Trust and "Sharking"

[LaughingLollipop]

probably just rename it sharksanctuary.tf

 

literally taking payment to assist them in finding prey too

 

disgusting

[ѕιи]

2 minutes ago, Miau! said:

I see no problem with the rules as of now. The only major change I'd propose to try to help the issue of sharking (not sure if this is possible from a programming perspective) would be to sort the premium search results by price, rather than when they were unboxed.

 

See, now this is a step in the right direction. Thank you.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

7 minutes ago, ѕιи said:

 

Drawing the line is one of the most, if not the most, important thing about this policy as a whole. That is why I stress how big a price disparity must have to be and how accurate prices must be Teeny. Outdated prices exist on this site. Mistakes made in finding sales in price suggestions exist (whether we see them all or not or how detrimental they are or not) and keeping all of this in mind, that is why in my opinion it would make this site look awful if such a system was implemented.

 

If you're goal of using sharking as the thread title was for clickbait, it worked. Considering you don't even define sharking as just making trades with uneven values on this site, no matter how uneven they are, that's a huge mistake on your part. If this system were to even possible in my eyes, the definition of sharking needs to be rewritten. You can't judge people for making a shit ton of profit off a trade and penalizing them for it on a basis and definition that doesn't even support what this site stands for.

 

I think using common sense and judgement covers your concerns over prices. Regular traders, price mods, and even suggesters have a good idea of which hats are fairly accurately priced and which aren't. And, once again, this would only apply to trades with huge disparities. Setting clear lines just makes it easier for people to avoid it on a technicality.

 

My goal was to address something the community frequently raises in their terms. The body of the post doesn't mention sharking and is very clear what this would refer to. This isn't a rule or a guide, it's a conversation. Those things come later if we decide to go ahead.

 

I'll also note that trust is NOT a penalty, it is a warning.

[HarryG]

Just now, ѕιи said:

 

What Miau said

I agree. A shark's greatest weapon in sickening irony is indeed this site. This also needs to happen. However, from what I see, in this community major profit most often occurs through dishonest trading tactics and I think the fat cat perpetrators can't hide behind the "legitimate businessman" mantle and be taken down a rung. Drawing the line is important but stamping out people who have done this to dozens to people per individual needs to be done as well. It's time to get the muck out of this community and pave the way for a new era. 

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

I have no control over changes to premium, make feature requests for those.

[redbackpacktf]

1 minute ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

I have no control over changes to premium, make feature requests for those.

Just saying that if the site wants to fight sharking, that seems like the most viable option.

[SpotlightR]

I don't think that anything has to be done to Premium, changing the layout of it would just add dumb confusion and allow for sharks to be the only people to find their victims as it'd be harder for regular people to find newly unboxed hats.

 

Regarding the topic at hand, I see literally no reason as to why this shouldn't be implemented. People have already begun to be known as sharkers, but they cannot be banned for sharking since the rules are so ambiguous. People like Guns and JhejH PoT take advantage of this "benefit of the doubt" rule and continue to pay peanuts for very nice newly unboxed hats and then sell them for regular prices, profiting a huge amount in the process. This shouldn't be allowed. Obviously, if a person only commits this act a handful of times, then they shouldn't be punished. However, when you have a person buy fifteen brand new Arcana/Poisoned Shadows/Halloween effect hats in 2 days for like 20% of their actual price then you know something shady is happening.

 

https://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198120467518#!/compare/1513382400/1513468800
Hell, just today JhejH PoT Purchased a Factory New Unusual Assassin Grade Minigun for a taunt that's unsold for ~30 keys on Marketplace.tf. I literally have no clue as to why this is still allowed to happen. It's so stupid and is so easy to partially remedy.

 

To see my further stance, consult my comment here.

https://backpack.tf/suggestion/5a3976a4cf6c7523d0256519#comment-5a3998eb44325a15e1269280

 

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

Just now, Shawn said:

Just saying that if the site wants to fight sharking, that seems like the most viable option.

 

As I said, not in my control. I've pointed the owners to the suggestions.

[Fishtail]

12 minutes ago, Miau! said:

There must be a line in the sand at a specific amount. If I quickbuy an item off opskins for a 10% of it's value, is that going to get me a -trust? Or will it be 11%? Or 25%?  Or does it only apply to item trades? There needs to be finite rules IMO, which would be impossible to set because of some items that vary too much in value (spells, low crafts, collector's cosmetics, etc.) for this sort of thing.

 

I'm not completely opposed to this sort of addition to the site, but it would need to be EXTREMELY specific, and with that specificity, would bring finite rule evasion (if you can't quickbuy below 10% of the value, they'd aim for 11.)

 

I see no problem with the rules as of now. The only major change I'd propose to try to help the issue of sharking (not sure if this is possible from a programming perspective) would be to sort the premium search results by price, rather than when they were unboxed.

 

You can't always put a value on everything. Just like that this is probably one of the cases where you can't draw a clear line. We're talking about CONSISTENTLY taking advantage of newbies. The best course of action would probably be to leave it upto a mod's judgement, after discussing it with other mods.

15 minutes ago, ѕιи said:

 

Drawing the line is one of the most, if not the most, important thing about this policy as a whole. That is why I stress how big a price disparity must have to be and how accurate prices must be Teeny. Outdated prices exist on this site. Mistakes made in finding sales in price suggestions exist (whether we see them all or not or how detrimental they are or not) and keeping all of this in mind, that is why in my opinion it would make this site look awful if such a system was implemented.

 

If you're goal of using sharking as the thread title was for clickbait, it worked. Considering you don't even define sharking as just making trades with uneven values on this site, no matter how uneven they are, that's a huge mistake on your part. If this system were to even possible in my eyes, the definition of sharking needs to be rewritten. You can't judge people for making a shit ton of profit off a trade and penalizing them for it on a basis and definition that doesn't even support what this site stands for.

 

You're missing the point of this whole post. Tiny wants to see how the community would feel about it. And the polls are reflecting it clearly. There's no specific word for this yet, and it certainly isn't "sharking". An appropriate phrase would be "consistently taking advantage of vulnerable/uninformed  users." Logistics come in later. You can't just draw a line as you like. It's not that simple. Just calm down and keep at the topic instead of stirring up drama.

[Kevin the Chicken God]

For real, its about time a change like this was discussed. It's incredibly frustrating to bring evidence of manipulation to a mod and have them say "yeah its pretty obvious manipulation but there isn't enough evidence to ban" because there aren't like chat exchange logs from the initial conversation, since newer users never even think to keep stuff like that. It gets even worse when you see those people who get away by walking the line come on here complaining that a new rule doesn't need to be implementing or shaming people who did get sharked, saying stuff like "if both sides agreed it obviously can't be a shark".

 

This is a good way of being able to warn users that someone may not be trustworthy without completely restricting them without solid evidence, especially considering that some of these people will link to their backpacks or reputation directly when dealing with newer users.

[ksolis01]

38 minutes ago, TheVirtualEconomist said:

As someone who has publicly taken a stand against sharkers, I think this is a great idea. It is absolute madness that certain (unnamed) users can consistently take advantage of brand new unboxers who know absolutely zero about trading, while getting off with absolutely zero punishment. I basically agree with everything said by The Wishmaster. Cudos to him for saying it so accurately and sufficiently. 

 

 

I do want to respond here, because it is at the crux of this whole discussion. 

 

 

I've seen this argument many times. And I get your point of view. In order to make profit, chances are someone is making a better trade than the other party, so why should we punish people for making legitimate trades? However, if I understand Teeny correctly, the point of this rules change is to help prevent high profile sharks from occurring, not to prevent people form making profit. When you make a trade and clearly make a few keys profit off someone, I would call that a mistake (if anything) on the part of the other trader. Nothing big. The other trader will learn from it and will go about trading as they always did. However, there is a fine line between this and a shark. In my mind, a shark is basically a mistake that is so large (value wise) that occurs when someone with trading experience purposely searches for people with  zero knowledge of trading to try and use this lack of any knowledge to their advantage. This, in my opinion, should have some consequence. While it is clear backpack will not ban people for sharking, I think that negative trust is the next best thing. It won't prevent sharks from doing legitimate trades, and it will simply warm potential shark victims to think twice before accepting trades with someone with a known track record of sharking. 

 

For all those people wondering about how to apply negative trust, I think that fundamentally two criteria need to be met.

 

1) The trade needs to be so one sided that any person with even the tiniest knowledge of the market should know not to accept.*

2) The trade needs to be above a certain threshold in value, so as not to incriminate legitimate traders making profit off small mistakes.

 

*Keep in mind I don't think deception other party "happiness" should be a factor. This solely looks at discrepancy between what the victim should have received and what they did receive. Examples include someone not knowing the backpack.tf price of their unusual or knowing that halloween hat effects are very rare and expensive.

 

This pretty much sums up my opinions but one thing. I think there should be an threshold for these type of negative trusts, lets say five, and then you are banned for a set amount of time from getting premium. Every five, you get another escalated ban until you are completely banned from premium. Also, these peoples alts should be monitored to see if they are avoiding their bans on premium which from what I've seen before on backpack tf bans, you guys do somewhat try to make sure nobody is getting around bans through alts.

[Mrs TS]

Off topic but relevant, perhaps:

 

I dont know the exact parameters of how pricing suggestions work, but why cant a sharked item be priced accordingly.    I mean hell, if someone gets a super low deal that he shouldn't have, why cant that item be lowered to what he paid for it?

 

Also, as for new unboxers, why cant there be a timer before bp.tf premium identifies that user.  Say, 15 days or 30 days?  Might give the unboxer some time to breath and hopefully learn about the value of their item.

[Relic]

These kind of threads always crack me up

 

Title: "Should we allow negative trust for sharking"

 

iTrade: "you want to apply negative trust for good deals then why not do it consistently for every good deal?"

 

lol

[iTrade ™]

2 minutes ago, Relic said:

These kind of threads always crack me up

 

Title: "Should we allow negative trust for sharking"

 

Trade: "you want to apply negative trust for good deals then why not do it consistently for every good deal?"

 

 

Ask Teeny why she used sharking in the title. It's a simple clickbait if you ask me. 

Then read the post to see what the issue is about. Nobody is saying manipulating trades is ok.

[Kevin the Chicken God]

4 minutes ago, Mrs TS said:

Off topic but relevant, perhaps:

 

I dont know the exact parameters of how pricing suggestions work, but why cant a sharked item be priced accordingly.    I mean hell, if someone gets a super low deal that he shouldn't have, why cant that item be lowered to what he paid for it?

 

Also, as for new unboxers, why cant there be a timer before bp.tf premium identifies that user.  Say, 15 days or 30 days?  Might give the unboxer some time to breath and hopefully learn about the value of their item.

I think the main issue with something like this is that the suggestion is public and takes time to get accepted, and if the trade was a blatant shark then the sharker wouldn't really have any trouble selling it off for a profit before the suggestion got accepted, or that there are enough other sales to count it as an outlier. Also, with the idea that bp reflects the market, if I drop a hat from 150 keys to 50 keys using one purchase it should eventually make its way back up, kind of defeating the purpose.

[ѕιи]

1 minute ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

I think using common sense and judgement covers your concerns over prices. Regular traders, price mods, and even suggesters have a good idea of which hats are fairly accurately priced and which aren't.

 

Tbh, I highly doubt that for reasons I'm not going to get into.

 

3 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

I'll also note that trust is NOT a penalty, it is a warning.

 

Wrong. Trust was intended as only a warning. It may still be used as a warning, but if there are people out there who refuse to trade with someone because they have even a single negative trust rating regardless of the amount of positive trust ratings they have, that screams penalty. You and I both know that.

 

5 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

My goal was to address something the community frequently raises in their terms. The body of the post doesn't mention sharking and is very clear what this would refer to. This isn't a rule or a guide, it's a conversation. Those things come later if we decide to go ahead.

 

I was referring more to the name of the poll "Should we allow negative trust for sharking where there are repeated uneven trades but not enough evidence to ban?", but I still stick to what I said. I don't agree with that decision.

6 minutes ago, SpotlightR said:

I don't think that anything has to be done to Premium, changing the layout of it would just add dumb confusion and allow for sharks to be the only people to find their victims as it'd be harder for regular people to find newly unboxed hats.

 

Uh, no? If "sharkers" can understand it, why wouldn't we be able to?

 

7 minutes ago, SpotlightR said:

Regarding the topic at hand, I see literally no reason as to why this shouldn't be implemented. 

 

If you've read all of my posts about it then idk what to say tbh.

 

8 minutes ago, SpotlightR said:

To see my further stance, consult my comment here.

https://backpack.tf/suggestion/5a3976a4cf6c7523d0256519#comment-5a3998eb44325a15e1269280

 

Ok, let's see:

 

"Fear mongering people into not speaking about deceitful acts regarding a specific hat on a price suggestion also pertaining to the hat makes no sense to me. I believe that instead of ignoring the obvious problem at hand and simply warning individuals that comment regarding it numerous times, we should be working to deter people from continuously making largely one-sided trades on several occasions."

 

This is being done right now, so nothing to say here.

 

"Perhaps allowing for negative trust if this becomes a trend for said person, since if it only happens a couple times then it can simply be shrugged off as "not a shark." However, if we continue to just allow people like Jhejh PoT and iTrade to partake in obvious manipulation and hide behind the fact that it "can't be proved," then this problem will never cease to exist. Action has to be taken against this."

 

-Obvious how, exactly?

-lol, yes it can be proved. It's just no one cares to prove it. All anyone does is complain on price suggestions like this is reddit.

And here is the perfect example, that I even helped with to get this person banned for sharking: https://backpack.tf/u/76561198107418082

-There's a lot I could say here, but I've already written this essay of a post and can't be bothered to keep reiterating myself.

 

"You can't keep giving these people the benefit of the doubt. It's too easy to keep doing that and what they're doing is far too obvious. Take a look at Jhejh PoT, during the most recent large update for TF2, he purchased nearly twenty hats for super cheap, and then marked them up to "fair" prices, which happened to be super far from what he purchased them for. Evidence of this can be seen on SKIÞ's Backpack.tf profile, you can see the ridiculous prices that were paid as well as numerous users complaining about the exact same issue. This can't keep happening."

 

-Then don't and go find proof about it AAAAAAAAAA At least try is all I'm asking, if it's so obvious.

-Congrats to him, but just that alone is not what sharking is on this site, so unless you have a new definition for sharking that has no work around and is sound and logical, it'll keep happening unless people at least try to get him banned. Implementing a policy for one of the most crucial parts of someone's trading reputation in Team Fortress 2 based on a definition you all consider faulty is the most illogical way to go about this mess.

 

4 minutes ago, Mrs TS said:

Off topic but relevant, perhaps:

 

I dont know the exact parameters of how pricing suggestions work, but why cant a sharked item be priced accordingly.    I mean hell, if someone gets a super low deal that he shouldn't have, why cant that item be lowered to what he paid for it?

 

Because "shark sales" aren't an accurate representation of the market of that item. Like you said, they're  "a super low deal" that they shouldn't have gotten. Why would the site price an entire item based off of proof that isn't even accurate? To spite somebody?

 

[ѕιи]

22 minutes ago, Fishtail said:

You're missing the point of this whole post. Tiny wants to see how the community would feel about it. And the polls are reflecting it clearly. There's no specific word for this yet, and it certainly isn't "sharking". An appropriate phrase would be "consistently taking advantage of vulnerable/uninformed  users."

 

No, the polls aren't reflecting anything clearly lmfao. When the polls use the term "sharking", which has a clear definition on this site as the use of deceitful tactics to get a better deal out of somebody, while the same person who made the poll tries to define sharking as something for a simple clickbait and because it's what everyone calls buying stuff super low and profiting immensely off of it, the polls mean fuck all. Naming it "consistently taking advantage of vulnerable/uninformed users" wouldn't even be accurate because that isn't even at all what we're discussing. That poll is invalid because it's so damn confusing.

 

27 minutes ago, Fishtail said:

Logistics come in later. You can't just draw a line as you like. It's not that simple. Just calm down and keep at the topic instead of stirring up drama.

 

No, they absolutely do not come in later. If you can't think up of a logical reason and system of implementation as to how this system would even be viable, then it shouldn't be implemented at all, not to mention the fact you yourself consider the definition of sharking on this site "outdated." Like I said above, "Implementing a policy for one of the most crucial parts of someone's trading reputation in Team Fortress 2 based on a definition you all consider faulty is the most illogical way to go about this mess." If you consider trying to plan out the logistics for this system illogical, I have nothing to say to you.

[RED265]

8 minutes ago, ѕιи said:

 

Tbh, I highly doubt that for reasons I'm not going to get into.

 

 

Wrong. Trust was intended as only a warning. It may still be used as a warning, but if there are people out there who refuse to trade with someone because they have even a single negative trust rating regardless of the amount of positive trust ratings they have, that screams penalty. You and I both know that.

 

 

I was referring more to the name of the poll "Should we allow negative trust for sharking where there are repeated uneven trades but not enough evidence to ban?", but I still stick to what I said. I don't agree with that decision.

 

Uh, no? If "sharkers" can understand it, why wouldn't we be able to?

 

 

If you've read all of my posts about it then idk what to say tbh.

 

 

Ok, let's see:

 

"Fear mongering people into not speaking about deceitful acts regarding a specific hat on a price suggestion also pertaining to the hat makes no sense to me. I believe that instead of ignoring the obvious problem at hand and simply warning individuals that comment regarding it numerous times, we should be working to deter people from continuously making largely one-sided trades on several occasions."

 

This is being done right now, so nothing to say here.

 

"Perhaps allowing for negative trust if this becomes a trend for said person, since if it only happens a couple times then it can simply be shrugged off as "not a shark." However, if we continue to just allow people like Jhejh PoT and iTrade to partake in obvious manipulation and hide behind the fact that it "can't be proved," then this problem will never cease to exist. Action has to be taken against this."

 

-Obvious how, exactly?

-lol, yes it can be proved. It's just no one cares to prove it. All anyone does is complain on price suggestions like this is reddit.

And here is the perfect example, that I even helped with to get this person banned for sharking: https://backpack.tf/u/76561198107418082

-There's a lot I could say here, but I've already written this essay of a post and can't be bothered to keep reiterating myself.

 

"You can't keep giving these people the benefit of the doubt. It's too easy to keep doing that and what they're doing is far too obvious. Take a look at Jhejh PoT, during the most recent large update for TF2, he purchased nearly twenty hats for super cheap, and then marked them up to "fair" prices, which happened to be super far from what he purchased them for. Evidence of this can be seen on SKIÞ's Backpack.tf profile, you can see the ridiculous prices that were paid as well as numerous users complaining about the exact same issue. This can't keep happening."

 

-Then don't and go find proof about it AAAAAAAAAA At least try is all I'm asking, if it's so obvious.

-Congrats to him, but just that alone is not what sharking is on this site, so unless you have a new definition for sharking that has no work around and is sound and logical, it'll keep happening unless people at least try to get him banned. Implementing a policy for one of the most crucial parts of someone's trading reputation in Team Fortress 2 based on a definition you all consider faulty is the most illogical way to go about this mess.

 

 

Because "shark sales" aren't an accurate representation of the market of that item. Like you said, they're  "a super low deal" that they shouldn't have gotten. Why would the site price an entire item based off of proof that isn't even accurate? To spite somebody?

 

On the last part, any honest trader who knows he's a shark and see the price would in no way give that kind of profit margin they are asking for. 

[ѕιи]

Just now, RED265 said:

On the last part, any honest trader who knows he's a shark and see the price would in no way give that kind of profit margin they are asking for. 

 

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you clarify?

[RED265]

Just now, ѕιи said:

 

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you clarify?

Let's say a shark purchases a hat at 50, and marks it up to 200. By pricing it at the 50 they bought, they can't claim it's a 200 key hat anymore, and no decent trader would give anywhere near the 200 he's asking. This would cut into his profit margin drastically, since bp.tf is effectively bible.tf for so many unusual traders

[TheVirtualEconomist]

41 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

So what if the other party proposes you this deal? Take the Poisned Shadows Brain Warming Wear. The chat logs (public in the suggestion) clearly show that the person consulted bp.tf and then decided to sell it for 8 keys. The hat sold for more than it was bought. The buyer is not a fault for the decisions of the seller.

 

Backpack.tf does ban for sharking. Sharking, as defined by backpack.tf, involves manipulation. If there is no manipulation then it's no sharking and no ban. Please don't confuse that nor spread false info.

 

Again, take a look at the Poisned Shadows Brain Warming Wear which the owner decided to sell for 8 keys after consulting bp.tf. This trade demonstrates that your criteria #1 doesn't not work because in that trade the owner had knowledge of backpack.tf. Despite his consultancy of bp.tf the trade was highy criticized by a few vocal member of this community. Should a negative trust be applied here? I say no because it was the sole decision of the owner to sell it for this low price.

 

 

This has got to stop. People like you need to stop justifying shitty one-sided trades under the definition of sharking. In my mind, there is no difference weather the other party consulted backpack.tf, was "happy" with the trade or weather or not there was deception involved. I even noted this in my previous post.  If someone continues to make trades that are so uneven that they are basically scamming people out of their items, they should should be punished with negative trust marks. End of story.

 

The real problem here is that the generally accepted definition of sharking provides an easy way for sharks (yes, sharks) to discount all blame and responsibility for their actions under the model of being a good businessman (as HarryG rightly puts it). We need a new word for blatant one sided trades that occur WITH or WITHOUT coercion. I don't know what it should be, but it's desperately needed for this dialog to continue. As stated first by Fishtail: 

 

51 minutes ago, Fishtail said:

 

I feel like a new term should be introduced for this. There's already sharking, but you guys have a pretty specific definition for it, and this doesn't really encompass it. So based on the definition you've posted on the site, people continue to abuse it. I agree to have it left to a mod's judgement call rather than some set line, since it'd be impossible to draw. We've all seen pretty frequent instances of disgusting "sharks" recently. This has been going on for quite a while - with the community saying it's not right, but not doing anything about it. We've always brushed it off saying there's not enough chat long evidence, and cash could've been involved. But the sheer number of these "taking advantage of new users" acts happening all the time from the handful of people who like to call themselves "traders" is staggering. There is no doubt there isn't any cash involved in most of these horrendously low purchases. A -ve trust rating in this matter would go a long way since people would know who they're dealing with, which'd deter them from dealing with these heinous people. This would be just like the effect banning has on scamming. It discourages people to trade with them, thereby making their taking-advantage acts partly futile. Though people would still continue to buy from these fellas, they wouldn't get nearly as much sales, and also be put to shame. Rather than direct confrontation and drama, this method would affect them greatly in the long-term. 

 

[Fishtail]

1 minute ago, ѕιи said:

 

No, the polls aren't reflecting anything clearly lmfao. When the polls use the term "sharking", which has a clear definition on this site as the use of deceitful tactics to get a better deal out of somebody, while the same person who made the poll tries to define sharking as something for a simple clickbait and because it's what everyone calls buying stuff super low and profiting immensely off of it, the polls mean fuck all. Naming it "consistently taking advantage of vulnerable/uninformed users" wouldn't even be accurate because that isn't even at all what we're discussing. That poll is invalid because it's so damn confusing.

 

 

No, they absolutely do not come in later. If you can't think up of a logical reason and system of implementation as to how this system would even be viable, then it shouldn't be implemented at all, not to mention the fact you yourself consider the definition of sharking on this site "outdated." Like I said above, "Implementing a policy for one of the most crucial parts of someone's trading reputation in Team Fortress 2 based on a definition you all consider faulty is the most illogical way to go about this mess." If you consider trying to plan out the logistics for this system illogical, I have nothing to say to you.

 

You just can't seem to accept it for what it is. That's your problem, not others'. It's not "sharking" as the site defines, but it's taking advantage of others. It's being used as a substitute until a proper term can be found for it. If you're going to try and play ignorant and keep acting up with your childish remarks like "lmfao" and "lol" with your broken up vocab, noone's going to take you seriously. Even if you don't trust the system, this is better than nothing. So you can keep whining like a little kid all you like, but the community will move forward with or without you. And yes, logistics come in later. First part of planning is always surveying. If you don't have even the basic idea of project planning, i don't have to take you seriously. Stick to the post or save your sassy remarks for when the appropriate post is created.

[Kevin the Chicken God]

5 minutes ago, ѕιи said:

"Perhaps allowing for negative trust if this becomes a trend for said person, since if it only happens a couple times then it can simply be shrugged off as "not a shark." However, if we continue to just allow people like Jhejh PoT and iTrade to partake in obvious manipulation and hide behind the fact that it "can't be proved," then this problem will never cease to exist. Action has to be taken against this."

 

-Obvious how, exactly?

-lol, yes it can be proved. It's just no one cares to prove it. All anyone does is complain on price suggestions like this is reddit.

And here is the perfect example, that I even helped with to get this person banned for sharking: https://backpack.tf/u/76561198107418082

-There's a lot I could say here, but I've already written this essay of a post and can't be bothered to keep reiterating myself.

 

"You can't keep giving these people the benefit of the doubt. It's too easy to keep doing that and what they're doing is far too obvious. Take a look at Jhejh PoT, during the most recent large update for TF2, he purchased nearly twenty hats for super cheap, and then marked them up to "fair" prices, which happened to be super far from what he purchased them for. Evidence of this can be seen on SKIÞ's Backpack.tf profile, you can see the ridiculous prices that were paid as well as numerous users complaining about the exact same issue. This can't keep happening."

 

-Then don't and go find proof about it AAAAAAAAAA At least try is all I'm asking, if it's so obvious.

-Congrats to him, but just that alone is not what sharking is on this site, so unless you have a new definition for sharking that has no work around and is sound and logical, it'll keep happening unless people at least try to get him banned. Implementing a policy for one of the most crucial parts of someone's trading reputation in Team Fortress 2 based on a definition you all consider faulty is the most illogical way to go about this mess.

 

Ah yes, why don't people just prove it, the sharks will surely get banned. Because I totally didn't go through months of suspicious trades, contact the sellers and ask about their experiences, and present the evidence to multiple mods.

And these totally aren't the responses I got:

the mods are perfectly correct here, they cant ban anyone without chat evidence of him saying "yeah he totally manipulated me", even if its blatantly obvious and you have mountains of other evidence.

Literally if you talk to these people you mostly will hear "yeah I probably got ripped off but he was a nice guy" - not enough to ban. This happens to 5+ people, it still isn't enough to ban. The only thing Teeny is suggesting here is that this becomes enough for a -trust, which is a seriously minor slap on the wrist for fleecing new users of hundreds of bucks.

[RED265]

2 minutes ago, TheVirtualEconomist said:

 

This has got to stop. People like you need to stop justifying shitty one-sided trades under the definition of sharking. In my mind, there is no difference weather the other party consulted backpack.tf, was "happy" with the trade or weather or not there was deception involved. I even noted this in my previous post.  If someone continues to make trades that are so uneven that they are basically scamming people out of their items, they should should be punished with negative trust marks. End of story.

 

The real problem here is that the generally accepted definition of sharking provides an easy way for sharks (yes, sharks) to discount all blame and responsibility for their actions under the model of being a good businessman (as HarryG rightly puts it). We need a new word for blatant one sided trades that occur WITH or WITHOUT coercion. I don't know what it should be, but it's desperately needed for this dialog to continue. As stated first by Fishtail: 

 

 

Hi @Virtual Economist, let's go to some actual economic theory for this. The market takes advantage of imperfect information, and this creates the opportunity to profit for any firm. See: Apple/Windows/basically any pharm firm.However, as in real life, these firms are subject to price gouging and price controls. As such, the most plausible authority would be bp.tf to regulate it, especially with people deliberately lying about the price. Btw not a big fan, but we should unite to take out the 'sharks' or more accurately, the lying price manipulating gougers

[ѕιи]

1 minute ago, RED265 said:

Let's say a shark purchases a hat at 50, and marks it up to 200. By pricing it at the 50 they bought, they can't claim it's a 200 key hat anymore, and no decent trader would give anywhere near the 200 he's asking. This would cut into his profit margin drastically, since bp.tf is effectively bible.tf for so many unusual traders

 

-First off, can we stop calling these people "sharks," considering there is no prove for them being alleged sharks right now? Thanks.

-Secondly, like I said before ""shark sales" aren't an accurate representation of the market of that item. Like you said, they're  "a super low deal" that they shouldn't have gotten. Why would the site price an entire item based off of proof that isn't even accurate? To spite somebody?" We're not pricing items on obviously low sales just to spite somebody you think is making profit unfairly. That again, would make this site look awful.

-Lastly, just because backpack.tf = bible.tf for a lot of people doesn't mean everyone doesn't suddenly lose their ability to price check. Their profit margins MAY decrease, MAY, but depending on what they buy their items for, there are more downsides to this argument then there are up sides. This isn't worth it for backpack.tf's reputation at all.

 

4 minutes ago, Fishtail said:

You just can't seem to accept it for what it is. That's your problem, not others'. It's not "sharking" as the site defines, but it's taking advantage of others. It's being used as a substitute until a proper term can be found for it.

 

Please Fishtail, tell me how a compare link is going to prove how your alleged sharks are "taking advantage of others." Your speculation comes from nothing other than big profit margins; in fact, if you consider this thread to be about "taking advantage of others," then this entire conversation is based off of speculation. And for someone who complains about the definition of sharking so much, yours is a lot worse.

 

9 minutes ago, Fishtail said:

If you're going to try and play ignorant and keep acting up with your childish remarks like "lmfao" and "lol" with your broken up vocab, noone's going to take you seriously. Even if you don't trust the system, this is better than nothing. So you can keep whining like a little kid all you like, but the community will move forward with or without you.

 

If you're going to call me childish for saying 'lmfao' and 'lol', maybe next time don't resort to name calling and derogatory posts for me to take you seriously.

 

10 minutes ago, Fishtail said:

And yes, logistics come in later. First part of planning is always surveying. If you don't have even the basic idea of project planning, i don't have to take you seriously. Stick to the post or save your sassy remarks for when the appropriate post is created.

 

Surveying is part of logistics, and that's what we're doing now. Saying logistics come in later but also saying surveying is a part of planning (which is a part of the definition of logistics) makes absolutely 0 sense. (Also not to mention that this poll is inaccurate and otherwise invalid)

 

7 minutes ago, Kevin the Chicken God said:

Ah yes, why don't people just prove it, the sharks will surely get banned. Because I totally didn't go through months of suspicious trades, contact the sellers and ask about their experiences, and present the evidence to multiple mods.

And these totally aren't the responses I got: -cut-

 

the mods are perfectly correct here, they cant ban anyone without chat evidence of him saying "yeah he totally manipulated me", even if its blatantly obvious and you have mountains of other evidence.

Literally if you talk to these people you mostly will hear "yeah I probably got ripped off but he was a nice guy" - not enough to ban. This happens to 5+ people, it still isn't enough to ban.

 

While you couldn't get anyone banned for sharking, at least you tried, which is at least commendable. You can't say all of that as if it's impossible, and I can once again point to foxx as an example. https://backpack.tf/u/76561198107418082 If your complaint is that the definition for sharking is so narrow that it's almost impossible to get banned, then the priority should be to redefine what sharking is. Not this policy.

 

11 minutes ago, Kevin the Chicken God said:

The only thing Teeny is suggesting here is that this becomes enough for a -trust, which is a seriously minor slap on the wrist for fleecing new users of hundreds of bucks.

 

33 minutes ago, ѕιи said:

"Take a look at Jhejh PoT, during the most recent large update for TF2, he purchased nearly twenty hats for super cheap, and then marked them up to "fair" prices, which happened to be super far from what he purchased them for."

 

-Congrats to him, but just that alone is not what sharking is on this site, so unless you have a new definition for sharking that has no work around and is sound and logical, it'll keep happening unless people at least try to get him banned. Implementing a policy for one of the most crucial parts of someone's trading reputation in Team Fortress 2 based on a definition you all consider faulty is the most illogical way to go about this mess.