Clarify the process for or crack down on manipulation bans

[HarryG]

Now bans for price manipulation have always intrigued me on this site, and recently even more so. This is chiefly because I am not sure what the requirements are for them or why certain ban lengths are what they are. 

 

As an example (I have been told to stress as powerfully as I can that these are simply examples and not meant to be a witch hunt of any kind), we have two alternate accounts banned for manipulation attempts of two separate users. Extensive proof is laid out for everyone to see in both cases. The main accounts of each user are unbanned as of this post. The main accounts also happen to be somewhat prolific main site suggesters.

https://backpack.tf/u/76561198279553594

http://backpack.tf/u/76561198206128580

 

And as it happens we have a separate user who has been permanently banned for manipulation. Proof is provided in the form of one cropped screenshot with one side of the conversation entirely censored.

http://backpack.tf/u/76561197976440654

 

Now this begs the question: What is the requirement for a manipulation ban to be what it is? There doesn't seem to be any sort of clarification for it or details in the rules, so perhaps a strong suggestion for the site would be to clarify or make consistent manipulation bans. As it stands it almost seems as if one can be exempt from a manipulation ban if they are a solid contributor to the site. It also seems as if there is no formal process for deciding how a manipulation ban should be handled. A compartmentalized system would most likely be more efficient.

 

What do you guys think about this?

 

 

Most gratefully and sincerely,

 

-HarryG

 

 

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

I'll let polar comment in depth, as he handles these, but I will say that what you see publicly and what we have available privately are not the same. "One cropped screenshot" is not all we have, and I have told you this, so it's a little manipulative of you IMO to still try to frame it this way.

[Kote]

So, I realize I might not be a great person to comment on this, however, I believe the question is not what price manipulation is defined as but what the punishment for different types should be. Any trade or suggestion made with the knowledgeable intent to create a price that is inaccurate, whether it be for personal gain, to hurt another, or any other purpose meets the specifications for manipulation, as vague as these may be. After this point, it becomes a question of ethics. How important the item is, what the purpose was, how it was done, there's so many factors that go into it each moderator will judge them differently. Unfortunately, this means there can't really be a ruleset. These aren't simple cases of sharking or hijacking, it's a complicated interaction and carefully planned process. In regards to the consistent bans, there is a point to be made there. As far as I have seen from prolific use of this site over 2 years, different mods give different punishments to different people for the same infraction. Unfortunately, what can really be done? It's not like we can have a bot going around banning people because, as I said before, many of these bans are very complicated. However, these manipulations are so uncommon because of the work that goes into it, is there really any point to putting rules that will most likely not function correctly to situations that rarely happen. In addition, wasn't there more proof for Ravenholmzombies than just that screenshot? Either way, think about all the complications. It's most likely not viable unless the staff decides to put a singular person in charge of it to maintain consistent punishments.

[Broson]

Honestly the Ravenholmzombies case has always smelled fishy to me. Though when all the public gets to see is a badly cropped screenshot of a half-censored conversation of questionable legitimacy posted shortly after another collector picks an argument with the accused, it's hard not to be skeptical. Maybe withholding it from the public is a smart policy in some cases, and that's understandable, but when even the defendant isn't allowed to see the additional evidence used to accuse him, I can't help but think something is awry.

 

But eh, that's just my two cents. Maybe the evidence is compelling. Maybe he really did say those things (I have my doubts). I try to assume the admins know what they're doing. A more consistent punishment process would be nice, though.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

There is a difference between people making suggestions that cherry-pick to attempt to raise their own hats vs people faking trades to completely artificially change the price. They might both be called manipulation but they're clearly different things. There is no inconsistency in the punishment, we just don't catch that many people falsifying trades to manipulate so it doesn't come up often.

 

Raven was reported by someone who wished to remain anon from the community, so we edited the screen that was shown to protect that person. We have more than one screen, and they are not edited. I would not want to discourage other users from reporting if they have similar fears, so we are never going to be making the screenshots public here. Community take note - if you have proof that anyone is manipulating, you can report it and we will keep it confidential if you need us to.

[Foamy the Fearsome]

Im personally not familiar with Woktah's case, and I cannot find the actual suggestion made on that steel toe, so I cant really judge that.

The way I see it, these other two situations are not similar. Don't get me wrong, Im not trying to defend ghost soldier here and I personally believe his motives are questionable.

Soldier's case:

I had been eyeballing him and his 'friend' (alt) while they were making suggestions. What he did was using his alt to price items he owned. That by itself is not a crime (its really just a silly way to try to go around things, and it doesnt work), despite the 'manipulative' nature of the suggestions (i.e they were always incomplete and always favored ghost soldier). He ended up being banned for factually misrepresenting his own sale:
https://backpack.tf/suggestion/570dec14c44045452e092851

What he did was using an alt (Spy) to misrepresent his own (ghost) sale, to make it look like he just made a mistake in trying to figure out the sale. Or at least I guess that's what he was going for? surely he wouldnt really have expected anyone to not see that they're alts (same broken english, same poor suggestion layout etc.) Tháts against the rules directly, so he was deprived of his 'manipulation tool' (his alt).

As we all know, Soldier has proceeded to make questionable suggestions, often in his own favor. They always contain proof but are almost always incomplete and therefore wrong. However, being a terrible suggester isnt a bannable offense, nor is being greedy or being a dick (it can be considered a dick move to dump your hat and then drop it instantly). His suggestions can be closed at any time as its easy to spot when he's wrong. Whenever I see wrong, cherrypicky suggestions of his, I close them.


Ravenholms case:

Ravenholmzombie has been banned for a far more elaborate offense. In his utterly disrespectful - but admittedly clever and well-crafted - endeavor to mislead us as moderators and abuse the site, he forged sales in such a way, that there was no way of telling whether or not the exchanges were actually faulty during the period in which the aligned suggestions were open. When handling suggestions, we cannot assume the worst of people. Especially since not even all of his trades were cash ones, we could never have known what he was up to until it was revealed to us.

Having said that, I also want to address that you refer to woktah and soldier as prolific suggesters. At the time of his alts ban, Woktah had less than 100 suggestions, only a few of which were unusuals (probably ~10). I hadn't taken notice of him as a suggester until quite recently. About half of them were closed. Ghost soldier was an orange belt at best when his alt was banned (if I recall correctly he was a yellow belt, and nearly all of his accepted suggestions were copypastes from my comments, on both his alt and his main). If anything, Ravenholm was the most widely known suggester out of the three at the point they got banned.


Bans serve a double purpose here. They're a punishment for the abusive user, but they're also a means for us to prevent people from misleading us and the community with factually wrong information or forged sales. People like Ghost Soldier are easily neutralized by taking out their alts, and his other suggestion business is easy to control, as all it takes is close his wrong suggestions. With Ravenholm, that wasn't the case. He was his own tool of manipulation. 
 

[HarryG]

Responding to every staff member here.

@Cat I have told the truth in that one cropped screenshot is all the public has to see in that case. I have willfully ignored your input in that matter time and again because frankly, I don't believe you and I think it's rather manipulative of YOU to claim the magic answer to that question is hidden behind some curtain. I am not manipulating, I'm stating what we as regular users can see. You seem to be the ones framing this a certain way if anything. Secondly, it's fairly difficult for 007_remix to stay anonymous when he bragged about "getting competition banned" to me personally shortly after this incident. This certainly appeared more like a spiteful lash out then good willed anonymous contribution, especially considering the two had had an argument the day before. Thirdly, I was told after this post that the offending trade that kept Ravens ban permanent actually INVOLVED 007_remix. If that is the case then he certainly was not banned for it, which raises a further question. You can tell me @foamy about the permanence of bans and how they're used to prevent users from doing it in the future, but if what i was told is true, then why wasn't he banned at all?

 

-HarryG

[polar]

Bans for manipulation require proof that the person is intentionally lying / deceiving users on sales. In practice, this is very hard to show without chatlogs with other users where they admit to doing so AND their trading history. We won't ban people just because they made a bad suggestion and left out some sales, and it's almost impossible to show that they are doing that intentionally. I can only think of maybe 3-4 actual bans for manipulation. First time ban of ~1 month and second ban is permanent.

 

Raven was originally banned for lying about a sale in a suggestion (saying he paid more than he actually did). And he admitted as much after the fact. The whole issue with the collector's items is a second ban. In addition to the chatlogs, we have evidence from his trade history of him paying keys for a collector's item and then trading some keys back to make it look like more keys were traded for the item than is actually the case. This might seem hard to believe now. But you have to remember that there was a time ~2 years ago when no one wanted collectors items and their value wasn't actually that strong. All of these cases of manipulation happened at that time. Once collector values shot up, Raven did not need to manipulate the prices any more.

[HarryG]

Bans for manipulation require proof that the person is intentionally lying / deceiving users on sales. In practice, this is very hard to show without chatlogs with other users where they admit to doing so AND their trading history. We won't ban people just because they made a bad suggestion and left out some sales, and it's almost impossible to show that they are doing that intentionally. I can only think of maybe 3-4 actual bans for manipulation. First time ban of ~1 month and second ban is permanent.

 

Raven was originally banned for lying about a sale in a suggestion (saying he paid more than he actually did). And he admitted as much after the fact. The whole issue with the collector's items is a second ban. In addition to the chatlogs, we have evidence from his trade history of him paying keys for a collector's item and then trading some keys back to make it look like more keys were traded for the item than is actually the case. This might seem hard to believe now. But you have to remember that there was a time ~2 years ago when no one wanted collectors items and their value wasn't actually that strong. All of these cases of manipulation happened at that time. Once collector values shot up, Raven did not need to manipulate the prices any more.

My main gripe with you here is that the trade you mention that supposedly involved manipulation was done with 007_remix. Why ban only one side? Alternatively, why not just show that trade as opposed to purposefully keeping people in the dark? He obviously doesn't want to be anonymous if he's proud of it. Definitely not buying that "anonymous" stuff as the reason for hiding it (Again, I learned Raven was banned FROM remix who informed me he reported him),, especially because of what you say the ban reason is. If that's the only reason, by the way, it'll disappoint me a bit considering that most of the staff I've discussed this with have mentioned numerous other manipulative trades involving Raven that occurred. Who knows what's true or not in that case besides you guys considering that you're keeping permanent ban reasons on a major TF2 site private. Secondly, I haven't seen any mention of Wokaths ban here as a response, so I am still curious about that. Thank you for your response @polar

Appreciatively,

HarryG

[polar]

(1) Why ban only one side? Alternatively, why not just show that trade as opposed to purposefully keeping people in the dark?

 

(2) He obviously doesn't want to be anonymous if he's proud of it.

 

(3) If that's the only reason, by the way, it'll disappoint me a bit considering that most of the staff I've discussed this with have mentioned numerous other manipulative trades involving Raven that occurred.

 

(4) Who knows what's true or not in that case besides you guys considering that you're keeping permanent ban reasons on a major TF2 site private.

 

(5) Secondly, I haven't seen any mention of Wokaths ban here as a response, so I am still curious about that.

 

(1) and (2). I cannot comment on who reported it other than to say that the person who reported it requested anonymity. And in my digging into the case, there was no evidence that the second party in any of the trades was directly involved in making false price suggestions - it was all Raven or people instructed by Raven.

 

(3) There was one specific case that was blatantly obvious that corroborated the story of the person reporting the case. There were several other trades that occurred around the same time that involved keys going back and forth between Raven, his alt, and other accounts, but we cannot say with 100% certainty that those were manipulation attempts because we don't have specific chatlogs of those attempts. Given his prior history of manipulation and the one specific example for which we had chatlogs, I was not about to give Raven the benefit of the doubt on any of those trades. 

 

(4) The reason is plainly available there in the ban reason. Manipulative suggesting. If you believe that we have intentionally doctored screenshots to frame Raven, then so be it. Your mind is made and there's nothing more I can do about it. We take anonymity of our reporters seriously, so we are careful in screening what we publish. Anonymity not only with the chat but in the trade history that involves multiple other traders.

 

(5) It was a long time ago. I can't remember the exact circumstance surrounding that ban. If I had to surmise, I deemed the trade a troll attempt more so than a genuine manipulation attempt and banned the alt as a stern warning to not pull that kind of nonsense again. We try to give benefit of the doubt where possible. But when there's a consistent pattern of behavior as we saw in Raven's case, we make sure the ban is permanent.

[HarryG]

Alright, I'll accept that I might have been misinformed. I'll trust your judgment there, but I'll just end my questions with maybe for the future there should be something specifically outlined for types of manipulation and how they're handled just so it's clear what's what. Thanks polar, I appreciate your response.

 

-HarryG

[polar]

Alright, I'll accept that I might have been misinformed. I'll trust your judgment there, but I'll just end my questions with maybe for the future there should be something specifically outlined for types of manipulation and how they're handled just so it's clear what's what. Thanks polar, I appreciate your response.

 

-HarryG

 

Well, it's sort of like what I originally had planned for the unusual suggestion rules. If we were to list out every single unusual "rule" and provide examples justifying our reasons for doing everything, the unusual suggestion guide would be over 30 pages long. I was on page 18 when I scrapped the whole thing for the simplified version. As I said earlier, as far as I know, I'm the only one who has handled these cases in the past and to my knowledge, in the 3+ years I've been doing my job there are only ~4 cases I have ever seen. And each of those cases was unique - the lengths to which people go to lie / manipulate goes from what Raven did working with other people to fake paypal screenshots. It would just be impossible to come up with all the possible manipulation strategies and would honestly be a waste of time to come up with something formally just for the once a year case. When I joined and had trouble with coming to grips with situations like this, Brad put it best when he said that, at the end of the day, people use our site because they trust the judgment of our mods. People may disagree with our methods, but we genuinely do what we feel is in the best interests of the community as a whole. The quality I like most about the mod team is that they are all genuinely honest and humble people and are never afraid of admitting their mistakes. And I think the community as a whole has come to appreciate that.

[HarryG]

Well, it's sort of like what I originally had planned for the unusual suggestion rules. If we were to list out every single unusual "rule" and provide examples justifying our reasons for doing everything, the unusual suggestion guide would be over 30 pages long. I was on page 18 when I scrapped the whole thing for the simplified version. As I said earlier, as far as I know, I'm the only one who has handled these cases in the past and to my knowledge, in the 3+ years I've been doing my job there are only ~4 cases I have ever seen. And each of those cases was unique - the lengths to which people go to lie / manipulate goes from what Raven did working with other people to fake paypal screenshots. It would just be impossible to come up with all the possible manipulation strategies and would honestly be a waste of time to come up with something formally just for the once a year case. When I joined and had trouble with coming to grips with situations like this, Brad put it best when he said that, at the end of the day, people use our site because they trust the judgment of our mods. People may disagree with our methods, but we genuinely do what we feel is in the best interests of the community as a whole. The quality I like most about the mod team is that they are all genuinely honest and humble people and are never afraid of admitting their mistakes. And I think the community as a whole has come to appreciate that.

I'll be the first to say that I have disagreed with numerous people, staff included, on numerous things regarding how this site works and I think you'll agree with me on that at least. Varies from simply frustrating to the point where I essentially despise some of them. I do appreciate when I get a solid response like this to a question I have instead of overly political question dodging (Which definitely has happened before, especially in this particular case). Again, I'll accept this because it makes sense. Guess it is a bit to much to ask to expect an overly formalized process for a niche like this when you put it that way. Good talk, I like when things are talked out like civilized people. Think I'm done on this thread.

Thanks again @polar,

HarryG