Trust and "Sharking"

[TheWiz]

10 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.

 

iTrade, your basic argument on a forums discussion on should extremely uneven trades warrant a -trust is that yes you have done extremely uneven trades, but hey the other person was perfectly fine with the trade. That's extremely predatory and just admitting to the focus of this discussion. 

 

On a separate note since I haven't directly voiced it, yes I think that this behavior should at the very least warrant a -trust whether it will actually help any future potential victim is another question, but at the very least it would make it harder for them to sell it to anyone who has a decent moral standing on preying on other people for self benefit. In a perfect world I'd rather that this behavior would warrant a ban or restrictions in the common tools used to their advantage.

[redbackpacktf]

45 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

This is about patterns of behaviour, not individual trades.

So the choice of punishing an individual will based on the mods' opinion?

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

38 minutes ago, Shawn said:

So the choice of punishing an individual will based on the mods' opinion?

 

Trust would be based on a joint judgement by report mods and admins looking at reported evidence (proof of multiple extremely uneven trades.) Trust is not a punishment, and if you see it that way then you're not understanding why it's necessary.

[SpotlightR]

51 minutes ago, Shawn said:

So the choice of punishing an individual will based on the mods' opinion?

 

Yep, and that's how it should be. If you don't like this site's rules then you're free to cease using this site.

[Mrs TS]

Last I heard, bp.tf was a private company and if in their judgement they want to identify someone who they feel is untrustworthy, or even a danger to the trading community at large, then that's their right.   Maybe instead of worrying about you getting a negative trust, you dont engage in trades you know are lopsided and will bring a spotlight to your trading activities.  Its called 'personal responsibility'.

[Sprekt]

 

Seems like I’m a bit late, but I just can’t let this slip through without some of my personal opinions.

 

We do need a new rule for people taking advantage of unboxers, that’s for sure. The thing is that a -trust won’t be effective. A lot of the users that are checking trusts on other users is most likely experienced enough to already know which scums it is that’s using this dishonest profit method. The only thing that will affect those users in my eyes is to ban them from the premium search function. But yet again, as SIN stated earlier, there’s a lot of room for misunderstanding and bans will most likely be “unfair” and from personal opinions. It will be hard to put up strict and solid rules. There’s probably better alternatives than using the trust function for this, but for now, it’s better than nothing. The accused users should have nothing to complain about since everyone knows what they’re doing. It’s not like a -trust will stop them from continuing, so I don’t really see the problem from the accused's view? Why should we as a community let you slip through unnoticed with those kind of methods?

 

Those people know what they’re doing and will take advantage of any restrictions. The only thing that’ll work is a permanent ban, either from the website or from the search function. It’s up to the sites admins and owners what they want to happen on their website. If they really want this to stop, the definition of sharking needs to be rewritten as soon as possible.

[Mrs TS]

13 minutes ago, Sprekt said:

 

 

Seems like I’m a bit late, but I just can’t let this slip through without some of my personal opinions.

 

We do need a new rule for people taking advantage of unboxers, that’s for sure. The thing is that a -trust won’t be effective. A lot of the users that are checking trusts on other users is most likely experienced enough to already know which scums it is that’s using this dishonest profit method. The only thing that will affect those users in my eyes is to ban them from the premium search function. But yet again, as SIN stated earlier, there’s a lot of room for misunderstanding and bans will most likely be “unfair” and from personal opinions. It will be hard to put up strict and solid rules. There’s probably better alternatives than using the trust function for this, but for now, it’s better than nothing. The accused users should have nothing to complain about since everyone knows what they’re doing. It’s not like a -trust will stop them from continuing, so I don’t really see the problem from the accused's view? Why should we as a community let you slip through unnoticed with those kind of methods?

 

Those people know what they’re doing and will take advantage of any restrictions. The only thing that’ll work is a permanent ban, either from the website or from the search function. It’s up to the sites admins and owners what they want to happen on their website. If they really want a this to stop, the definition of sharking needs to be rewritten as soon as possible.

The only problem with taking away their search features is....t they will simply get someone else to look for them.

[Sprekt]

6 minutes ago, Mrs TS said:

The only problem with taking away their search features is....t they will simply get someone else to look for them.

True thing, but as far as I'm aware, it's against the rules to share premium search results with other users. 

 

Providing necessary links and such to banned users should if anything lead to a permanent ban. Supporting this method is unacceptable in my opinion.

[HarryG]

53 minutes ago, Sprekt said:

True thing, but as far as I'm aware, it's against the rules to share premium search results with other users. 

 

Providing necessary links and such to banned users should if anything lead to a permanent ban. Supporting this method is unacceptable in my opinion.

Yes but it would be close to impossible to find out who shared it with them because there's only two parties involved; one who'd get banned if they shared and the other who's already not allowed. I wouldn't be surprised if nobody's ever actually been implicated in breaking that rule 

[raZ]

On 12/19/2017 at 7:22 PM, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

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

This was my point. Not to make accusations, but a certain someone in this very thread often perpetuates the argument that "the other user agreed and was happy" - yes, this is how trading works. The existence of backpack is to help users figure out if they're getting ripped off, if their prime goal isn't necessarily trading for nice hats but rather to make 'profit' (a community-price-derived term to suggest you can buy cooler hats with more money because people sell them for more). Obviously, if you like the hat even if it's a hugely uneven trade, there's nothing wrong with that. But if you were selling it because you thought it was a good deal and it wasn't what you would have wanted had you known more, that's the most basic definition of a non-malicious shark, and overall a bad trade. Users who **REPEATEDLY** stake out and watch for new, expected-high-value unusuals like Bonzo and Arcana hats and quickly add to trade with unboxers and buy the hats at prices the community is clearly outraged at are the users in question here. I think negative trust has a purpose (and I think anyone can leave this rating, but needs to be verified via either sales or conversations), especially when the user making the bad deal knows of backpack.tf and can check trust to see that certain users are known "sharks" - however; users uninformed of backpack.tf are left in the dark. There's nothing we can do about that, but repeated preying against these types of users in particular are the cause of concern and negative trust doesn't help those users. But to counter iTrade's argument, if negative trust doesn't punish a "shark", then why would it be a problem to warn users to do more research as the offer being received by said user may indeed be low? Unless of course.... never mind.

 

Now if anyone wants to give their thoughts on a recently fought-over hat, I spoke to the unboxer of that Arcana Commando Elite (he's in my friends list). I can provide screenshots if needed, but the core of the conversation was:

1. Another known user, we'll call him Jay, added him and actually offered less than the final selling price

2. The user didn't realize it could've have been sold 3-4x higher than he sold it for

3. He wasn't going to cry or feel bad, and he understood afterward that he had been screwed

For those uninformed, the sale was for 25 keys pure. Is this trade itself a shark? I.e. if a trader who regularly engaged in uneven trades made this trade, is it grounds for negative trust?

 

[raZ]

3 hours ago, Sprekt said:

 

Seems like I’m a bit late, but I just can’t let this slip through without some of my personal opinions.

 

We do need a new rule for people taking advantage of unboxers, that’s for sure. The thing is that a -trust won’t be effective. A lot of the users that are checking trusts on other users is most likely experienced enough to already know which scums it is that’s using this dishonest profit method. The only thing that will affect those users in my eyes is to ban them from the premium search function. But yet again, as SIN stated earlier, there’s a lot of room for misunderstanding and bans will most likely be “unfair” and from personal opinions. It will be hard to put up strict and solid rules. There’s probably better alternatives than using the trust function for this, but for now, it’s better than nothing. The accused users should have nothing to complain about since everyone knows what they’re doing. It’s not like a -trust will stop them from continuing, so I don’t really see the problem from the accused's view? Why should we as a community let you slip through unnoticed with those kind of methods?

 

Those people know what they’re doing and will take advantage of any restrictions. The only thing that’ll work is a permanent ban, either from the website or from the search function. It’s up to the sites admins and owners what they want to happen on their website. If they really want this to stop, the definition of sharking needs to be rewritten as soon as possible.

Not to mention tf2outpost already bans for sharking, but that site has little function compared to backpack

[RED265]

If I may add in my 2 cents? Why not allow for -rep for these 'vultures' since vultures effectively take advantage of the weak and young.

Rather than allowing a -rep quantitatively, let it be due to the admins and victims/people who assists the victim's call to make. 

 

In exchange for the vulture to be able to remove the rep, he would need to prove that A) he did not actively add the person to prey and the person added him to trade B)the person knows about bp.tf and has made an informed judgement call C)he did not actively attempt to engage in price manipulation(chat logs?) D) He has no plans to resell the hat(so a good deal but he's not reselling, invalidating his profit)

[raZ]

38 minutes ago, RED265 said:

If I may add in my 2 cents? Why not allow for -rep for these 'vultures' since vultures effectively take advantage of the weak and young.

Rather than allowing a -rep quantitatively, let it be due to the admins and victims/people who assists the victim's call to make. 

 

In exchange for the vulture to be able to remove the rep, he would need to prove that A) he did not actively add the person to prey and the person added him to trade B)the person knows about bp.tf and has made an informed judgement call C)he did not actively attempt to engage in price manipulation(chat logs?) D) He has no plans to resell the hat(so a good deal but he's not reselling, invalidating his profit)

As far as D) goes, this happens with a few hats actually and it's fine

As far as C) goes, manipulation is grounds for a ban, not -trust

As far as B ) goes, It would be contextual and have to be in conversation, as you cannot discern whether someone knew of bp.tf from just trade offers 

As far as A) goes, the whole thing is that these people DO add them to get a good deal intentionally. But this is a very grey area, and definitely he-said she-said sort of stuff. The idea is that they do this on a repeated basis, not one-time. 

[RED265]

1 hour ago, raZ said:

As far as D) goes, this happens with a few hats actually and it's fine

As far as C) goes, manipulation is grounds for a ban, not -trust

As far as B ) goes, It would be contextual and have to be in conversation, as you cannot discern whether someone knew of bp.tf from just trade offers 

As far as A) goes, the whole thing is that these people DO add them to get a good deal intentionally. But this is a very grey area, and definitely he-said she-said sort of stuff. The idea is that they do this on a repeated basis, not one-time. 

In this scenario, it's without evidence for C) and for A), the famous guys who add to scam(you know who they are).

But vultures sound like a good name for these people=)

 

[Sprekt]

13 hours ago, raZ said:

Not to mention tf2outpost already bans for sharking, but that site has little function compared to backpack

Yep, it's a perfect example out there where a user that's permanently banned for sharking on outpost made an alt, and now the user is one of the richest guys in our community(15000 keys) Seems like he has slipped through unnoticed, since I rarely see you guys discussing about him. It's sad.

[Sprekt]

7 hours ago, HarryG said:

Yes but it would be close to impossible to find out who shared it with them because there's only two parties involved; one who'd get banned if they shared and the other who's already not allowed. I wouldn't be surprised if nobody's ever actually been implicated in breaking that rule 

I know, it will be next to impossible to ban for this reason, but IF they would get caught it should at least lead to a ban. At least.

[PlusEighteen]

Let's be honest. Backpack premium is nothing but tools for sharking. The site encourages it by design. Premium needs to be reworked, or simply removed. What purpose does it serve but to let people find other people that don't know what they have? (What is the legitimate purpose of premium? If someone is selling their item you can search normally, if they aren't and you need premium to find it, that seems like harassment to the owner.)

 

Trusts for sharking will accomplish nothing. The witch hunting is bad enough as it is.

 

But i mean... When the sites main source of income is premium from sharkers, you really think they're going to change things to disable that?

[ѕιи]

36 minutes ago, PlusEighteen said:

Let's be honest. Backpack premium is nothing but tools for sharking. The site encourages it by design. Premium needs to be reworked, or simply removed. What purpose does it serve but to let people find other people that don't know what they have? (What is the legitimate purpose of premium? If someone is selling their item you can search normally, if they aren't and you need premium to find it, that seems like harassment to the owner.)

 

Trusts for sharking will accomplish nothing. The witch hunting is bad enough as it is.

 

But i mean... When the sites main source of income is premium from sharkers, you really think they're going to change things to disable that?

 

It helps with price suggesting, giving us more information and research that makes the prices on the site far more accurate.

It offers other benefits besides the database that serve purposes for legitimate traders such as the deals page, auto bumping, and promoted listings.

It helps people find hats they could not otherwise find without them.

 

It's not going to be removed, but like others including myself have said, it needs to be reworked. Whether it is a priority is up to the devs and admins.

[Torb]

4 minutes ago, ѕιи said:

 

It helps with price suggesting, giving us more information and research that makes the prices on the site far more accurate.

It offers other benefits besides the database that serve purposes for legitimate traders such as the deals page, auto bumping, and promoted listings.

It helps people find hats they could not otherwise find without them.

 

It's not going to be removed, but like others including myself have said, it needs to be reworked. Whether it is a priority is up to the devs and admins.

Since premium won't be removed, the only real way to stop sharking from happening frequently would to be to make it a bannable offense if you repetitively rip people off or pay drastically lower than what it should be, not just bptfs definition where someone has to manipulate the price.

[ѕιи]

3 minutes ago, djsober said:

Since premium won't be removed, the only real way to stop sharking from happening frequently would to be to make it a bannable offense if you repetitively rip people off or pay drastically lower than what it should be, not just bptfs definition where someone has to manipulate the price.

 

I know that, and like I and others have said, changing the definition of sharking is the best course of action but it's apparent that isn't going to happen any time soon.

 

A legitimate solution to this problem won't be implemented any time soon.

[PlusEighteen]

22 minutes ago, ѕιи said:

 

It helps with price suggesting, giving us more information and research that makes the prices on the site far more accurate.

It offers other benefits besides the database that serve purposes for legitimate traders such as the deals page, auto bumping, and promoted listings.

It helps people find hats they could not otherwise find without them.

 

It's not going to be removed, but like others including myself have said, it needs to be reworked. Whether it is a priority is up to the devs and admins.

If It helps with pricing, then it should be public information, instead of allowing a premium member to filter what sales they report and non-premium being none the wiser.

 

It helps people find hats, yes. Hats that are not for sale. Look a itrade's post a bit back.

"Often I simply get offered a good deal when I ask what they want for their item. "

He lets the owner of the hat (that is not selling it) make an offer. The owner that doesn't know what they have. The owner that maybe spent 4 keys to get that item. Sure, they'll be happy with what they get because they asked for it. That doesn't make it a fair trade in any way. (Someone asks what their item is actually worth? He won't trade with them, but if they go low, sure pal, here's what you want and we're both happy)

[ѕιи]

2 minutes ago, PlusEighteen said:

If It helps with pricing, then it should be public information, instead of allowing a premium member to filter what sales they report and non-premium being none the wiser.

 

Then wouldn't it make it easier for everyone to add unboxers? I mean it'd be nice for suggesters, but there's more negative outcomes than positive ones if that happens.

 

3 minutes ago, PlusEighteen said:

It helps people find hats, yes. Hats that are not for sale. Look a itrade's post a bit back.

"Often I simply get offered a good deal when I ask what they want for their item. "

He lets the owner of the hat (that is not selling it) make an offer. The owner that doesn't know what they have. The owner that maybe spent 4 keys to get that item. Sure, they'll be happy with what they get because they asked for it. That doesn't make it a fair trade in any way. (Someone asks what their item is actually worth? He won't trade with them, but if they go low, sure pal, here's what you want and we're both happy)

 

A couple bad apples isn't a reason to completely get rid of one of the most helpful and defining resources this site has to offer.

 

Also this:

1 hour ago, PlusEighteen said:

But i mean... When the sites main source of income is premium from sharkers, you really think they're going to change things to disable that?

 

Not true in the slightest, and there's nothing to back up this claim.

 

Premium isn't getting removed.

[Torb]

11 minutes ago, PlusEighteen said:

If It helps with pricing, then it should be public information, instead of allowing a premium member to filter what sales they report and non-premium being none the wiser.

 

It helps people find hats, yes. Hats that are not for sale. Look a itrade's post a bit back.

"Often I simply get offered a good deal when I ask what they want for their item. "

He lets the owner of the hat (that is not selling it) make an offer. The owner that doesn't know what they have. The owner that maybe spent 4 keys to get that item. Sure, they'll be happy with what they get because they asked for it. That doesn't make it a fair trade in any way. (Someone asks what their item is actually worth? He won't trade with them, but if they go low, sure pal, here's what you want and we're both happy)

Yeah but there's a difference between getting offered a good deal and sharking. Like being on a trade server and getting offered is completely different to seeking out new players and capitalizing off their inexperience.

[PlusEighteen]

1 minute ago, ѕιи said:

Premium isn't getting removed.

Said the long time premium member. 

 

So you're saying itrade is a bad apple? How many bad apples do I need to find before the bad outnumbers the good?

[Torb]

Just now, PlusEighteen said:

Said the long time premium member. 

 

So you're saying itrade is a bad apple? How many bad apples do I need to find before the bad outnumbers the good?

There's plenty of bad apples, the good outnunbers them but the bad apples get way more publicity/infamy because they are a minority.