Trust and "Sharking"

[Fishtail]

18 minutes ago, ѕιи said:

 

-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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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)

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Your whole act just points towards you trying to defend these "sharks". You've gotta be living under a rock to not realize these people referred to as "sharks" are actually sharks, not regarding the bp.tf definition. And no, logistics ALWAYS come after market/consumer survery. Doesn't have to be 2nd or 5th, but suvery always comes first, and logistics are created based on the survey. Read a book. You're trying to discredit this whole thread based on one simple detail which isn't even important. What's important is people get the idea. Even though Tiny used the word "sharking" since there's no better term for it yet, she clearly explained what she meant in her first post. You're just spouting whatever comes to your mind, not presenting any actual facts. But hey, knock yourself out, since you clearly have all your facts straight. While you waste time on a pointless detail, others are focusing on the point of the thread. No point in arguing with you any further. Just a waste of time.

[redbackpacktf]

28 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:

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.

If we allow people to be banned without concrete proof all willynilly, the rules become subjective and open for interpretation. 

[Argylekicks]

1 hour 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.

 

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

 

just to add to that his b/o on the gun is 175  https://imgur.com/a/3HFVO meanin if the taunt assuming the taunts value is 30 (even tho its less bc of unsold at that price) then that means 30/175 is 17% of the items value

[Argylekicks]

9 minutes ago, Shawn said:

If we allow people to be banned without concrete proof all willynilly, the rules become subjective and open for interpretation. 

I totally agree to that only for the fact that it would make the other rules also less concrete I get that but let's say a user have alot of -rep from sharking maybe there can be a limit like 20 or something where if they hit 20 -reps for sharking (20 as in 20 different trades not one trade that spammed 20 times) then maybe he shouldn't be banned from backpack but I Think he should be suspended from premium bc we all know that's where 90% of this happens from or if not premium then at least the search feature 

[Mrs TS]

57 minutes ago, ѕιи said:

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?

 

Correct me if Im wrong.   New crates come out and hat X is the only one that was unboxed.  A sale is made.   They DO allow that item to be priced based on that sale, correct?

So, a burning flames whatever hat, that was bought for lets say, 20 keys.....are you saying that it shouldnt be priced because it would be spiteful?  Spiteful to whom, the sharker?  If thats what he paid for it, then why should it wait for a 2nd identical hat to be unboxed or another sale?  That might not happen for 6 months or maybe even, not at all if the shark hangs on to the hat.

 

Does the site allow single sale suggestions to pass?   And if so, then why cant a shark sale be counted. If thats what it sold for, then  thats what it sold for? 

[HarryG]

12 minutes ago, Shawn said:

If we allow people to be banned without concrete proof all willynilly, the rules become subjective and open for interpretation. 

There is mounds of concrete proof right there, the only thing absent is the magic words that fit the definition of shark as we know it right now. There's no other way to interpret evidence like this.

[r0b]

Here are my 2 cents:

 

-GETTING GOOD DEALS FROM OTHER PEOPLE OR BUYING SOMETHING OFF THE SCM/MARKETPLACE.TF FOR A BARGAIN PRICE = NOT A SHARK

-PURPOSELY GOING OUT ON YOUR OWN TO FIND INEXPERIENCED TRADERS AND OFFER INSANELY LOW FOR THEIR HATS = SHARK

[dyna]

3 minutes ago, Mrs TS said:

Correct me if Im wrong.   New crates come out and hat X is the only one that was unboxed.  A sale is made.   They DO allow that item to be priced based on that sale, correct?

So, a burning flames whatever hat, that was bought for lets say, 20 keys.....are you saying that it shouldnt be priced because it would be spiteful?  Spiteful to whom, the sharker?  If thats what he paid for it, then why should it wait for a 2nd identical hat to be unboxed or another sale?  That might not happen for 6 months or maybe even, not at all if the shark hangs on to the hat.

 

Does the site allow single sale suggestions to pass?   And if so, then why cant a shark sale be counted. If thats what it sold for, then  thats what it sold for? 

I agree, It should be counted if there are no present buyers in market countering that suggestion

[Argylekicks]

5 minutes ago, Mrs TS said:

Correct me if Im wrong.   New crates come out and hat X is the only one that was unboxed.  A sale is made.   They DO allow that item to be priced based on that sale, correct?

So, a burning flames whatever hat, that was bought for lets say, 20 keys.....are you saying that it shouldnt be priced because it would be spiteful?  Spiteful to whom, the sharker?  If thats what he paid for it, then why should it wait for a 2nd identical hat to be unboxed or another sale?  That might not happen for 6 months or maybe even, not at all if the shark hangs on to the hat.

 

Does the site allow single sale suggestions to pass?   And if so, then why cant a shark sale be counted. If thats what it sold for, then  thats what it sold for? 

examples https://backpack.tf/suggestion/5a1879b4cf6c7564c92783e9  https://backpack.tf/suggestion/5a0e829244325a109535f8cc  https://backpack.tf/suggestion/5a0e827ccf6c757b41162098  https://backpack.tf/suggestion/5a1058ae44325a7f917cffc4  https://backpack.tf/suggestion/5a0bda9444325a112d2ad0f2 https://backpack.tf/suggestion/5a15bf53cf6c7561e05e5085 https://backpack.tf/suggestion/5a1157d544325a275972e768

[ѕιи]

1 minute ago, Fishtail said:

Your whole act just points towards you trying to defend these "sharks".

 

I'm not trying to defend "sharks." I disapprove of sharking all together, so don't make the assumption that I support it. Ever. What I am trying to say is that above all else, this policy is going to ruin backpack.tf's image as a whole to anyone who is unbiased and thinks logically. I don't want that, and neither do you.

 

4 minutes ago, Fishtail said:

You've gotta be living under a rock to not realize these people referred to as "sharks" aren't actually sharks, not considering bp.tf definition.

 

If you read the post that you actually quoted me in, you would've seen that I said:

20 minutes ago, ѕιи said:

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

In response to:

42 minutes 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

 

So it's pretty obvious I know the current definition of sharking and that these "sharks" aren't sharks. Please read what I've been saying.

 

12 minutes ago, Fishtail said:

And no, logistics ALWAYS come after market/consumer survery. Doesn't have to be 2nd or 5th, but suvery always comes first, and logistics are created based on the survey. Read a book.

 

How about while I pick up your book, you can read my posts?

26 minutes ago, ѕιи said:

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)

 

Thanks.

 

15 minutes ago, Fishtail said:

You're trying to discredit this whole thread based on one simple detail which isn't even important. What's important is people get the idea. Even though Tiny used the word "sharking" since there's no better term for it yet, she clearly explained what she meant in her first post.

 

-I don't have to try to discredit anything in this thread, let alone assuming that's my goal. What's important to me is that people get my idea and where I'm coming from.

-Also, stop being so fixated on having to need a single word to describe something (referring to "Even though Tiny used the word "sharking" since there's no better term for it yet"). Use a phrase or sentence. It's not that difficult.

 

18 minutes ago, Fishtail said:

You're just spouting whatever comes to your mind, not presenting any actual facts. But hey, knock yourself out, since you clearly have all your facts straight. While you waste time on a pointless detail, others are focusing on the point of the thread. No point in arguing with you any further. Just a waste of time.

 

-Considering you consider this a survey, why would I need to look up any statistics/actual research to voice my opinion in a survey? What facts do you even use anyways, like actually?

-It's not pointless, and if you've read what I've said on this topic then you'd understand that.

-Arguing with me is a waste of time for you, because if you can't even acknowledge what I say without insults, cherry picking, and actually reading my point of view on this topic, you are wasting your time. Goodbye.

[ѕιи]

6 minutes ago, Mrs TS said:

Correct me if Im wrong.   New crates come out and hat X is the only one that was unboxed.  A sale is made.   They DO allow that item to be priced based on that sale, correct?

So, a burning flames whatever hat, that was bought for lets say, 20 keys.....are you saying that it shouldnt be priced because it would be spiteful?  Spiteful to whom, the sharker?  If thats what he paid for it, then why should it wait for a 2nd identical hat to be unboxed or another sale?  That might not happen for 6 months or maybe even, not at all if the shark hangs on to the hat.

 

Does the site allow single sale suggestions to pass?   And if so, then why cant a shark sale be counted. If thats what it sold for, then  thats what it sold for? 

 

If it was bought for 20 keys with no viable proof to counter it, such as it reselling for a higher value, buyers that would counter it when it's being resold, etc., it can be priced at 20 no problem. When you said "'a super low deal' that they shouldn't have gotten" that raised my concern and sounded as if it should be priced with a super low sale because it was "sharked." Basically, it sounded as if it should be priced based on it being a super low deal a "known shark" which is why I thought it would've been done out of spite.

 

"shark sales" can be used (I guess; I don't like describing them as that) if there's no evidence to counter it pretty much, and while this sale here wasn't an example of a shark, it kinda fits what I'm going for. https://backpack.tf/suggestion/5a1879b4cf6c7564c92783e9 I may be wrong, so it'd probably be a good idea to ask a price mod about it. I probably will tomorrow since it's getting late here.

[ѕιи]

I'm going to sleep, so if you have questions then I'll respond tomorrow. I'd appreciate it if you read all of what I say before asking me something so I don't have to keep repeating myself tomorrow as well. Thanks, and goodnight.

[Xergoyf]

16 minutes ago, Loogi said:

-GETTING GOOD DEALS FROM OTHER PEOPLE OR BUYING SOMETHING OFF THE SCM/MARKETPLACE.TF FOR A BARGAIN PRICE = NOT A SHARK

-PURPOSELY GOING OUT ON YOUR OWN TO FIND INEXPERIENCED TRADERS AND OFFER INSANELY LOW FOR THEIR HATS = SHARK

perfectly said now lets please stop arguing over definitions everyone :^)

[TheWiz]

2 hours 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.

 

There's this thing called decency and you can inform the person that they easily can get more for it, or even offer more than what they said they wanted in chat. All while still making profit, just not taking advantage of his lack of knowledge. Like the Poisoned Shadows Brain Warming Wear. Not sure why you are defending not informing a person with little trading knowledge so they can be better off while the buyer still gets a good deal.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

6 hours ago, ѕιи said:

 

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

 

 

Sin, you're getting very bogged down on a semantic argument. Sharking, to the vast majority of people in this community, is preying on inexperienced traders to make hugely unbalanced trades for your own profit. On outpost, it's decided based on a % value of the items traded. Here, we use a particular definition as a threshold for banning, but nobody has ever denied when discussing it that it happens widely outside of that definition - that's just the only situation we ban in. I understand your argument that it needs amending, and if we make changes we can amend it. But I disagree that it biases the poll in any way - people respond due to their own idea about what sharking is, not the backpack.tf post. And my original post in this topic makes it extremely clear what I am talking about. It may be off your radar but this topic addresses one that comes up regularly in reports and on suggestions - this is what the community as a whole views as sharking - it is not some bait and switch, people in this thread know what I am talking about as is clear from their responses. 

 

Ultimately, this thread is about changing that stance and the strict way we have handled sharking issues in the past. I stand by it as a threshold for banning, but I don't agree that it really encompasses or accounts for sharking fully. That's the point of this thread and the consideration of allowing trust, to see if we should change that. It would be much easier for me not to do so. It's a messy quagmire requiring more admin judgement and discussion than most issues with clear cut rules. I could happily go on sticking to polar's definition for banning and ignoring everything else, but the community has been crying out for us to address this properly so I am trying to do that. I may not have done that perfectly in your opinion, but I think the discussion in this thread is evidence that people generally follow what I'm proposing and what the OP means.

 

You have issues with the lack of structure, and disagree with my inclination to use admin judgement. So how would you implement this, if we did? Suggest some parameters that you think would make this workable for you. What guidelines/rules for negative trust do you think would allow us to enforce the spirit of the rule change (protect/warn users from people who take advantage of others frequently)? This doesn't need to be a raging argument, and the content of the thread is more important than poll numbers. Let's try to calm down a bit and just talk about it.

[Pigeon]

I don't think anyone is "really" talking about the main topic. Most people are just arguing about what sharking is and we've known what sharking is for A LONG TIME.

 

I want to know if they did add sharking to the negative trust system if it would even help anything.

When an inexperienced player unboxes a god tier hat they most likely don't know what bp.tf is anyway, so I don't see this countering that?

 

Also if you're saying this will stop people from trading with sharkers it won't. We see constantly people trading with marked scammers.

 

I want to know what this would do if implemented. 

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

2 minutes ago, Pigeon said:

I don't think anyone is "really" talking about the main topic. Most people are just arguing about what sharking is and we've known what sharking is for A LONG TIME.

 

I want to know if they did add sharking to the negative trust system if it would even help anything.

When an inexperienced player unboxes a god tier hat they most likely don't know what bp.tf is anyway, so I don't see this countering that?

 

Also if you're saying this will stop people from trading with sharkers it won't. We see constantly people trading with marked scammers.

 

I want to know what this would do if implemented. 

 

Yeah, as I said in the OP, the people who need this most are the people least likely to check it, so it's usefulness is debatable for sure. But in my opinion, even if it helps 1 person to do some research before they offer or accept an offer, that's one person we've helped. And as you said, it likely won't prevent anyone else from trading with them - people trade with marked scammers and banned users regularly if they know they won't get banned for it - so there isn't really any clear downside.

 

The purpose of trust is purely to warn/protect people. Everyone is still absolutely free to trade with users with negative trust. 

[appy]

Just now, Pigeon said:

I don't think anyone is "really" talking about the main topic. Most people are just arguing about what sharking is and we've known what sharking is for A LONG TIME.

 

I want to know if they did add sharking to the negative trust system if it would even help anything.

When an inexperienced player unboxes a god tier hat they most likely don't know what bp.tf is anyway, so I don't see this countering that?

 

Also if you're saying this will stop people from trading with sharkers it won't. We see constantly people trading with marked scammers.

 

I want to know what this would do if implemented. 

 

possibly 1) act as a possible deterrant from such repeated behavior cos a -rep on your record can make cash trading very hard 2) inform the community you are a scumbag and may not be trustworthy(which is the point of the trust system in the first place)

[Pigeon]

1 minute ago, appy said:

 

possibly 1) act as a possible deterrant from such repeated behavior cos a -rep on your record can make cash trading very hard 2) inform the community you are a scumbag and may not be trustworthy(which is the point of the trust system in the first place)

You can use marketplace.tf for cash trades. I agree it will tell people you're a scumbag but most people don't care as long as their getting profit. 

[appy]

1 minute ago, Pigeon said:

You can use marketplace.tf for cash trades. I agree it will tell people you're a scumbag but most people don't care as long as their getting profit. 

 

then you loose 10% in mp.tf taxes which a lot of people want to avoid, especially in higher tier stuff(which is where most of the sharkers also reside), it is quite significant(10% of 600$ is 60$ which is 30 keys )

[Woifi The Viking]

The trust system has evolved over the years. It started out as a better profile rep, but shortly after became a solid place for cash rep. -Trusts were posted in case of scams or other rule breaking. But we have implemented user reports since then, which made those kind of -trusts almost redundant. That frees up the -trust to be used for other things, things that are not banworthy but make you untrustworthy in risky trades to some people. Like the recently decided "accidental gifting": 

 

I was always for doing something against these people, and I think giving them a -trust is a good start. There is plenty of room to make profit , you don't have to go overboard and take massive advantage of other people's lack of knowledge constantly.

 

 

 

Short story:

One day I received a weird trade offer, a hearts casemaker for my cloud 9 tyrolean, casemaker was priced at 80 keys at the time, tryo around 60 keys I believe, the casemaker price was from before it went all class tho, I estimated the new price of the casemaker to be around 200 keys. I declined the trade offer and added the user immediatly and told him about the situation. He was very thankful but still was willing to do the trade, since he wanted the c9 tyro so bad, not caring about the price difference. I ask two times if he was sure and he confirmed. I think that's how you should approach such situations.

I decided to give him a ~100 key all class unusual (neutron star boa) on top anyways because I felt generous.

[iTrade ™]

8 hours ago, Loogi said:

Here are my 2 cents:

 

-GETTING GOOD DEALS FROM OTHER PEOPLE OR BUYING SOMETHING OFF THE SCM/MARKETPLACE.TF FOR A BARGAIN PRICE = NOT A SHARK

-PURPOSELY GOING OUT ON YOUR OWN TO FIND INEXPERIENCED TRADERS AND OFFER INSANELY LOW FOR THEIR HATS = SHARK

You can purposely check the SCM to find good deals from likely inexperienced traders. 

[appy]

23 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

You can purposely check the SCM to find good deals from likely inexperienced traders. 

 

How does that involve going out of your way to find them, that is just a marketplace and if someone has put it up you can buy.I think it is crystal clear that we are discussing people who use premium search or any other methods to add players who seem to be inexperienced and try to take advantage of the same to make a massive profit.

 

The way you have been responding on this thread trying to derail the discussion with frankly quite outlandish arguments/borderline trolling is not nice, i am sure you understood the spirit of what he meant, we are not trying to define exact rules here, that is for the admins to decide, it is for us to just give our point of view and discuss the same.

[r0b]

35 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

You can purposely check the SCM to find good deals from likely inexperienced traders. 

Still not a shark, it was his decision to sell his hat on the SCM for the price he wanted and you just get lucky when buying it.

 

Like i said:

-GETTING GOOD DEALS FROM OTHER PEOPLE OR BUYING SOMETHING OFF THE SCM/MARKETPLACE.TF FOR A BARGAIN PRICE = NOT A SHARK

[ѕιи]

6 hours ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

Ultimately, this thread is about changing that stance and the strict way we have handled sharking issues in the past. I stand by it as a threshold for banning, but I don't agree that it really encompasses or accounts for sharking fully. That's the point of this thread and the consideration of allowing trust, to see if we should change that. It would be much easier for me not to do so. It's a messy quagmire requiring more admin judgement and discussion than most issues with clear cut rules. I could happily go on sticking to polar's definition for banning and ignoring everything else, but the community has been crying out for us to address this properly so I am trying to do that. I may not have done that perfectly in your opinion, but I think the discussion in this thread is evidence that people generally follow what I'm proposing and what the OP means.

 

You have issues with the lack of structure, and disagree with my inclination to use admin judgement. So how would you implement this, if we did? Suggest some parameters that you think would make this workable for you. What guidelines/rules for negative trust do you think would allow us to enforce the spirit of the rule change (protect/warn users from people who take advantage of others frequently)? This doesn't need to be a raging argument, and the content of the thread is more important than poll numbers. Let's try to calm down a bit and just talk about it.

 

We're looking at this completely wrong. This idea with negative trust ratings is too complicated and lacks structure like I've been saying, you're right. The reason this was even considered was because the community begs for a way to address the problem of targeting unboxers and profiting from them, while still, not by definition, sharking them through the use of backpack.tf premium.

 

If the problem is that polar's definition of sharking does not encompass what you and the community believe fully what sharking is, this thread should be focused on a better definition for sharking, along with changes to the organization of the premium database that would make it much harder to target unboxers.

 

That is why I am so stuck on polar's definition of "bannable sharking" and that is what this thread should have been about in the first place. Not whatever...this is. Finding a definition for sharking that would look to achieve what you and this community believes as the clear cut definition of the term sharking would make it easier to ban them for what all of you consider sharking and that is the ultimate punishment.

 

Make a new thread asking for people's definitions on what the believe sharking is and work from there, along with ways to hinder the ability for these "sharks" to find new unboxers through the use of backpack.tf premium. That is how I believe this situation should've been handled from the beginning.