Jump to content
Teeny Tiny Cat

Open discussion on rules for trading with scammers (Part 2)

Recommended Posts

MasterMinder
Just now, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

This has been said a few times in here, and it's completely untrue... Did y'all even read the thread I linked in the OP? Because the outcome of it was this change, which actually means you only get a permanent ban after 3 strikes within 1 year.

 

Oh sorry, my mistake. As Toad mentioned, it is still rather harsh, you would have to not make a single mistake for a whole year in order for your previous ban(s) to expire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat
13 minutes ago, LeGerbs said:

They do have morals, i've never once thought this person could ever think this way. I think we need to give this a test. If we see a spike in scamming, then we can bring this rule back into place. I've seen no evidence that this rule stops scammers from dumping their items. I have seen staff have to work 3x harder on this site because 40% of reports are from trading with scammers.

 

I don't think a test run of anything is practical, how would we even track number of scams occurring? Like, we have no idea how many are occurring now. The proportion that are reported out of what's happening is fairly low. And even if reports went up - is that more scams, or more people reporting scams? No way to tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeGerbs
5 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

I don't think a test run of anything is practical, how would we even track number of scams occurring? Like, we have no idea how many are occurring now. The proportion that are reported out of what's happening is fairly low. And even if reports went up - is that more scams, or more people reporting scams? No way to tell.

 

You're correct, my main argument in this situation is that no matter what scammers are going to dump their items. If no other website is enforcing this rule, and we can't make them enforce the rule. How is this solving any problems? It encourages banned players like i've posted before to go down roads that are considerably more malicious than trading with the scammers in the first place. I've also stated that not everyone does this and we can all agree on that, but the one person with a 20k backpack with tons of trust build up has gone down the deep end and taken close friends unusuals. Sometimes these bans lead to quitting trading all together, which means less unusuals, and less people on the market. Less people to help with supply and demand. Yes it does help a small percentage at not allowing scammers to dump their unusuals as easily, but the negative effects outweigh the positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pixxi0us
10 hours ago, humann said:

 if we allow people to freely trade with scammers.

-More people will start scamming.

-All the quickbuyers will fight to get the deals from the scammers.

-EVERYBODY will trade with scammers, no one gives a fuck about "being called out (neither I do)".

 -The scammers are going to get a lot more for his stolen tems.

A change like this would change really hardly how trading works

"-More people will start scamming."
Not necessarly true, as stated on other comments the scammers can sell their items easly without backpack.tf and just because we are allowed to trade scammers doesnt mean other people will start scamming to, that wont change how the person is.

"-All the quickbuyers will fight to get the deals from the scammers."
Buy orders will stay the same, if we follow what you say, they will compete to much that they will reach the point of making buy orders for full price which i doubt.

 

"-EVERYBODY will trade with scammers, no one gives a fuck about "being called out (neither I do)"."
They trade them anyway through sites or alts.

 

" -The scammers are going to get a lot more for his stolen tems."
how? that depends if someone get scammed or not, what about if we teach new people to avoid scams? NOONE gets scammed, scammers dont have items to sell, noone trades scammers s this rule isnt needed.

 

"A change like this would change really hardly how trading works"
What i stated above.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DimO_on

I believe that the rule of sharing with scammers is necessary and it should not be removed / changed for sure, but I am against bans with potential alts, it is very difficult to understand where is alt, and where is new player who just created an account and saved up for an expensive unusual He opened the box and dropped out of the 100 keys he could not tradet with anyone the way everyone would suspect that he was a fraud. I think so, as long as the account is not banned for scam, trade with it should not be punished with a ban, even if it is banned in the future, level 1 and 20 hours in the game are not always real indicators, this is just my opinion, maybe I'm wrong, but the punishment for trade with scammers cannot be removed, otherwise there will be chaos and this may affect the economy of the items, and since bp tf is the only one tf trading site, it can actually happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat

Do you guys not understand that modifying the rules to allow trades with unbanned alts is basically the same thing as just allowing trades with banned/marked accounts? Since all a person needs to do is... send their stuff to their alt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DimO_on
16 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

Do you guys not understand that modifying the rules to allow trades with unbanned alts is basically the same thing as just allowing trades with banned/marked accounts? Since all a person needs to do is... send their stuff to their alt.

you are right, but in that case you just need to check the history of the subject, and make an analysis on it, perhaps this is a regular new player who immediately turned to the dark side of evil :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nicklason
21 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

Do you guys not understand that modifying the rules to allow trades with unbanned alts is basically the same thing as just allowing trades with banned/marked accounts? Since all a person needs to do is... send their stuff to their alt.

Since it is so easy for scammers to get rid of their items and keep them in circulation, then just remove the requirement for the background checks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pixxi0us
4 minutes ago, Nicklason said:

Since it is so easy for scammers to get rid of their items and keep them in circulation, then just remove the requirement for the background checks.

thats what they are suggesting to do? if they remove the rule for trading scammers the rules for background checks will disappear too
like teeny said non marked alts = scammers (most of the times)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nicklason
Just now, Pixxi0us said:

thats what they are suggesting to do? if they remove the rule for trading scammers the rules for background checks will disappear too

and that's also what I am suggesting to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat
1 minute ago, Nicklason said:

Since it is so easy for scammers to get rid of their items and keep them in circulation, then just remove the requirement for the background checks.

 

That's literally what this thread was made to discuss...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pixxi0us
1 minute ago, Nicklason said:

and that's also what I am suggesting to do?

you were repeating what was said and what is "kinda obvious"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nicklason
9 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

That's literally what this thread was made to discuss...

I was attacking what you said about that if you remove the rules for trading with scammer alts, you allow trades with banned accounts. I can agree with most people, but I only see this thread going around in a circle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat

The thread is just for community members to express their opinions. I'm only interjecting to correct things or point out inconsistencies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:evan:

Allowing people would make scamming a more lucrative business opportunity, I will admit. That being said, it would force us as a community to educate the public more on how to avoid being scammed in the first place. I think it would be a good idea to remove the rule, as there are also too many god tier hats sitting in empty scammer alt backpacks that could be put back into circulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
y3ezz

Although people should be smart and do background checks, I think trading with scammers a couple times doesn't hurt anybody. That is if it were on accident, but never will you be able to know for sure if someone knowingly did something and they're lying that they had no idea or if someone is banned when they truly had no idea. That is a tedious routine.

 

My major point is, however, that some actual research has to be done for a ban for trading with scammers, not just someone rolling up and making a report on somebody because they have a couple trade links that show someone trading with a scammer. Bans are too harsh for first and second time offenders. They should be warned or contacted in some way or form rather than having their account banned for a week. Treatment is too harsh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rndmchrs

Good morning/afternoon/evening, everyone.

 

First of all, I think it's really great that you're asking for the community's opinion before removing/changing/adding any rules.

Secondly; sorry if I say something wrong in this post, I'm not quite sure how to articulate in a formal post in English.

 

Now, let's jump into this.

I'm actually kind of neutral so far about this topic, since only a few scammers try to sell me their stuff.

 

Most important argument:

-> Nowerdays scammers can dump their items anywhere. If they're getting caught scamming, they'll dump their items to bots from sites like mannco.trade, mannco.store, marketplace.tf, scrap.tf, tradeskinsfast.com, stn.tf/stntrading.eu, tradeit.gg, swap.gg and several other sites as well as the scm (buy orders exist too!), the choice is very big.

So I think that today this rule doesn't really prevent scammers from selling their wares, it's just a little block on one of multiple sites where they can sell their goods.

 

Arguments pro remove of the rule:

-> See above.

-> Great hats with great effects, 1:1s and more can come back into circulation again.

-> There will be way less reports for people trading with scammers; admins and/or report mods can finally concentrate on more important issues like real scammers, suspected scammer alts et cetera pp.

-> People won't have to be afraid that the person they're trading could always be a scammer, no 24/7 background checks anymore

 

Arguments pro keeps of the rule:

-> Scammers will profit if rule is removed.

(Having a blackout at this point, I actually had some more in mind for this side)

 

So in my opinion and as we can see, it won't do good if the rule is removed nor kept; so I personally would suggest changing it, just like most of the people here.

My suggestions:

-> Trading with marked fences is NOT tolerated, should still lead to a ban!

-> Trading with marked scammers with the last -trust being given at least x months ago (Eventual sign of them that they stopped scamming?)

-> Trading with scammers once or twice should be okay as long as it's not én masse (Thanks to sin for those words)

(To eventually bring rare hats back into the market as long as the marked scammer's backpack.tf profile fulfills my second suggested point)

 

 

That would be my entry to this thread/topic, I'm always open to be criticized.

If I made bad rule suggestions, then I am sorry.

I also hope that I articulated myself right-ish.

Have a nice day, to everyone who is reading this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DimO_on

Nobody thought about what Valve would say if the user would often trade with (for example) a phishing scam? As a result, if he gets a global trade ban, then the second one can be banned. And with this rule, we can distinguish a chain of events: we do not tradet with scammers, so as not to get banned on bp tf ----> Our karma is clean + cleanliness of community karma ----> Avoid the risk of getting an ass from valve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12th

I dont believe removing it as a whole would be a good idea. For example, if you did, the immediate thing I'd do is trade with scammers and make insane amounts of profit, now even though I can do it now for a warning, I know it's wrong and the risk wouldn't be worth it. Plus the whole morality issue but I don't have morals :). I don't think at all a permanent ban is in order. I believe warnings and TEMPORARY bans are in order, and if it is a continuous thing for a said person to trade with scammers. A mark on their BP isnt needed but a warning instead notifying people the user trades with scammers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12th
30 minutes ago, rndmchrs said:

Good morning/afternoon/evening, everyone.

 

First of all, I think it's really great that you're asking for the community's opinion before removing/changing/adding any rules.

Secondly; sorry if I say something wrong in this post, I'm not quite sure how to articulate in a formal post in English.

 

Now, let's jump into this.

I'm actually kind of neutral so far about this topic, since only a few scammers try to sell me their stuff.

 

Most important argument:

-> Nowerdays scammers can dump their items anywhere. If they're getting caught scamming, they'll dump their items to bots from sites like mannco.trade, mannco.store, marketplace.tf, scrap.tf, tradeskinsfast.com, stn.tf/stntrading.eu, tradeit.gg, swap.gg and several other sites as well as the scm (buy orders exist too!), the choice is very big.

So I think that today this rule doesn't really prevent scammers from selling their wares, it's just a little block on one of multiple sites where they can sell their goods.

 

Arguments pro remove of the rule:

-> See above.

-> Great hats with great effects, 1:1s and more can come back into circulation again.

-> There will be way less reports for people trading with scammers; admins and/or report mods can finally concentrate on more important issues like real scammers, suspected scammer alts et cetera pp.

-> People won't have to be afraid that the person they're trading could always be a scammer, no 24/7 background checks anymore

 

Arguments pro keeps of the rule:

-> Scammers will profit if rule is removed.

(Having a blackout at this point, I actually had some more in mind for this side)

 

So in my opinion and as we can see, it won't do good if the rule is removed nor kept; so I personally would suggest changing it, just like most of the people here.

My suggestions:

-> Trading with marked fences is NOT tolerated, should still lead to a ban!

-> Trading with marked scammers with the last -trust being given at least x months ago (Eventual sign of them that they stopped scamming?)

-> Trading with scammers once or twice should be okay as long as it's not én masse (Thanks to sin for those words)

(To eventually bring rare hats back into the market as long as the marked scammer's backpack.tf profile fulfills my second suggested point)

 

 

That would be my entry to this thread/topic, I'm always open to be criticized.

If I made bad rule suggestions, then I am sorry.

I also hope that I articulated myself right-ish.

Have a nice day, to everyone who is reading this.

This is a nice formatted pro and con of the rule. The only real negative is scammers profit and it encourages scamming. I WANT old 1:1s and rare hats to come back into the market but am worried that I'll be punished for trading for the item because it is in a scammers BP. However I still don't agree with perm bans. Just warnings, temp bans and after enough trades, a warning on said persons BP warning other uses they trade with scammers and to double check items or something along those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DimO_on
2 minutes ago, 12th said:

I dont believe removing it as a whole would be a good idea. For example, if you did, the immediate thing I'd do is trade with scammers and make insane amounts of profit, now even though I can do it now for a warning, I know it's wrong and the risk wouldn't be worth it. Plus the whole morality issue but I don't have morals :). I don't think at all a permanent ban is in order. I believe warnings and TEMPORARY bans are in order, and if it is a continuous thing for a said person to trade with scammers. A mark on their BP isnt needed but a warning instead notifying people the user trades with scammers.

Shameless)) I would not trade with scammers not only because of morality, but also because of the risk of getting a trade ban, but for example, I would never tradet wich Scorpi or any big scammers,they make me mad)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archimo
1 minute ago, 12th said:

This is a nice formatted pro and con of the rule. The only real negative is scammers profit and it encourages scamming. I WANT old 1:1s and rare hats to come back into the market but am worried that I'll be punished for trading for the item because it is in a scammers BP. However I still don't agree with perm bans. Just warnings, temp bans and after enough trades, a warning on said persons BP warning other uses they trade with scammers and to double check items or something along those lines.

I think the main issue with warning and temp ban all the time is not all people get caught anyways and it takes a lot of staff power to issue said temporary bans and warnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12th
Just now, Archimo said:

I think the main issue with warning and temp ban all the time is not all people get caught anyways and it takes a lot of staff power to issue said temporary bans and warnings.

Yea so this topic is pretty controversial and has a very thin line between being a good and bad thing. It is both good and bad, good for the market but bad for traders and as a whole, in my eyes, it'd be easier to remove the rule but still let traders know to make the morally right choice to not trade with scammers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archimo
Just now, 12th said:

Yea so this topic is pretty controversial and has a very thin line between being a good and bad thing. It is both good and bad, good for the market but bad for traders and as a whole, in my eyes, it'd be easier to remove the rule but still let traders know to make the morally right choice to not trade with scammers.

exactly, I hope that people will severely still frown upon people for purchasing stuff from scammers so that the morality kicks in on a lot of people like with sharking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12th
1 minute ago, Archimo said:

exactly, I hope that people will severely still frown upon people for purchasing stuff from scammers so that the morality kicks in on a lot of people like with sharking.

It's like the first comment on page 4 said, scam rule or not, they WILL sell their items regardless and at this point, the rule should just be removed entirely but after so long of it being here and just people having human decency in the first place, I don't think trading with scammers will increase alot, just marginally or a bit. 

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...