sharks (akin to pre-meditated murder) prey, and passive sharks (akin to crime of passion) just end up getting lucky by being on a game server when someone offers an unusual for a ref. Manipulative and active sharks (imo) should get an immediate permaban as they're going out of their way to cause trouble and take advantage. Passive sharks on the other hand just got lucky; and most people, given the opportunity, would take it and never look back. So my issue? concern? is that there is a distinction that needs to be made. Maniulative/active sharks should be banned immediately while passive sharks should be put on a watch list/temp ban. 

[KoDoRiN]

It doesnt matter, I specifically stated that I do not plan to stop so there is no "another chance"

Quick question: Did you see moderating backpack.tf as a straining job or hobby. You don't have to answer it if you feel it you don't need to.

[HelenAngel]

As I am the Head of Appeals for Outpost, you (or anyone else) is welcome to appeal your ban on the site directly to me at [email protected]

[jjjon123]

-snip-

To add on to my previous question, it appears that your definition of sharking should be updated.

You define sharking as manipulating another user into doing such a trade.

 

Under what definition of manipulating is making a low offer for an item to another user? It does not matter how I came across the said user. I did not try to deceive or manipulate the other party into trading the item. If they asked more about it or why I wanted it, I answered them honestly, if they wanted to know what it was I told them, if they asked how much it was worth I told them.

 

All your points about "But a shark doesn't always deceive," "But, if you don't know the value of your item" blah blah blah. That is all BS to cover up a broken rule. Either you change the rule to remove the "manipulating" part, or you invent an absurd definition of manipulating that has no historical basis.

 

EDIT: I know I said I wont try to appeal this before, but with this load of high and mighty BS and obvious inventive definitions, I probably have a chance now.

[Zemnmez]

Define manipulating.

 

If finding people, adding them, and offering and then trading 1 key for their 10 key item no other questions asked is defined as manipulating then I am guilty as charged.

 

I fear that that word is what makes this such a hot topic.

 

ma·nip·u·la·tion  (m-npy-lshn)

n.

1.

a. The act or practice of manipulating.

b. The state of being manipulated.

2. Shrewd or devious management, especially for one's own advantage.

 

We're following definition 2 here. You are deviously managing another user to your advantage.

 

Well is this recently just brought up and being implemented in the rules? Or did it exist a long time ago. Otherwise, I think you have to give them another chance. That's like saying "Oh you won a game hours ago, but we made another rule right now so you never won the game." or "Oh you're immediately disqualified from a game because we just implemented a rule 10 minutes ago that you violated 1 hour ago."

 

It's existed since OP began.

 

So i've said this earlier, the way i see it there are 3 types of sharks: manipulative, active, and passive. Manipulative sharks deceive, active sharks (akin to pre-meditated murder) prey, and passive sharks (akin to crime of passion) just end up getting lucky by being on a game server when someone offers an unusual for a ref. Manipulative and active sharks (imo) should get an immediate permaban as they're going out of their way to cause trouble and take advantage. Passive sharks on the other hand just got lucky; and most people, given the opportunity, would take it and never look back. So my issue? concern? is that there is a distinction that needs to be made. Maniulative/active sharks should be banned immediately while passive sharks should be put on a watch list/temp ban. 

 

I agree that those three categories are three gradations on the spectrum of sharking that need different punishments. But I think rather than making specific cases for these types of sharking, the moderator or admin handling the case should punish appropriately.

 

To add on to my previous question, it appears that your definition of sharking should be updated.

You define sharking as manipulating another user into doing such a trade.

 

Under what definition of manipulating is making a low offer for an item to another user? It does not matter how I came across the said user. I did not try to deceive or manipulate the other party into trading the item. If they asked more about it or why I wanted it, I answered them honestly, if they wanted to know what it was I told them, if they asked how much it was worth I told them.

 

All your points about "But a shark doesn't always deceive," "But, if you don't know the value of your item" blah blah blah. That is all BS to cover up a broken rule. Either you change the rule to remove the "manipulating" part, or you invent an absurd definition of manipulating that has no historical basis.

 

EDIT: I know I said I wont try to appeal this before, but with this load of high and mighty BS and obvious inventive definitions, I probably have a chance now.

 

Firstly, you don't have a high chance of being unbanned any time soon unless you did something amazing like try to give back all the items, payback in kind, or a significant time had passed where no provable sharking had taken place. See the first reply I made.

 

"That is all BS to cover up a broken rule." - please qualify.

 

I've amended the "but a shark doesn't always decieve" answer with some of the explanation from my Facepunch post.

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

I agree that those three categories are three gradations on the spectrum of sharking that need different punishments. But I think rather than making specific cases for these types of sharking, the moderator or admin handling the case should punish appropriately.

 

"That is all BS to cover up a broken rule." - please qualify.

I can see why thats necessary since sharking is a very subjective thing and has more to do with the mindset of the people involved than the valuation of items involved, but for a site the size of OP there really isn't room for a lot of unclear rulings.

 

I'm pretty sure he's making the same point i am, there really isn't room for ambiguity on such a big issue on a major site like OP. 

[Faceman™]

So many definitions of Shark it makes my head hurt.

[Zemnmez]

I can see why thats necessary since sharking is a very subjective thing and has more to do with the mindset of the people involved than the valuation of items involved, but for a site the size of OP there really isn't room for a lot of unclear rulings.

 

I'm pretty sure he's making the same point i am, there really isn't room for ambiguity on such a big issue on a major site like OP. 

 

Sharking is just a shade of acting in bad faith in my opinion, and as such, if you're wondering whether you're sharking you should probably ask yourself if you're doing something wrong. But, I understand your point- making a more clear-cut definition of sharking is something that was brought up in the last staff meeting, and the result was to clarify that the numbers given are guidelines and it's up to the admins best judgement to decide whether it is sharking, and I think we all really know what is sharking and what isn't.

[♠Derpeh♤]

Sharking is just a shade of acting in bad faith in my opinion, and as such, if you're wondering whether you're sharking you should probably ask yourself if you're doing something wrong. But, I understand your point- making a more clear-cut definition of sharking is something that was brought up in the last staff meeting, and the result was to clarify that the numbers given are guidelines and it's up to the admins best judgement to decide whether it is sharking, and I think we all really know what is sharking and what isn't.

 

However in many cases where it doesnt match any definition of sharking such as lambro's case where both owners were happy with their trade and both knew the value of their hats was still banned for making a good deal on lamebro's part.

User:

http://www.tf2outpost.com/user/76561198036496498

trade:

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/15600732

explained in comments...etc that both owners were happy with trade this also got many notable traders pissed off question the moderating rules of outpost.

 

 

It was proved that it was not a shark but a good deal. How would outpost mods differentiate between what is a good deal and a shark? their has yet to be a clear cut definition given by outpost and the mods seem to be loosely using that word to ban users.

[F CHARLIE]

I honestly think banning based on sharking is stupid.

 

Traders need to stop being babied and TRADE AT THEIR OWN RISK.

 

This brings a whole new debate on the morality of sharking.

 

Good luck Jon.

 

 

These weren't traders.

 

 

Jon used a system to find these bps and if he were after unusuals then this would be 100% wrong. 

 

But he was gettin chem sets, sets that i would give out for free/cheap if i got them. 

They're extremely subjective and on the same scale as craft nos

I dont know the value of these items and it always depends per set.  

 

And just 20% off the item value is not sharking. If you get a 10 key item for 8 keys. No one would care.

Even if you went and found the trader using bp search such as bptf premium. Anyone who uses premium to find craft nos and unusuals and get them with a 20-25% discount are going to be banned. 

 

 

hmm valuable is a word there. so your weapon and craft hat example wouldn't really work. also, the chem sets arent that valuable, are they?

 

 

They arent. Theyre wayy to subjective. And they go all over the place even for the same item

 

It only should matter on unusuals.

 

 

How do you not know these things can have great margins.  They are a lot better than trading in unusuals.

 

 

Jjon was sharking.  These "cheap" chem sets were still available because these players did not know their worth or anything about them thats why Jjon used the method he did.  If he went out into the market place to compete along side every other trader to get them he would not have succeeded.  I had buy posts up for these sets and got a bunch.  Sold the strangifier on steam market.  Those sales came to about 3 buds or so.  The ones I sold and am selling probably cost me 5 - 8 keys in metal to get.  Great margin but I competed with every other buyer, fairly, to get them just as when I was quickbuying Unusuals.

 

Some here can't understand Outpost's decision.  Outpost needs to create a fair trading environment in order to attract and maintain its user-base.  It has to look out for its members and keep them from getting sharked if it can. 

 

Another part of this is that some of these people may have gotten into trading at some point in the future and this odd item in their pack would be of use to them then.  That they didn't care/know now does not excuse what Jjon did/is doing.

[MC22]

So the solution is that we find a way to buy things at 20% value without powerful people noticing? I don't see another one?

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

So the solution is that we find a way to buy things at 20% value without powerful people noticing? I don't see another one?

Or just don't shark and you'll have nothing to worry about. When you shark, you know its sharking--even if OPs rules don't specifically call that case sharking, you still know its sharking. So do so at your own risk. 

[MC22]

Or just don't shark and you'll have nothing to worry about. When you shark, you know its sharking--even if OPs rules don't specifically call that case sharking, you still know its sharking. So do so at your own risk.

 

but my profit level is so damn low, trade.tf camping is hard business