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

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

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

So shark and risk being banned from OP.

[Puddilicious]

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.

Yes, sharking involves more than just the value of the items traded. If a party is aware of the value of the items trades and still agrees to trade items at a 90% loss, then no sharking has happened. As well, if the profiting party is unaware of the value of the items traded, then no sharking has happened.

 

I would define sharking as one party knowingly receiving a profit greater than 400-500% in one trade while the other party is ignorant of their loss at the time of the trade. The problem is how do you verify that the victimized party was ignorant of the item values during the time of the trade. It's possible that the victim was not ignorant, but made a mistake in evaluating the items. With this definition of sharking, it would be very easy for someone on the receiving end of a bad trade due to personal mistakes to pretend to be an ignorant party instead and force the other party to return items through threat of reporting the other party as a shark. Hopefully your staff will be able to discern such cases.

[Professional Map Painter]

It's almost as if the Zam Network outpost want to lose users. I heard horses make for great staff members.

[F CHARLIE]

It's almost as if the Zam Network outpost want to lose users. I heard horses make for great staff members.

 

Having and enforcing anti-sharking policies is how to attract buyers. Sharks represent a tiny minority of even the high frequency traders.

[Underscore]

Contact one of the admins if you feel your ban wasn't justified.

[~shenanigans]

There are so many ways to define sharking, and a ton of different situations too.

 

1. I know my hat is worth 2 buds. Someone comes along and offers me 5 keys, saying that my hat is only worth 4 keys. I believe him and take the deal

2. I know my hat is worth 2 buds. Someone comes along and offers me 5 keys, but I take it anyway for various reasons (I wanted to get rid of it, I liked the other person, I don't care about bp value, etc).

3. I don't know that my hat is worth 2 buds. Someone comes along and offers me 5 keys, and I take the deal.

4. I don't know that my hat is worth 2 buds. Someone comes along and offers me 5 keys, but also informs me that if I wait for someone else I could get a better deal. I still take the deal.

 

In situation 1, most people would say this is sharking, maybe even scamming. As the seller, i am being misled to believe a false value for my hat. As the buyer, he is intentionally deceiving me for his benefit.

- The buyer is at fault for lying/misinforming me of the true value.

- I am at fault for believing his arguments and not verifying it myself

Despite there being fault on both parties, this is still usually thought of as sharking because the buyer has malicious intent: profit off my lack of knowledge.

 

This ties in with situation 3. i don't know my hat's true worth, and someone offers me 5 keys for it. Regardless of whether or not the buyer says that my hat is only worth 4 keys (because if I have no clue of the true value, I can only arbitrarily choose to believe or disbelieve his word), I still take the deal. Is this truly sharking? The buyer profits because he can sell the hat for more than he bought it for, but I also gain something that I would not have had. A real-life example would be if an antiques collector visits your home, sees a genuine vase worth $10k and offers to buy it from you for $100. You have no clue of the vase's worth, and you acquired the vase from a crate in your basement. You gain the $100 you normally wouldn't have had, while the antiques collector can resell the vase and get a net profit of $99,900.

 

There is a subtle difference between 3 and 4. In situation 4, the buyer informs me that I could get a better deal. He could outright tell me that my hat is worth 2 buds, or just imply that he is not paying the full price. However, I still choose to accept his offer. Is this sharking? As an intelligent individual, I would understand that he would profit from this trade, but because I do not know the value of the hat, nor was I actively trying to sell it (implied because a rational person would not try to sell something without knowing its value). In this exchange, I gain 5 keys for something that was of minimal use to me, and the buyer gains 2 buds - 5 keys of profit.

 

if situation 3 is considered "sharking," then situation 4 should also be considered sharking. In both cases, I don't know the value of my hat and I'm getting a lot less compensation for my hat than it is worth. Situation 4 only adds one condition that the seller tells me that I could get more. Does this information suddenly change the trade status from sharking to non-sharking? What about situation 2. I both know the value of my hat, and I still sell for less than its worth. Did the buyer "shark" me, or did I "shark" myself? Is it even considered a shark?

 

Also consider the inverse. What if someone offers me a HOUWAR for my 2 bud hat, assuming we both know values. Is it a shark? What if we did not know the value of either the HOUWAR or my hat. Is it still a shark? Oddly enough, almost everyone would agree that if I were offered a HOUWAR for a 2 bud hat, and I accept the deal, then the buyer of my 2 bud hat simply overpaid. There is no sharking, even if an item was sold for 10% or more discount.

 

 

TF2OP's sharking policy is that sharking is "manipulating another user into trading/selling a valuable item for 10% or less of its accepted value."

A few open questions are:

1. What is accepted value? Is the bp.tf pricelist the "accepted value?" Is this value something that a majority of traders agree upon? Is it something that is arbitrarily set by a TF2OP mod who hears of a sharking report? Outpost doesn't exactly like the bp.tf pricelist, so I would assume it is something of the latter 2. This then turns into a very grey zone as to what the accepted value should be. In this case, for chemistry sets, different sets may be worth different prices as well, depending on the items needed to craft the set.

2. What is a valuable item? If I buy a craft hat for 1 scrap plus one weapon instead of 1.33, I don't think I would be banned for sharking.

3. 10% or less. This is a somewhat arbitrary value. If I buy a 100 bud hat for 25 pure, is that considered sharking?

4. Manipulating another user. Zemmez gave the standard definition of manipulation in a previous post, but there are many shades of this as well. In our examples, situation 1 would be clear manipulation. Situation 2, 3, and 4 do not have active manipulation (not lying, but not telling the full truth either).

 

From Jon's story, it seems that his actions are most similar to situations 2 and 3. Some of his trades are with seasoned veterans or people who do not care for chemistry kits, and accepted the trade at a loss. Some even gave him the item for no charge, which is always a loss for the donor. i don't believe there is a problem with situation 2, so TF2OP seems to believe that situation 3 would be considered manipulation since not the entire truth was told. But is it really necessary (or even viable) that the trader always tell the entire truth? Before every trade, do you always inform your trading partner of the "accepted values" of the items being traded? If not informing the party of everything is a sort of manipulation, then all four situations above should be classified as sharking. The buyer in all four situations did not tell the whole truth, only partial truths (except situation 1). If this is the case, then Jon's ban is well deserved and these strict policies should be upheld for all future cases.

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

2. What is a valuable item? If I buy a craft hat for 1 ref instead of 1.33, that is way more than 10% off, but I don't think I would be banned for sharking.

3. 10% or less. This is a somewhat arbitrary value. If I buy a 100 bud hat for 89 pure, is that considered sharking?

 

10% or less of the hats worth, not discount. (so 10- buds for a 100 bud hat).

 

The problem with ignoring something as a shark because both parties are happy is very flawed. No one would do a trade if they didn't think they benefited from it. So saying its not a shark because the seller has 5 keys more then he had before is a flawed argument. 

 

The thing with sharking is, that it is grey, and because of that you really can't define it in any terms. Also, if somethings sharking, then you usually know when you do it. I.e. if it brings up such a heated discussion then its probably sharking. As for the houwar for a 2 bud hat, at this point, you can assume anyone who has a houwar knows its value and therefore wouldn't be sharking. If you see someone with multiple unusuals/multiple buds/multiple max's/etc... then you can assume they know the values of unusuals, and any unusual trade should NOT be considered sharking. 

[Liddojunior]

 

 

No one would do a trade if they didn't think they benefited from it.So saying its not a shark because the seller has 5 keys more then he had before is a flawed argument.

 

 

A benefit doesnt mean a profit. Or being at the better end of the stick. They just rather get some pure or a different hat for the class they like, instead of taking any more time trying to sell on their own. 

I've quicksold and sound item bundles are a loss for quick pure.

 

I've had people who bought an unusual off me, a month later sell it back to me at a huge loss. Because they got tired of it and wanted to buy this other hat they saw. 

 

Shenanigans has the best, informative, post on this topic. 

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

A benefit doesnt mean a profit. Or being at the better end of the stick. They just rather get some pure or a different hat for the class they like, instead of taking any more time trying to sell on their own. 

I've quicksold and sound item bundles are a loss for quick pure.

 

I've had people who bought an unusual off me, a month later sell it back to me at a huge loss. Because they got tired of it and wanted to buy this other hat they saw. 

 

Shenanigans has the best, informative, post on this topic. 

i never said benefit meant profit, but a trade would never go through if both parties didn't benefit in some way. So using, "but the sharkee benefited by getting something he wouldn't have obtained otherwise" is a flawed argument. 

[~shenanigans]

10% or less of the hats worth, not discount. (so 10- buds for a 100 bud hat).

 

Ahh, ok 10% of value, so basically 90% discount. I've edited the post so the numbers work now.

 

 

i never said benefit meant profit, but a trade would never go through if both parties didn't benefit in some way. So using, "but the sharkee benefited by getting something he wouldn't have obtained otherwise" is a flawed argument. 

 

Yes, a rational person would only make a trade if it benefited him somehow. As Liddojunior said, some people sell at a loss because they want quick, liquid currency (keys, buds, etc) to buy something new. Even with consent, it would still be a shark? This implies that even if both parties are perfectly happy with their trade, sharking only depends on the true market value of the goods being exchanged?

 

Let's assume the previous statement to be true. In this case, a lot of things would fall under sharking. It then would not make sense to say that a HOUWAR for a 2 bud hat (or 1 bud so it falls under the 10% rule) is not sharking. Assuming the other person knows a lot just because they have a HOUWAR isn't necessarily a good idea either.

 

So, no, sharking can't only depend on the value of the items in question. Although I do agree that just because both parties are perfectly happy does not necessarily mean a sharking event has not occurred. My point was to show that numerical values aren't everything in accounting for sharking, not that said example of everyone being happy is not a sharking event. (Sorry for all the double negatives, hope you understand what I'm trying to say).

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

Yes, a rational person would only make a trade if it benefited him somehow. As Liddojunior said, some people sell at a loss because they want quick, liquid currency (keys, buds, etc) to buy something new. Even with consent, it would still be a shark? This implies that even if both parties are perfectly happy with their trade, sharking only depends on the true market value of the goods being exchanged?

 

Let's assume the previous statement to be true. In this case, a lot of things would fall under sharking. It then would not make sense to say that a HOUWAR for a 2 bud hat (or 1 bud so it falls under the 10% rule) is not sharking. Assuming the other person knows a lot just because they have a HOUWAR isn't necessarily a good idea either.

 

So, no, sharking can't only depend on the value of the items in question. Although I do agree that just because both parties are perfectly happy does not necessarily mean a sharking event has not occurred. My point was to show that numerical values aren't everything in accounting for sharking, not that said example of everyone being happy is not a sharking event. (Sorry for all the double negatives, hope you understand what I'm trying to say).

 

Like i said in an earlier post, Sharking depends on the value of both sides of the trade, the knowledge of both traders, and the mindset of the shark.

[~shenanigans]

Like i said in an earlier post, Sharking depends on the value of both sides of the trade, the knowledge of both traders, and the mindset of the shark.

 

This definition is a bit too open for me.

1. A unaware player who has a HOUWAR (from fulfilling the achievements) sells it for 1 bud.

2. A veteran player who has a HOUWAR decides he doesn't want it anymore and sells it for 1 bud.

3. A unaware player who has a HOUWAR is told by a buyer that it is only worth 1 bud, and decides to sell for that price.

 

I think we would agree that 2 isn't a shark, but 3 is. What about1? It seems to say that veterans can't be sharked, but those who are unaware of their item value can (and are sharked regardless of whether or not the unaware player was misled).

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

This definition is a bit too open for me.

1. A unaware player who has a HOUWAR (from fulfilling the achievements) sells it for 1 bud.

2. A veteran player who has a HOUWAR decides he doesn't want it anymore and sells it for 1 bud.

3. A unaware player who has a HOUWAR is told by a buyer that it is only worth 1 bud, and decides to sell for that price.

 

I think we would agree that 2 isn't a shark, but 3 is. What about1? It seems to say that veterans can't be sharked, but those who are unaware of their item value can (and are sharked regardless of whether or not the unaware player was misled).

1. At this point you can pretty much assume anyone who has a houwar knows of its worth, and if they don't then it clearly doesn't matter. Its 3 years old, and they still haven't traded it--they've had plenty of time to price it, and they clearly have no intent to ever join the trading scene anyway. 

2. Not sharking as theirs no lack of knowledge. 

3. Same as 1. 

[Woifi The Viking]

1. At this point you can pretty much assume anyone who has a houwar knows of its worth, and if they don't then it clearly doesn't matter. Its 3 years old, and they still haven't traded it--they've had plenty of time to price it, and they clearly have no intent to ever join the trading scene anyway. 

2. Not sharking as theirs no lack of knowledge. 

3. Same as 1. 

So if you are trading with someone outside the trading scene it is not a shark? That makes hardly sense. :S

And not every person in tf2 knows how much a houwar is worth.

[AwesomeMcCoolName]

So if you are trading with someone outside the trading scene it is not a shark? That makes hardly sense. :S

And not every person in tf2 knows how much a houwar is worth.

In both 1 and 3 (since  they are the same case) the person who has the houwar either bought it or has had it for 3 years. Either way you can make the assumption they know its value. 

[Woifi The Viking]

In both 1 and 3 (since  they are the same case) the person who has the houwar either bought it or has had it for 3 years. Either way you can make the assumption they know its value. 

And if he had it for 3 years but never visited a trading site and some guy on a server offers him a bud for it (and he takes it). Still a shark.

[Julia Gillard the Honest]

In both 1 and 3 (since  they are the same case) the person who has the houwar either bought it or has had it for 3 years. Either way you can make the assumption they know its value. 

 

What if a young boy is using his father's account?

[Woifi The Viking]

What if a young boy is using his father's account?

Or brothers (more common).

[Jubei]

The core issue is that somebody who should be a trusted admin of a very popular and widely referenced trading/price guide website has, in the minds of quite a few, acted (is acting) pretty shady.

 

Right or wrong, people will see this as an abuse of power. This damages the reputation of backpack.tf, it's mods and admins and the very people who work and vote on suggestions.

 

Somebody in this position should not act in any way that looks sketchy. Until the majority of the community can agree on what is and is not sharking, it's best to not even appear to be doing something like this.

 

My 2 pesos.

[Woifi The Viking]

---

Right or wrong, people will see this as an abuse of power. This damages the reputation of backpack.tf, it's mods and admins and the very people who work and vote on suggestions.

---

How is this an abuse of power? He can do this no matter if he is a mod or not. It's not like he needs "reputation" or that he says: "I'm a bp.tf pricing mod, you can trust me."

[Jubei]

How is this an abuse of power? He can do this no matter if he is a mod or not. It's not like he needs "reputation" or that he says. I'm a bp.tf pricing mod, you can trust me.

 

I didn't say it was. I said other people will see it as such. Doesn't matter if that assumption is correct or not - that's how it'll be seen by some.

[Woifi The Viking]

I didn't say it was. I said other people will see it as such. Doesn't matter if that assumption is correct or not - that's how it'll be seen by some.

Eh no. That are most probably the same people who already believe that bp.tf is corrupt.

[Jubei]

Eh no. That are most probably the same people who already believe that bp.tf is corrupt.

 

So no need to add fuel to the fire. Don't want to give detractors any more ammunition.

[Woifi The Viking]

So no need to add fuel to the fire. Don't want to give detractors any more ammunition.

And that's why he was removed from the staff. But that has nothing to do with price manipulation.

[Jubei]

And that's why he was removed from the staff. But that has nothing to do with price manipulation.

 

I know and you know that he wasn't doing any price manipulation - I also didn't specifically say anything about price manipulation. I said it could be seen as an abuse of power.

 

There are those who do not know, want to know or understand how these things work. Removing him from the staff was the right thing to do - even if it was to placate those who fail to understand backpack.tf and its inner workings.

 

I really don't give a rip what he does as an independent trader and at first glance I didn't see an issue with his method. I was basically reiterating why he should have been removed.