Introduce a more clear warning that someone is known to offer unbalanced trades to inexperienced users

[sleepyhead_]

Currently sharks receive a negative trust in an attempt to warn people that they are known to offer uneven trades, but I believe this to be insufficient.

New users don't know what trust is, so they are very unlikely to check it, and a shark's trust can easily go unnoticed, as it is very small on the page. This is even more problematic when the trust rating is orange rather than bright red, which is the case when the user's trust is neutral or positive overall.

I suggest that a larger warning tag is added to the profiles of sharks, similar to the one used to warn people of impersonators. New users would be much more likely to read this.

[Mucy]

Boi I'll second that idea. 

[Baloo]

First, there's no known likelihood new users would think to check a user's backpack.tf profile to whether or not they are "fair" trader. If they already do, then what's the chance they do not notice the trust score if they're trying to check a trader's status?

 

Second, what is the cut off for sharking? Who decides it? If it were the community, then you can already see from scrap.tf bots that multiple users report them to the point there is a warning every time you trade with some scrap.tf bots. If its moderators, then some may see it as over-stepping their boundaries to determine what they personally deem a "shark". Should it be a certain metal/key amount or maybe percentage-based for something to be considered a shark? There are obvious sharks like buying an unusual with crates, but at the same time; what about quicksell buyers that offer 40%-50% backpack.tf prices? Its a gray area that's great to address vaguely, but gets muddied up very easily once you try to set parameters for it.

[AD⚡HD]

1 hour ago, Baloo said:

First, there's no known likelihood new users would think to check a user's backpack.tf profile to whether or not they are "fair" trader. If they already do, then what's the chance they do not notice the trust score if they're trying to check a trader's status?

 

Second, what is the cut off for sharking? Who decides it? If it were the community, then you can already see from scrap.tf bots that multiple users report them to the point there is a warning every time you trade with some scrap.tf bots. If its moderators, then some may see it as over-stepping their boundaries to determine what they personally deem a "shark". Should it be a certain metal/key amount or maybe percentage-based for something to be considered a shark? There are obvious sharks like buying an unusual with crates, but at the same time; what about quicksell buyers that offer 40%-50% backpack.tf prices? Its a gray area that's great to address vaguely, but gets muddied up very easily once you try to set parameters for it.

 

the mods all-ready leave negative reports on those who shark routinely

 

https://backpack.tf/trust/76561198197739413

https://backpack.tf/trust/76561198120467518

 

It should just be more clear, like this 

 

https://backpack.tf/u/76561198261771051 

[Lonster_Monster]

Do you mean like a html modal (POP UP) that warns users that they are know sharkers or  Scammers?

 

[Diamond jozu]

+1 on this idea

[demo got the stickys uh]

honestly for something like this to be implemented the a good amount of trades would have to be very very uneven scale imo. also, putting me and jhejh as the only people who shark routinely? debatable. the fact that i even shark is debatable as well but we're all entitled to our own opinion i guess. damn, though, comparing what jhejh does to what i do is insane, cant lie.

[Torb]

5 minutes ago, demo got the stickys uh said:

honestly for something like this to be implemented the a good amount of trades would have to be very very uneven scale imo. also, putting me and jhejh as the only people who shark routinely? debatable. the fact that i even shark is debatable as well but we're all entitled to our own opinion.

Your -trust says otherwise

[demo got the stickys uh]

i see sharking as more of price manipulation then uneven trades imo. gives it much more of a solid definition rather than being able to call trades you see too good to be true always as sharking without any debate.

[Peachi]

52 minutes ago, demo got the stickys uh said:

honestly for something like this to be implemented the a good amount of trades would have to be very very uneven scale imo. also, putting me and jhejh as the only people who shark routinely? debatable. the fact that i even shark is debatable as well but we're all entitled to our own opinion i guess. damn, though, comparing what jhejh does to what i do is insane, cant lie.

""debatable"" 

 

https://backpack.tf/trust/76561198197739413

 

#2  and #3 

[demo got the stickys uh]

yep debatable, not really sharking

[Peachi]

2 minutes ago, demo got the stickys uh said:

yep debatable, not really sharking

You're kidding right?

[AD⚡HD]

1 hour ago, demo got the stickys uh said:

i see sharking as more of price manipulation then uneven trades imo. gives it much more of a solid definition rather than being able to call trades you see too good to be true always as sharking without any debate.

I off the top off my head y’all are the only ones I know who have a negative trust from a mod about sharking.

Im not saying y’all are the only two

[Ankle Jack]

1 hour ago, demo got the stickys uh said:

i see sharking as more of price manipulation then uneven trades imo. gives it much more of a solid definition rather than being able to call trades you see too good to be true always as sharking without any debate.

Im wondering why you shark the poor kid. We suppose to teach them how to trade

[DanielDee]

9 hours ago, MeButYou82 said:

Currently sharks receive a negative trust in an attempt to warn people that they are known to offer uneven trades, but I believe this to be insufficient.

 

I quoted a prolific well known shark once and provided screenshots of the intended deception and the shark never got a single warning or any negative rep. Instead i got a warning for calling them out. Even with proof.... Figure? But they were premium vip so i guess the staff were just protecting there best interests.....

[Torb]

45 minutes ago, DanielDee said:

I quoted a prolific well known shark once and provided screenshots of the intended deception and the shark never got a single warning or any negative rep. Instead i got a warning for calling them out. Even with proof.... Figure? But they were premium vip so i guess the staff were just protecting there best interests.....

I wouldn't say the bptf mods are trying to protect "sharkers" , rather the definition of sharking so outdated that unless they're dumb they cant get banned. All they have to do is add an unboxer who doesn't know prices and give him items he wants, they don't have to lie about prices, which as of now is the only thing that can get u a ban in the way of sharking. In my eyes, taking advantage of new unboxers shouldn't be bannable or not bannable based one how it happens, the end outcome is the same either way. If someone is found to do it enough (everyone with a -trust for unbalanced trades has plenty of evidence for that) they shouldn't be allowed to use the site.

[demo got the stickys uh]

I don't think you should ban people who make uneven trades.And for Ankle Jack and filthy,Like I said, i see sharking as price manipulation, for the reasons i stated above. it gives it a solid definition rather than uneven trades which is very vague and just promotes random shark accusations just because you don't think a certain trade was fair. there's a reason in the trust they call it UNEVEN TRADES not SHARKING.

[Diamond jozu]

13 minutes ago, demo got the stickys uh said:

yep, i see sharking as price manipulation, for the reasons i stated above. it gives it a solid definition rather than uneven trades which is very vague and can be applied to whatever without anything solid to back it up. there's a reason in the trust they call it UNEVEN TRADES not SHARKING.

you just cant handle the truth.deal with it

[demo got the stickys uh]

what i'm saying is true though, you're just not listening. they call it uneven trades and not sharking for a reason. for them to call it sharking they'd need proof of me actively trying to deceive and manipulate people. they call it uneven trades because it's what it is - uneven trades. it's not that hard to understand man cmon.

[Diamond jozu]

30 minutes ago, demo got the stickys uh said:

what i'm saying is true though, you're just not listening. they call it uneven trades and not sharking for a reason. for them to call it sharking they'd need proof of me actively trying to deceive and manipulate people. they call it uneven trades because it's what it is - uneven trades. it's not that hard to understand man cmon.

the only people that we see as sharkers are you or pots.sorry if we couldnt get any other people as examples

[demo got the stickys uh]

im not sharking though but aight

[TheWiz]

11 minutes ago, demo got the stickys uh said:

im not sharking though but aight

2, 3, and 13 are all less than 10%, which using the old, lax in terms of how the community views sharking nowadays, would be considered sharks, other ones sure, let's call those uneven trades. But let's not get stuck on definitions and words, now shall we? You're a scummy person who lacks morals to make a quick buck off of people less knowledgeable than yourself. *shrug*

 

@op it would be nice if things were more visible, although mods will likely say it's not reasonable as it's subjective, so different people would view different things as uneven.

[Diamond jozu]

12 minutes ago, demo got the stickys uh said:

im not sharking though but aight

(insert laughing meme here)

[demo got the stickys uh]

h m m you know i'm not really sharking diamond but saying i lack morals because i make profit is  oof.

[Diamond jozu]

7 minutes ago, demo got the stickys uh said:

h m m you know i'm not really sharking diamond but saying i lack morals because i make profit is  oof.

you're just triggered because of how people used you as an example of sharkers.they aint wrong tbh.