Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Teeny Tiny Cat

Trust and "Sharking"

Should we allow negative trust for sharking where there are repeated uneven trades but not enough evidence to ban?  

124 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we allow negative trust for sharking where there are repeated uneven trades but not enough evidence to ban?

    • Yes
      99
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

Teeny Tiny Cat

So, this has always been a debated issue on this site and others, with many users wishing we were tougher on "sharks". Our stance on sharking is clear in this thread, and I stand by it when it comes to banning users - uneven trades alone is not enough to consider sharking elevated to the level of scamming, for me, and proof of manipulation, deceit, etc, will remain the threshold required for us to ban.

 

However, I have been thinking about the possibility of allowing negative trust to be left for users who repeatedly engage in uneven trades in which they're buying items for significantly less than the item's likely worth and then reselling for 10x what they paid. Odd trades like this are not a concern to me - not every new trader cares about item value, and some are likely truly happy with the trade they got and wouldn't trade back even if informed what their item could have got. But when these unbalanced trades are occurring regularly from particular regular traders, that is a pattern which suggests they are taking advantage of people. And I think that users maybe deserve a warning about that pattern. They would still be free to make whatever trade they wanted to, so if they were truly happy regardless of value this wouldn't have any effect on the ability of the individuals to continue trading. However, those who might have made a different choice if they knew would at least have some warning available somewhere to alert them to do some further research. On the other hand, it could be argued that the people vulnerable to being taken advantage of are unlikely to check backpack.tf trust anyway, so it may serve little practical purpose. 

 

This is not decided by any means, but I'm thinking about it and I wanted to give you guys the opportunity to weigh in. I WILL NOT tolerate drama or accusations against any individuals in particular in this thread. Let's keep it to generalities please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iTrade ™

If both parties agree to a trade and said trade involved no manipulation of any kind then there is no reason to apply negative trust.

If there was manipulation involved then sure a negative trust rating is deserved. 

So if the accused can show that they did not manipulate the other party then any such rating should be invalid. 

 

If negative trust is to be applied then who should apply it? The other party? A random user? 

 

Share this post


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

If both parties agree to a trade and said trade involved no manipulation of any kind then there is no reason to apply negative trust.

If there was manipulation involved then sure a negative trust rating is deserved. 

So if the accused can show that they did not manipulate the other party then any such rating should be invalid. 

 

If negative trust is to be applied then who should apply it? The other party? A random user? 

 

 

Manipulation leads to a ban, not a negative trust.

I disagree that there is no issue of trust here. Taking advantage of peoples' inexperience is still a shady trading practice if no manipulation is involved, it just doesn't rise to the level required for a ban. It's certainly something that users could do with a warning about. If they were really happy with their trades, it would make no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iTrade ™

So who would apply such a rating? A random member of the community or the other party? I did not quite get that from your reply.

 

Any trader who makes profit in a deal takes advantage of the other party. Yes if you make a profit of X keys in 1 trade that means the other party made a bad deal. Why did the other party make that deal? Likely because they have less experience than the trader who profited. This has nothing to do with trading unboxers or with trading inexperienced people. Some people will have more experience than others and those who have the most experience can make the best judging calls. 

 

How do you think most of the traders got rich? Either by spending a lot of real world money or by trading up? If they traded up then they made profit. If they made profit they got good deals. If they got good deals other people lost profit. If other people lost profit then they had less experience than the person who gained profit. It's quite simple if you rationalise it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
appy

since we are only allowing this on repeat instances, who would apply the negative trust? can we make it only mod trust in these cases? in that case it wont be abused.Cos to be frank because the value of the hat is a subjective matter it can lead to people abusing/using it to take settle a score.I believe we definitely need to do something about this but not sure this is the best solution(it is a good one but there may be better ones :P).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat
2 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

So who would apply such a rating? A random member of the community or the other party? I did not quite get that from your reply.

 

Any profit trader takes who makes profit in a deal takes advantage of the other party. Yes if you make a profit of X keys in 1 trade that means the other party made a bad deal. Why did the other party make that deal? Likely because they have less experience than the trader who profited. This has nothing to do with trading unboxers or with trading inexperienced people. Some people will have more experience than others and those who have the most experience can make the best judging calls. 

 

How do you think most of the traders got rich? Either by spending a lot of real world money or by trading up? If they traded up then they made profit. If they made profit they got good deals. If they got good deals other people lost profit. If other people lost profit then they had less experience than the person who gained profit. It's quite simple if you rationalise it.

 

What difference does it make? I suppose a random user could apply it. Or they could report and have a mod apply it. 

 

There's a difference between making for profit deals when both parties are aware of what they're doing and making hugely for profit deals because of the fact that the other trader doesn't know what they're doing. There are plenty of fair, kind traders who don't do that to people. This would only apply to significantly uneven trades, there's plenty of margin for profit while still being fair.

 

1 minute ago, appy said:

since we are only allowing this on repeat instances, who would apply the negative trust? can we make it only mod trust in these cases? in that case it wont be abused.Cos to be frank because the value of the hat is a subjective matter it can lead to people abusing/using it to take settle a score.I believe we definitely need to do something about this but not sure this is the best solution(it is a good one but there may be better ones :P).

 

It could be mod trust. Though it wouldn't be abused anyway tbh, cause anyone who has it left for them would report it which means a mod would assess it for validity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
appy
6 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

So who would apply such a rating? A random member of the community or the other party? I did not quite get that from your reply.

 

Any trader who makes profit in a deal takes advantage of the other party. Yes if you make a profit of X keys in 1 trade that means the other party made a bad deal. Why did the other party make that deal? Likely because they have less experience than the trader who profited. This has nothing to do with trading unboxers or with trading inexperienced people. Some people will have more experience than others and those who have the most experience can make the best judging calls. 

 

How do you think most of the traders got rich? Either by spending a lot of real world money or by trading up? If they traded up then they made profit. If they made profit they got good deals. If they got good deals other people lost profit. If other people lost profit then they had less experience than the person who gained profit. It's quite simple if you rationalise it.

 

i think we are not punishing profitable trades, we are punishing highly uneven trades like 10x the value.I have made 10+k$ buying/selling quicksells so i dont think the logic of "i have to profit so it is my right to cause chaos" works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eclips

I feel the issue here is that some people choose to target new unboxers who do not understand the true value of their item. Backpack.tf premium enables these people to find these new unboxes with ease and in large quantities. From then, they can offer as high or as low as they want, whether that being an overpriced taunt or an unpriced unusual that they can make up some value about how much it's worth.

 

No this is not sharking or scamming of any kind, it's just taking advantage of an unboxer's lack of experience and I feel it's morally wrong.

Share this post


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

No this is not sharking or scamming of any kind, it's just taking advantage of an unboxer's lack of experience and I feel it's morally wrong.

 

Regardless of what you call it, we're talking about if it should be allowed to leave negative trust for taking advantage of people in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iTrade ™
Just now, Eclips said:

From then, they can offer as high or as low as they want, whether that being an overpriced taunt or an unpriced unusual that they can make up some value about how much it's worth.

What if the other party gives you a very good offer? Be it unboxer or not. Would you then decline it? You can't punish traders if the other party gives them good deals. 

Share this post


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

 

Regardless of what you call it, we're talking about if it should be allowed to leave negative trust for taking advantage of people in this way.

Yeah I understand. I think it would be right to leave negative trust if it's a clear pattern of insane trade after insane trade, but defiantly not if it's just a one off as everyone gets lucky once or twice but if it's happening over and over again in a short space of time then something here is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat
8 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

What if the other party gives you a very good offer? Be it unboxer or not. Would you then decline it? You can't punish traders if the other party gives them good deals. 

 

Me? Yes. 

 

And, once again, we're talking about repeated behaviour here. Nobody will get negative trust for one or two trades that are deemed uneven. This would only be allowed in cases where it happens very regularly. 

 

I'd also point out that trust isn't a punishment, it's a warning. If people the people being taken advantage of in these situations are truly happy with the trades, having a warning wouldn't make any difference.

 

5 minutes ago, Eclips said:

Yeah I understand. I think it would be right to leave negative trust if it's a clear pattern of insane trade after insane trade, but defiantly not if it's just a one off as everyone gets lucky once or twice but if it's happening over and over again in a short space of time then something here is wrong.

 

Indeed, see above reply to itrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iTrade ™
1 minute ago, Eclips said:

Yeah I understand. I think it would be right to leave negative trust if it's a clear pattern of insane trade after insane trade, but defiantly not if it's just a one off as everyone gets lucky once or twice but if it's happening over and over again in a short space of time then something here is wrong.

What if you can prove that the other parties proposed the agreed terms multiple times? As long as other traders propose you good deals I see nothing wrong with accepting them. If you do a lot of such trades and the value of such trades was also proposed by the other parties then what exactly is wrong? Trade values are subjective and non-profit traders will value items differently than the backpack.tf power-user community. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wishmaster

Trust should be a reflection of a person according to community customs and standards. Sharking is inherently untrustworthy - it shows that a person is willing to take advantage (possibly through coercion) of another inexperienced trader for their own massive gain. You can argue this is human nature, and I absolutely agree that in 99% trades someone is getting a better deal than the other. But there is an expectation that both parties are relatively experienced with trading and are aware of sites such as backpack.tf (although I am not saying that is a necessity for it to be a "fair trade"). This does not apply in most cases of sharking because the victim is usually someone completely inexperienced. Trust should, in my opinion, inform others of that person's conduct in the community and I think it is generally accepted that sharking is not acceptable conduct.

Share this post


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

What if you can prove that the other parties proposed the agreed terms multiple times? As long as other traders propose you good deals I see nothing wrong with accepting them. If you do a lot of such trades and the value of such trades was also proposed by the other parties then what exactly is wrong? Trade values are subjective and non-profit traders will value items differently than the backpack.tf power-user community. 

 

What exactly is wrong with giving them a warning to do some research and make sure that's the trade they want to make? If they're truly happy, as you say, they will still complete the trade.

Share this post


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

 

What exactly is wrong with giving them a warning to do some research and make sure that's the trade they want to make? If they're truly happy, as you say, they will still complete the trade.

There simply is no justification to warn someone if the other party proposed the deal.

2 minutes ago, The Wishmaster said:

Trust should be a reflection of a person according to community customs and standards. Sharking is inherently untrustworthy - it shows that a person is willing to take advantage (possibly through coercion) of another inexperienced trader for their own massive gain. You can argue this is human nature, and I absolutely agree that in 99% trades someone is getting a better deal than the other. But there is an expectation that both parties are relatively experienced with trading and are aware of sites such as backpack.tf (although I am not saying that is a necessity for it to be a "fair trade"). This does not apply in most cases of sharking because the victim is usually someone completely inexperienced. Trust should, in my opinion, inform others of that person's conduct in the community and I think it is generally accepted that sharking is not acceptable conduct.

Nobody is defending sharking here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wishmaster
Just now, iTrade ™ said:

There simply is no justification to warn someone if the other party proposed the deal.

Nobody is defending sharking here.

I didn't say anyone was? The thread is titled "Trust and Sharking". What part of my post went against that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat
Just now, iTrade ™ said:

There simply is no justification to warn someone if the other party proposed the deal.

 

Why not? Just because someone who didn't know anything about item values proposed a deal, doesn't mean that's the deal they would propose if they knew more. A warning allows them the chance to do a little research. If they still want to make that deal, nothing is stopping them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eclips
2 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

What if you can prove that the other parties proposed the agreed terms multiple times? As long as other traders propose you good deals I see nothing wrong with accepting them. If you do a lot of such trades and the value of such trades was also proposed by the other parties then what exactly is wrong? Trade values are subjective and non-profit traders will value items differently than the backpack.tf power-user community. 

Them agreeing/offering is not the problem. It's the fact some people use premium to purposefully find these people who lack experience, often they own an unpriced unusual so how are they supposed to know? If you set up an advertisement stating that you are quickbuying new unusuals and you get a really good offer I don't see the problem with that. But when people use premium to find new unboxers, not because they want the item they own but because they know they have no knowledge of what their item's true value is, I find that this is not right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iTrade ™
17 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

Why not? Just because someone who didn't know anything about item values proposed a deal, doesn't mean that's the deal they would propose if they knew more. A warning allows them the chance to do a little research. If they still want to make that deal, nothing is stopping them.

Your justification for warning someone would be that they received a good offer from a trader who is likely experienced than them? What's next? Warning someone because they sold an item for big overpay and thereby received a good deal from a person who is likely less experienced than them?


 

13 minutes ago, Eclips said:

Them agreeing/offering is not the problem. It's the fact some people use premium to purposefully find these people who lack experience, often they own an unpriced unusual so how are they supposed to know? If you set up an advertisement stating that you are quickbuying new unusuals and you get a really good offer I don't see the problem with that. But when people use premium to find new unboxers, not because they want the item they own but because they know they have no knowledge of what their item's true value is, I find that this is not right.

So yours issue is that premium is being used to find good deals then. Yes, with premium it's easier to find good deals because it allows you to locate any item in a public inventory. For this service backpack.tf is being paid for by premium users who make use of this feature. Giving a warning for trading less experienced traders though is silly because people buy also get similar good deals from inexperienced people on marketplace.tf and even more on Steam Community Market. The users who sell their items for low prices on SCM may or may not be aware of bp.tf.

In any case, if you want to make profit would you seek out more experienced traders than yourself or less experienced traders? The answer will likely be that you also trade people who happen to have less experience than you. 

To prove my point: A few days ago an unnamed trader bought an unusual for ~53 keys on marketplace.tf. He resold said unusual for 200 keys in mixed. Would you apply a warning to him if he does this multiple times? I wouldn't. It's not his fault that the he good a good deal on it twice (for buying low and for selling quite high).

 

Backpack.tf premium offers simply another opportunity to find good deals, just like marketplace.tf and SCM do. 

 

G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat
3 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

Your justification for warning someone would be that they received a good offer from a trader who is likely experienced than them? What's next? Warning someone because they sold an item for big overpay and thereby received a good deal from a person who is likely less experienced than them?

 

You don't think anyone is ever taken advantage of? Not really sure how it's possible to believe that unless you're trying to rationalise something.

 

Trust is protective, it's not a punishment. Why would you possibly oppose people having more information to make informed choices that are fair to them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eclips
10 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

Your justification for warning someone would be that they received a good offer from a trader who is likely experienced than them? What's next? Warning someone because they sold an item for big overpay and thereby received a good deal from a person who is likely less experienced than them?


 

So yours issue is that premium is being used to find good deals then. Yes, with premium it's easier to find good deals because it allows you to locate any item in a public inventory. For this service backpack.tf is being paid for by premium users who make use of this feature. Giving a warning for trading less experienced traders though is silly because people buy also get similar good deals from inexperienced people on marketplace.tf and even more on Steam Community Market. The users who sell their items for low prices on SCM may or may not be aware of bp.tf.

In any case, if you want to make profit would you seek out more experienced traders than yourself or less experienced traders? The answer will likely be that you also trade people who happen to have less experience than you. 

To prove my point: A few days ago an unnamed trader bought an unusual for ~53 keys on marketplace.tf. He resold said unusual for 200 keys in mixed. Would you apply a warning to him if he does this multiple times? I wouldn't. It's not his fault that the he good a good deal on it twice (for buying low and for selling quite high).

 

Backpack.tf premium offers simply another opportunity to find good deals, just like marketplace.tf and SCM do. 

 

G

Look, good deals are one thing, insane deals are another. Insane deals happen rarely, not a few every day. Backpack.tf premium's use is not to be used as a tool to find the less experienced and targeted by the more experienced. I would also like to see a new unboxer who has no knowledge of trading whatsoever find their way to marketplace.tf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eclips

This should not be a severe punishment, maybe it could even be on a cooldown effect and go away after a while, but I'm not willing to see hat after hat being priced insanely low because somebody has gone ahead and purposefully found someone with less experience to purposefully offer low on or even asked them how much they'd let it go for because the more experienced have targeted them because they do not know the Price and know they will get a deal out of it that the unboxer will regret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moose

There is a difference between getting a good deal from a experienced trader and another from getting a good deal from new traders. Especially new users who unbox a fairly high tiered unusual. Also the new traders would need to understand the value of the unusual they are selling. Explaining that their unusual is worth very little to what it is actually worth, then it is sharking. If they understand how much their unusual is worth and is still willing to give a good deal to the buyer, then this isn't sharking.

 

However, targeting new users several times over, I feel should be against the rules. Unless of course they understand the value of their unusual. (At least a general understanding)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iTrade ™
3 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

You don't think anyone is ever taken advantage of? Not really sure how it's possible to believe that unless you're trying to rationalise something.

I am saying that in any uneven deal where one party profits someone is taken advantage of. It doesn't matter if you make 1 ref profit or 10 keys profit in a trade. If you profit the other party loses. That's a fact and there is no denying it. Profit doesn't just fall from the sky.

 

If one party quick sells you an unusual and you sell it 10 minutes later for 5 keys profit then the person who quicksold it made a poor judgment call because of their inexperience . The same inexperience can lead to a person giving you a very favourable deal or to agreeing to one. 

If someone buys an overpriced taunt then it's likely because of their inexperience which they were taken advantage of.

If someone buys has a low buy order (for example below scrap.tf price) and someone sells to them then they were taken advantage of. The same user could have gotten a better deal from scrap but they didn't know any better because of their lack of experience. 

If someone buys an overpriced unusual on scrap.tf for almost full pure then scrap.tf took advantage of the buyer's inexperience which led them to making this horrible deal.

 

If you want to apply negative trust for good deals then why not do it consistently for every good deal? TL;DR profit doesn't fall from the sky and is usually the result of one party taking advantage of the other parties inexperience or by being more convincing than the other party. Taking advantage involves no forms of manipulation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...