Open discussion on rules for trading with scammers

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

1 minute ago, zol said:

thx teeny, looks like you are really for community there...

 

Being for this community does not mean doing exactly what individual members want all the time. If you want reasonable discussion, feel free to keep posting. Otherwise stop spamming.

 

End of the day, if a user could look at an account and see "wow this is obviously a scammer alt" then why should that user, or a bot, be allowed to freely trade with the account? Nobody has any issue with the rules as applied to users, only bots. And there is absolutely no reason that the same shouldn't apply to them. If you're not able to run a bot that stays within the rules, don't run a bot. Bot.tf and masterminder manage just fine to work with us.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

After taking into account the viewpoints in this thread and previous discussions, we've come up with something of a compromise. I am unwilling to modify the requirements for background checking - I think they are necessary to at least reduce the volume of trades with scammers and make it somewhat more difficult for scammers to offload their items. They're not unreasonable by any stretch and they're quite clear for a user doing a background check, what is difficult is that they cannot be automated. I have sat down and tried to brainstorm criteria we could come up with that could be automated, but it really does require human judgement. And while I understand the frustration of those using bots, I simply cannot change the rules to make things easier for them. The same rules apply to users and bots alike, and as it's perfectly possible to manual check trades above a certain value it's something you're just gonna have to do if you want to abide by the rules of this site.

 

I have, however, decided to loosen the punishment for trading with scammers a little. Temp bans for trading with scammers will now "expire" after 1 year without a ban, so whether you're on your first or second offense if you go without a ban for 1+ year and then are reported again for the same thing, we will treat it as a new ban and start at first offense again. Bans were never intended to punish innocent traders who make mistakes, they are simply a deterrent to buying from scammers. Hopefully now those users who are trying their hardest to comply with the rules but do occasionally make errors will feel that there is a little more leeway/forgiveness from us for slip ups. 

[hugh]

Just clarifying (or asking a stupid question) - this sentence:

 

"This will not be applied retroactively, as there are far too many cases to consider over the years the site has been running, but it will apply in all future cases going forward."

 

What exactly does this mean?

 

Is it saying that anyone who wishes to use this new clause, their one year starts counting today? Or does that mean that old bans where eg. Person on 2 strikes, 1st and 2nd ban were more than a year part - you can't say they're on one strike now by applying this policy?

 

I'm almost at the two year mark from my last ban, does this sentence mean that the first day I (or anyone) can apply to have past bans waived will be the 24th of July 2019?

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

4 minutes ago, hugh said:

Just clarifying (or asking a stupid question) - this sentence:

 

"This will not be applied retroactively, as there are far too many cases to consider over the years the site has been running, but it will apply in all future cases going forward."

 

What exactly does this mean?

 

Is it saying that anyone who wishes to use this new clause, their one year starts counting today? Or does that mean that old bans where eg. Person on 2 strikes, 1st and 2nd ban were more than a year part - you can't say they're on one strike now by applying this policy?

 

I'm almost at the two year mark from my last ban, does this sentence mean that the first day I (or anyone) can apply to have past bans waived will be the 24th of July 2019?

 

I mean people who are already perm banned can't come in and say "there was a year between my second and third ban, so my perm ban should only have been 3 days."

 

Anyone currently on first or second strike, the year applies from the date of your last ban.

[zol]

 

1 hour ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

I mean people who are already perm banned can't come in and say "there was a year between my second and third ban, so my perm ban should only have been 3 days."

 

Anyone currently on first or second strike, the year applies from the date of your last ban.

 

Why ban time cant be manual review, like it will be depend on value of trade? like i can trade like 1000 keys with scammer alt and i will get 3 days ban or i will trade 20 keys and will get same 3 days, is that fair? so, users can trade like 3000 keys (1000 keys per strike) and only after this will get permanent and bots can trade just 60 keys by mistake (20 keys per strike) and they will get permanent too ? as you said this is rule to dont help scammers, this 60 keys rly help scammers lol? So they will just sell on automatic sites.

 

i understand this rule, but i dont think it will help bots, who try to follow rules. btw my last ban was about a year ago, but my next 20 keys trade will give me permanent. i never said i dont follow rules etc as you think, i just dont think they are fair (not for ME, for ALL).

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

10 minutes ago, zol said:

Why ban time cant be manual review, like it will be depend on value of trade? like i can trade like 1000 keys with scammer alt and i will get 3 days ban or i will trade 20 keys and will get same 3 days, is that fair? so, users can trade like 3000 keys (1000 keys per strike) and only after this will get permanent and bots can trade just 60 keys by mistake (20 keys per strike) and they will get permanent too ?

 

i understand this rule, but i dont think it will help bots, who try to follow rules. btw my last ban was about a year ago, but my next 20 keys trade will give me permanent. i never said i dont follow rules etc as you think, i just dont think they are fair (not for ME, for ALL).

 

The current guidelines do punish larger trades more harshly, if you go look at them 3 days is the mildest and a high value trade would be a longer ban (same thing for second ban.) But the point isn't about the value of trades, the point is avoiding trades with obvious alts. If you can background check a 1000 key trade you can background check a 20 key one. 

 

Reference:

(1) First offense - 3 days to 1 week depending on the severity of the action
(2) Second offense - 2 weeks to 2 months depending on the severity of the action
(3) Third offense - permanent ban (may be appealed after 6 months)

[zol]

15 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

The current guidelines do punish larger trades more harshly, if you go look at them 3 days is the mildest and a high value trade would be a longer ban (same thing for second ban.) But the point isn't about the value of trades, the point is avoiding trades with obvious alts. If you can background check a 1000 key trade you can background check a 20 key one. 

 

Reference:

 

 

 

i see. what about my ban? My last ban b4 current was like a year ago. Also what about additional listing setting, like "Offer only buyout (Only logged users)" i dont remember how it called but i think you understand what i mean. This way we can avoid more scammer alts and it also will help you find main account of this alt (or it will be just bit difficult to sell for alts, they have to get VPN or smth).

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

4 minutes ago, zol said:

 

i see. what about my ban? My last ban b4 current was like a year ago. Also what about additional listing setting, like "Offer only buyout (Only logged users)" i dont remember how it called but i think you understand what i mean. This way we can avoid more scammer alts and it also will help you find main account of this alt (or it will be just bit difficult to sell for alts, they have to get VPN or smth).

 

As I said, this does not apply retroactively, and your first ban wasn't even a year ago anyway. I don't really understand what you mean with the second part.

[zol]

14 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

As I said, this does not apply retroactively, and your first ban wasn't even a year ago anyway. I don't really understand what you mean with the second part.

so ye bp said its 11 month ago, but i remember it was on middle summer. About second part: When you create listing you can choose "Send me trade offer, buyout only" or "Add me to trade". So what about additional like "Send me trade offer (only logged users).

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

Just now, zol said:

so ye bp said its 11 month ago, but i remember it was on middle summer. About second part: When you create listing you can choose "Send me trade offer, buyout only" or "Add me to trade". So what about additional like "Send me trade offer (only logged users).

 

What are logged users? I don't follow.

[zol]

Just now, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

What are logged users? I don't follow.

users who are logged on backpack?

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

4 minutes ago, zol said:

users who are logged on backpack?

 

I don't understand. How would this help?

[D.Alex]

Zol is suggesting that a person creating a listing can request his Trade URL to be hidden for marked scammers and not-logged-in visitors.

 

This would create a very minor inconvenience for scammers since they would have to create a new BP account for browsing listings.

 

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

23 minutes ago, Daddy Alex said:

Zol is suggesting that a person creating a listing can request his Trade URL to be hidden for marked scammers and not-logged-in visitors.

 

This would create a very minor inconvenience for scammers since they would have to create a new BP account for browsing listings.

 

 

No the worst idea, will bring it up.

[Torb]

5 hours ago, Daddy Alex said:

Zol is suggesting that a person creating a listing can request his Trade URL to be hidden for marked scammers and not-logged-in visitors.

 

This would create a very minor inconvenience for scammers since they would have to create a new BP account for browsing listings.

 

The issue with that is most traders link their trade url on their profile which would still be accessable

[Julia]

5 hours ago, Daddy Alex said:

Zol is suggesting that a person creating a listing can request his Trade URL to be hidden for marked scammers and not-logged-in visitors.

 

This would create a very minor inconvenience for scammers since they would have to create a new BP account for browsing listings.

 

I don't think this would solve anything (except a very minor inconvenience like you said), and only make it more difficult for normal traders that don't use the site very much to do their thing.

[zol]

1 hour ago, Julia said:

I don't think this would solve anything (except a very minor inconvenience like you said), and only make it more difficult for normal traders that don't use the site very much to do their thing.

and i think it would solve. so thats why i offered the way you can choose it

[KTXO]

It takes nothing to log in there is no meaning in doing so.

[Versal]

I followed the rules and was banned.

 

 

Trading with scammers -

 

https://backpack.tf/item/5369287629

https://backpack.tf/item/5466123929
i bought item for less then 15 keys, my orders on bp was 13 keys

Quote

backpack.tf rulse : Our Expectations for Our Users:

We expect all users to check the following on all trades 15 keys or greater in value

 

So, any lawyer will say that i did not break rules of backpack.tf , there are not written backpacktf value , there are written TRADE 15 keys, 
i did TRADE 13 keys, and why i was banned ? Tiny, why do I get a ban for the fact that you can not write clear rules and in each case treat them in your own way ? 
https://imgur.com/a/JYW3t6y

[Torb]

52 minutes ago, Versal said:

I followed the rules and was banned.

 

 

Trading with scammers -

 

https://backpack.tf/item/5369287629

https://backpack.tf/item/5466123929
i bought item for less then 15 keys, my orders on bp was 13 keys

 

So, any lawyer will say that i did not break rules of backpack.tf , there are not written backpacktf value , there are written TRADE 15 keys, 
i did TRADE 13 keys, and why i was banned ? Tiny, why do I get a ban for the fact that you can not write clear rules and in each case treat them in your own way ? 
https://imgur.com/a/JYW3t6y

But both sides have to be below 15 keys, otherwise there would be many loopholes, and they could be exploited. For example someone could buy a burning ke for 14 keys and if things worked like you say, they would not get banned as "it was under 15 keys"

[Versal]

The rule of economics is that thing  costs exactly as for how much it is being sold.
open books and read. if ke is selling for 15 keys,  its means ke worth 15 keys.

[Torb]

1 minute ago, Versal said:

The rule of economics is that thing  costs exactly as much for how much it is being sold.
open books and read. if ke is selling for 15 keys,  its means ke worth 15 keys.

Look at the classifieds, many buyers for more than what you paid to the scammer. I can guarantee scammers dont give a shit about maximizing profit, they just want to dump their stolen items quickly.

[Versal]

many buyers ?  who ?  there are 1 guy with order 14 keys which was created 11 months ago, and 3 automatics 13 keys orders like me, so why i should be banned cuz backpack tf policy was written not professionally , and  I have to think out what they mean there backpack.tf price or trade price, btw there are clearly written trade value, my trade value was 13 keys.

[3.50]

1 hour ago, Torb | Elite Spell Trader™ said:

But both sides have to be below 15 keys, otherwise there would be many loopholes, and they could be exploited. For example someone could buy a burning ke for 14 keys and if things worked like you say, they would not get banned as "it was under 15 keys"

He actually does have an argument, though there are counterpoints as well. 

 

First off, the rules do not clearly define (as far as I can see) how a trade's "value" is determined.  I would actually have assumed that 13 keys <--> any hat would be acceptable, based on my reading of the rules.  For an example of why it doesn't make sense to just use backpack.tf prices to determine the "value" of a trade, look at taunts: if you trade ~7 keys for a taunt with a price of ~50 from before the taunt crash, what's the value of the trade?  Obviously the taunt's value isn't anywhere near that 50 anymore, but if you just took the item's backpack.tf price, that'd be a ban. 

 

And what if you trade a scammer 13 keys for a hat priced at 14-18?  Do you get banned because the hat's midpoint is 16, or do you not get banned because 14 is in its range, and therefore a valid price for the hat?

I can't answer that, based on the rules and on precedent, which means clarification is needed.

 

If you want to drawn a line and have consequences for crossing it, it should be based on something concrete, and clearly defined.

 

It really does seem simpler, and make more sense to read the rules as saying, "anything that you pay 15+ keys for" as opposed to, "anything that was previously priced at 15+ keys".

Think of it from the perspective of buy orders: let's say you set a bunch of automatic buy orders for a bunch of hats.  And let's say that you read the rules, and want to set up a check so that anything high enough in value to require a manual check is held for review.  How would you set that up, presumably?  Probably by saying that any trade that included 15 or more keys on one side would be held for manual review. 

 

On the other hand, you could theoretically set up a bot with a bunch of buy orders for 14 keys or less each, and set up no checks because you are only trading below the 15-key threshold.  Then one day you wake up and find yourself banned because a scammer dumped a "20-key" hat on you for 13.  Does that really seem fair?

 

I'd be curious to see mod input on the issue, because it seems clarification is needed. 

Of course, I'd advise taking this situation as a warning that maybe you should check ALL trades, and never trade with scammers at all.

[Julia]

On 8/7/2018 at 12:11 AM, 3.50 said:

If you want to drawn a line and have consequences for crossing it, it should be based on something concrete, and clearly defined.

I agree. Item values can be fuzzy and there should be clarification.