Trust and "Sharking"

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

1 minute ago, ѕιи said:

 

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.

 

I don't care if you call it sharking or not, the substance of what it is we're talking about is clear and whether or not it deserves negative trust is the topic of this thread. Changes to premium are the owners decision, they have been made aware of suggestions but this thread has nothing to do with that.

 

Please get off semantics and try to see the point here.

[ѕιи]

Just now, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

I don't care if you call it sharking or not, the substance of what it is we're talking about is clear and whether or not it deserves negative trust is the topic of this thread. Changes to premium are the owners decision, they have been made aware of suggestions but this thread has nothing to do with that.

 

Please get off semantics and try to see the point here.

 

Then my answer is no.

[iTrade ™]

2 hours ago, Loogi said:

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

How do you define "getting good deals from other people"? Where do you draw the line?

[Julia]

I say yes, though I don't care too much either way. What I don't care for is all the drama filling up the suggestions. It's not that problematic to allow trust ratings, and the "sharks" already know that what they're doing is dishonest, to say the least.

[r0b]

8 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

How do you define "getting good deals from other people"? Where do you draw the line?

Maybe when someone wants your item and he offers something of higer value? or when some random person who just unboxed and unusual wants to get rid of it ASAP and he doesn't care about its value?

 

My point is that as long as you don't go on your own searching for these people to lowball them and lying to them just to make a quick buck, then it's definitively not a shark.

[Carnage]

To start, I happily stand by our rules when it comes to banning for sharking. Sharking as we've defined it in our guidelines for background checking is a scam and we need the same standard of evidence as a scam report to constitute a full ban. As for trust ratings, their purpose is to represent a user's trustworthiness via community and user feedback regarding their trading practices.

 

In my opinion, users who seek out less experienced item owners with the intent of offering below reasonable values with the hopes that the owner is ignorant of the value is about as shady as it gets without actually having to do any lying. So when there is evidence of a user regularly obtaining items for small fractions of the items value from newer users, I think a negative rating would be reasonable as a warning to other users.

 

My main concerns have already been mentioned here. Users ignorant of item values don't tend to do background checks or even know how. Though, I do agree that if it can help anyone at all avoid being taken advantage of then it's better than nothing.

 

13 hours ago, HarryG said:

I have pointed out time and again that sharks just take what they can get in terms of the percentages that are bannable in terms of sharking (If it's 10%, they'll just do 15, and the only reason they do 15 is to keep doing it without a ban. They go as low as they're allowed).

I agree, giving a strict % cutoff would likely have a noticeable influence on that. Frequency of these kinds of trades and with whom should also be deciding factors.

[iTrade ™]

9 minutes ago, Loogi said:

Maybe when someone wants your item and he offers something of higer value? or when some random person who just unboxed and unusual wants to get rid of it ASAP and he doesn't care about its value?

 

My point is that as long as you don't go on your own searching for these people to lowball them and lying to them just to make a quick buck, then it's definitively not a shark.

Why do you assume that people lie to the traders when they search them on their own? It is known that I added people via premium for the purpose of trading. However, there is not a single trade where I have manipulated the other party. Often I simply get offered a good deal when I ask what they want for their item. 

[r0b]

2 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

Why do you assume that people lie to the traders when they search them on their own? It is known that I added people via premium for the purpose of trading. However, there is not a single trade where I have manipulated the other party. Often I simply get offered a good deal when I ask what they want for their item. 

I never said that people who go on their own to find an item are liars, i'm only stating that the people who go search for inexperienced traders to take advantage of them is sharking.

 

It's not a shark when you go on your own to find an item that you want and are willing to do a fair trade and not take advantage of the other party.

[appy]

9 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

Why do you assume that people lie to the traders when they search them on their own? It is known that I added people via premium for the purpose of trading. However, there is not a single trade where I have manipulated the other party. Often I simply get offered a good deal when I ask what they want for their item. 

 

That is the question do you go looking for a specific item(you have to specifically search this item on premium) or do you add them cos you see that they have never traded unusuals(fresh unboxes can be seen on premium) and have zero trading experience so there is a very high chance that they will not know the value of what they have on their hands.In that case i atleast do believe we are obligated to not rip them off and inform them of a approx value of the item(you may say the value is subjective but i am sure 10% of the value is not fair).

 

@Teeny Tiny Cat most of the sharks find the unboxers due to the feature where premium shows recent unboxes, would it be possible to change the way we show recent unboxes to prevent this?

 

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

1 minute ago, appy said:

 

@Teeny Tiny Cat most of the sharks find the unboxers due to the feature where premium shows recent unboxes, would it be possible to change the way we show recent unboxes to prevent this?

 

 

As I have already said, this is a question for the owners and I have passed it onto them.

[r0b]

1 minute ago, appy said:

 

@Teeny Tiny Cat most of the sharks find the unboxers due to the feature where premium shows recent unboxes, would it be possible to change the way we show recent unboxes to prevent this?

 

This man knows what's up!

[iTrade ™]

4 minutes ago, appy said:

most of the sharks find the unboxers due to the feature where premium shows recent unboxes, would it be possible to change the way we show recent unboxes to prevent this?

 

This is not about unboxers.

6 minutes ago, appy said:

 

That is the question do you go looking for a specific item(you have to specifically search this item on premium) or do you add them cos you see that they have never traded unusuals(fresh unboxes can be seen on premium) and have zero trading experience so there is a very high chance that they will not know the value of what they have on their hands.In that case i atleast do believe we are obligated to not rip them off and inform them of a approx value of the item(you may say the value is subjective but i am sure 10% of the value is not fair).

 

I add people with items I find interesting. Be it unboxers or not. I ask if they trade the item I have an interest in and if they do I ask what they want. If it doesn't come to a deal because we cannot agree on a price or because they don't sell their item or because they do not like any of mine then that's fine. 

Categorically saying adding people via premium results in sharking is wrong. It depends on how you engage with the other party. Do you manipulate them for example by giving them wrong values of their hats? Then that's not acceptable. If no manipulation is involved and a deal is agreed upon then I see nothing morally wrong with this trade. Both parties had time to think about it. People can make use of for example Google to find indicators of their item's approximate value even if they do not know backpack.tf. They can also consult the Steam Market which shows what other sellers ask in real world money for their unusual or for similar ones (for example same hat but other effects). 

[TheWiz]

19 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

This is not about unboxers.

I add people with items I find interesting. Be it unboxers or not. I ask if they trade the item I have an interest in and if they do I ask what they want. If it doesn't come to a deal because we cannot agree on a price or because they don't sell their item or because they do not like any of mine then that's fine. 

Categorically saying adding people via premium results in sharking is wrong. It depends on how you engage with the other party. Do you manipulate them for example by giving them wrong values of their hats? Then that's not acceptable. If no manipulation is involved and a deal is agreed upon then I see nothing morally wrong with this trade. Both parties had time to think about it. People can make use of for example Google to find indicators of their item's approximate value even if they do not know backpack.tf. They can also consult the Steam Market which shows what other sellers ask in real world money for their unusual or for similar ones (for example same hat but other effects). 

So you would say predatory actions such as mass adding unboxers who have little to no trading experience, let alone unusual trading experience is perfectly fine, since it had no manipulation in terms of item misrepresentation, while I could argue that this predatory behavior is in of itself manipulative. There is a pretty clear difference in doing a trade where one person pays a 50 key unusual for a 40 key unusual and someone who pays 25 keys and then tries to sell it for 5-10x what they paid, while yes both have "losers" the first is general overpay or just a bad deal while the second is sharking in terms of what the community views it as, not what backpack.tf views it as. (Yes, I know I'm addressing something you said earlier on.) Also, saying the premium does not assist sharkers is extremely ignorant and is just trying to excuse certain behaviors in the trading community.  @iTrade ™

[appy]

37 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

This is not about unboxers.

 

 How is this not about unboxers  95% of the sharks are freshly unboxed hats, do we even have examples of non-freshly unboxed hats being sharked

[appy]

46 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

People can make use of for example Google to find indicators of their item's approximate value even if they do not know backpack.tf. They can also consult the Steam Market which shows what other sellers ask in real world money for their unusual or for similar ones (for example same hat but other effects). 

 

 That is laughable, steam market will give them the price of nuts and bolts while they have say burning flames in case of unusuals, google does not show shit if it is a new hat. In case of older hats i believe these people do not have the experience or smarts to actually do it, they probably dont even know how much money is involved in some of these hats and place that much importance to it.

We are trying to combat predatory actions of a few where they seek out such vulnerable individuals and fail to even give them a indication of the value of their items ie. ripping them off cos they don't know better. 

 

Also i would like to address the moral side of these thing, the person is gonna be quite sad when they realize the got screwed over.I dont want such bad karma on my hands, it will come back to bite in some form or the other somewhere down the road, but then again i guess these people would have sold their soul to the devil for profit anyway.

[redbackpacktf]

Adding to the aspect of necessary specifics, are experienced people not counted? And how would blackmail be prevented? For example, Johnny could add Jimmy and offer 15x what Jimmy paid for a hat before Jimmy says hello (this has happened to me before). If Johnny has a $20 bp, is it negative trustable because he may have not known what he's doing? What about $200 bp? $2,000? $20,000? And what if, after Jimmy put time and effort into selling his new hat(s), Johnny says he wants a trade back, and will give Jimmy negative trust if he doesn't trade back?

[HarryG]

53 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

This is not about unboxers.

I add people with items I find interesting. Be it unboxers or not. I ask if they trade the item I have an interest in and if they do I ask what they want. If it doesn't come to a deal because we cannot agree on a price or because they don't sell their item or because they do not like any of mine then that's fine. 

Categorically saying adding people via premium results in sharking is wrong. It depends on how you engage with the other party. Do you manipulate them for example by giving them wrong values of their hats? Then that's not acceptable. If no manipulation is involved and a deal is agreed upon then I see nothing morally wrong with this trade. Both parties had time to think about it. People can make use of for example Google to find indicators of their item's approximate value even if they do not know backpack.tf. They can also consult the Steam Market which shows what other sellers ask in real world money for their unusual or for similar ones (for example same hat but other effects). 

This is largely about unboxers, that's horseshit. Saying that Premium isn't a tool used by sharkers is also horseshit, that's a well established fact and you're dodging the problem. The people that sharks target don't use the tools available to them because the shark makes sure they are ignorant of the tools available to them before proceeding. Google is just a pathway to backpack.tf which we have established these victims don't useand sharks use the Steam Market to misrepresent item values as well (remember the whole skin thing)? This is purposeful ignorance of the problem to avoid accusations that have been put onto yourself. I don't care if YOU'RE a shark or not, iTrade. The purpose of this thread isn't to indirectly address the proposition by defending your own actions. If you are indeed a shark, you'll get what's coming to you. If you're not, there's no reason to stand against this proposition.

[iTrade ™]

17 minutes ago, HarryG said:

 I don't care if YOU'RE a shark or not, iTrade. The purpose of this thread isn't to indirectly address the proposition by defending your own actions. If you are indeed a shark, you'll get what's coming to you. If you're not, there's no reason to stand against this proposition.

The problem is it's undefined what trades would be considered eligible for -trust. This is why I I brought up my own trades which a few vocal members of the community have criticised as "sharking", despite there being mutal agreement and no manipulation. So again the question would such a trade give -trust yes or no. It's not hard to answer. @Teeny Tiny Cat

So yes, I will discuss this in this thread because it is relevant to understand which trades can be done and which trades cannot be done if one wants to avoid negative reputation should this system be implemented.

[HarryG]

1 minute ago, iTrade ™ said:

The problem is it's undefined what trades would be considered eligible for -trust. This is why I I brought up my own trades which a few vocal members of the community have criticised as "sharking", despite there being mutal agreement and no manipulation. So again the question would such a trade give -trust yes or no. It's not hard to answer. @Teeny Tiny Cat

So yes, I will discuss this in this thread because it is relevant to understand which trades can be done and which trades cannot be done if one wants to avoid negative reputation should this system be implemented.

I think it's well understood that the trades of yours being criticized would warrant a -trust. I don't think anybody here is disputing that in any way; this thread was an indirect response to the Commando Elite sale. I don't think it's at all confusing or controversial to say that trades like those are the prpblem that the community has. The fact that you say there was mutual agreement and no manipulation is the point of this proposition; to counter sharking a step further than the traditional way which involves proof of those two things. The only one that I think is "confused" is you, and it seems like you're not so much confused as trying to defend yourself from the inevitable personal backlash should this come to pass.

[iTrade ™]

6 minutes ago, HarryG said:

I think it's well understood that the trades of yours being criticized would warrant a -trust. I don't think anybody here is disputing that in any way; this thread was an indirect response to the Commando Elite sale. I don't think it's at all confusing or controversial to say that trades like those are the prpblem that the community has. The fact that you say there was mutual agreement and no manipulation is the point of this proposition; to counter sharking a step further than the traditional way which involves proof of those two things. The only one that I think is "confused" is you, and it seems like you're not so much confused as trying to defend yourself from the inevitable personal backlash should this come to pass.

So what if I can proof through chat logs that there was a a mutual agreement and no manipulation? Why should this trade then be eligible for a negative trust? How exactly does it make me less trustworthy if I do not manipulate the other party in any means? How am I less trustworthy if the other party offers me a deal? 

 

[redbackpacktf]

5 minutes ago, HarryG said:

I think it's well understood that the trades of yours being criticized would warrant a -trust. I don't think anybody here is disputing that in any way; this thread was an indirect response to the Commando Elite sale. I don't think it's at all confusing or controversial to say that trades like those are the prpblem that the community has. The fact that you say there was mutual agreement and no manipulation is the point of this proposition; to counter sharking a step further than the traditional way which involves proof of those two things. The only one that I think is "confused" is you, and it seems like you're not so much confused as trying to defend yourself from the inevitable personal backlash should this come to pass.

*Just asking for clarification - not trying to be sassy* If the commando elite owner had sent iTrade the trade offer without ever having communicated with him, would that still qualify?

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

50 minutes ago, Shawn said:

Adding to the aspect of necessary specifics, are experienced people not counted? And how would blackmail be prevented? For example, Johnny could add Jimmy and offer 15x what Jimmy paid for a hat before Jimmy says hello (this has happened to me before). If Johnny has a $20 bp, is it negative trustable because he may have not known what he's doing? What about $200 bp? $2,000? $20,000? And what if, after Jimmy put time and effort into selling his new hat(s), Johnny says he wants a trade back, and will give Jimmy negative trust if he doesn't trade back?

 

This is about patterns of behaviour, not individual trades.

 

18 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

The problem is it's undefined what trades would be considered eligible for -trust. This is why I I brought up my own trades which a few vocal members of the community have criticised as "sharking", despite there being mutal agreement and no manipulation. So again the question would such a trade give -trust yes or no. It's not hard to answer. @Teeny Tiny Cat

So yes, I will discuss this in this thread because it is relevant to understand which trades can be done and which trades cannot be done if one wants to avoid negative reputation should this system be implemented.

 

Such what trade? There's no trade in your quote. Be specific, I'm not reading the whole thread to find what you're talking about.

 

Manipulation is not the topic here. It doesn't matter if trades contained no manipulation. If they did, they'd be subject to bans not negative trusts. This is about repeated grossly uneven trades, about purposefully approaching people you know are inexperienced, well aware that you can get them to offer and they'll offer in your favour cause they don't know what they're doing. I have already explained to you what is wrong with it. I will not continue repeating myself. 

[iTrade ™]

Just now, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

Such what trade? There's no trade in your quote. Be specific, I'm not reading the whole thread to find what you're talking about.

You know exactly what trades we are speaking of. Any trade which is done in mutual consent but which has caused the same few vocal community members to criticize it. For example the trade for Poisned Shadows Brainwarming Wear or for Arcana Commando Elite.

 

[HarryG]

10 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

So what if I can proof through chat logs that there was a a mutual agreement and no manipulation? Why should this trade then be eligible for a negative trust? How exactly does it make me less trustworthy if I do not manipulate the other party in any means? 

 

You're purposely dodging all new information in this thread. Because sharks follow as much fine print as they have to avoid getting in trouble for buying valuables off of new payers and flipping them for massive dishonest and scummy profit, we are proposing changing the rules to allow -trusts as well as the additional methods required for a ban. Nobody here cares if you can prove there was a mutual agreement and no manipulation. They care that people like you are making massive profit off of new players for almost no cost and want something to change. This isn't about the rules in place now, it's about adding new ones to catch other dishonest and scummy traders. Mutual agreement and manipulation are grounds for a BAN. If you can prove that they aren't factors you won't get banned. But because you conduct a large amount of trades for massive profit at little to no cost to yourself the community wants to take a stand against that and warn others even if it doesn't mean a ban for you. The simple solution here would be to just stop trading like this and you're not at any risk. Obviously, you'd rather that the old rules that allow you to do this stay in place so you can continue. You've made that clear from your responses. The bottom line is that clearly the rules allow for traders like you to conduct trades for massive profit and avoid repercussions and the community wants to impose some repercussions, even if they are less severe than a ban. Nobody cares if there was a mutual agreement and no manipulation in your trades; that is opposite to the purpose of this thread. This thread is not a trial regarding your controversial trades. It's a poll that has thus far displayed that the community wants to impose restrictions on dishonest traders who do as much as they can without getting banned. We know that there was a mutual agreement and no manipulation; that's why we want to do more.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

2 minutes ago, iTrade ™ said:

You know exactly what trades we are speaking of. Any trade which is done in mutual consent but which has caused the same few vocal community members to criticize it. For example the trade for Poisned Shadows Brainwarming Wear or for Arcana Commando Elite.

 

 

I have no idea what those trades were for without links. Regardless, I have already answered you.