Jump to content

Archived

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

Teeny Tiny Cat

Trust and "Sharking"

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

124 members have voted

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

    • Yes
      99
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

ѕιи
1 minute ago, PlusEighteen said:

Said the long time premium member. 

How is this even an appropriate response? I'm so confused..

 

2 minutes ago, PlusEighteen said:

So you're saying itrade is a bad apple?

Uh, no? I'm not implying anyone is a bad apple.

 

3 minutes ago, PlusEighteen said:

How many bad apples do I need to find before the bad outnumbers the good?

I don't know??? What would that even do if you found all the bad apples???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PlusEighteen
3 minutes ago, ѕιи said:

I don't know??? What would that even do if you found all the bad apples???

Make apple pie of course.

 

But really, I understand that this is not a problem that can be solved. Any limit will be circumvented. Any punishment will be evaded. Getting caught is only a minor setback for career criminals online. So-and-so got banned for whatever? Make a new account, put in five bucks and you're back to scamming. Losing everything you gained by trade ban? You already made profit, the items mean nothing.

 

This isn't something that can be fixed without a complete overhaul of how premium works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PlusEighteen

I mean really. A system that SORTS BY UNBOX DATE and INCLUDES ITEMS THAT ARE NOT LISTED FOR SALE and you think it isn't designed to put the most vulnerable people at the top of the target list?

 

Really? By design, premium is for sharking. And I've seen more than a few people do the "what would you like for your hat?" thing. Someone with 2 hours would probably be more than pleased to trade their ugly hat (worth $600) for a class they don't play for a bunch of weapons they can actually use (worth $0.20), I know, I used to know a guy that did that. They either ask what they want or put up a bunch of garbage and let people pick what they want. If they know their item is valuable they just don't trade and the shark looks for the next target, and if they don't then they get what they want and don't think twice about it because they aren't as serious about the economy as some are. 

 

When I tell people I trade virtual hats for real cash they look at me like I'm crazy. And it is crazy. That's why I'm trying to get out.

 

I don't mean to go away from the topic but the topic is solved, it would accomplish nothing. We want punishment for dishonesty but the punishment is so easily evaded and it's so often one person's word against another and evidence can be forged or simply deleted unknowingly. There is no easy solution, beyond perhaps a reworking of the premium system to show item and trade history, but perhaps to scrub names from the info so we can see the trade, but not who did it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Torb
10 minutes ago, PlusEighteen said:

I mean really. A system that SORTS BY UNBOX DATE and INCLUDES ITEMS THAT ARE NOT LISTED FOR SALE and you think it isn't designed to put the most vulnerable people at the top of the target list?

 

Really? By design, premium is for sharking. And I've seen more than a few people do the "what would you like for your hat?" thing. Someone with 2 hours would probably be more than pleased to trade their ugly hat (worth $600) for a class they don't play for a bunch of weapons they can actually use (worth $0.20), I know, I used to know a guy that did that. They either ask what they want or put up a bunch of garbage and let people pick what they want. If they know their item is valuable they just don't trade and the shark looks for the next target, and if they don't then they get what they want and don't think twice about it because they aren't as serious about the economy as some are. 

 

When I tell people I trade virtual hats for real cash they look at me like I'm crazy. And it is crazy. That's why I'm trying to get out.

 

I don't mean to go away from the topic but the topic is solved, it would accomplish nothing. We want punishment for dishonesty but the punishment is so easily evaded and it's so often one person's word against another and evidence can be forged or simply deleted unknowingly. There is no easy solution, beyond perhaps a reworking of the premium system to show item and trade history, but perhaps to scrub names from the info so we can see the trade, but not who did it.

 

Yeah but you see, if they put up items then they can get banned but if they ask what they want, people like itrade can justify it by saying that both parties were happy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat

This thread is not about reworking the premium system. That is not something I have control of, and ideas have already been put to the owners as I said. Discussing it endlessly here is futile. The topic of this thread is whether we should allow negative trust for users who take advantage of the inexperienced or not. That said, I think we've covered most avenues of discussion here so I'm going to close this thread now. We'll consider what everyone has said and decide what we want to do going forward in the future. For now, the rules remain the same.

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...