Jump to content
Teeny Tiny Cat

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

Recommended Posts

Teeny Tiny Cat
8 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.

 

A warning of what? Other users don't need a warning that you trade with scammers, that doesn't put them at any risk. The bans are punishments meant to discourage doing it. There is absolutely no point having any bans at all if they don't escalate and eventually lead to being permanently banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pixxi0us
16 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.

From what i see its obvious that you didnt read the other comments, let me tell you real quick: 

 

"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. "
As many people have been telling over and over, removing the rule wont make scammers sell the items easier, they can sell them easly without bp.tf using marketplace, scrap.tf, mannco.store,etc etc. Backpack.tf is the only site that keeps enfourcing this rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12th
1 minute ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

A warning of what? Other users don't need a warning that you trade with scammers, that doesn't put them at any risk. The bans are punishments meant to discourage doing it. There is absolutely no point having any bans at all if they don't escalate and eventually lead to being permanently banned.

Thats originally what I wrote but after reading other peoples comments and discussing with Archimo, the rule doesnt matter at all at this point. The items will be sold regardless, other sites dont enforce the rule, and people already know trading with scammers is bad, though those who want to make a quick buck will do it regardless of the rule if they get a free chance or 2. Leave it up to traders to decide if they want to trade with scammers or not. After years of being told not to and new traders being cautious in the first place, I dont think anything will chance drastically, just marginally, and it isn't like BP has the man power to handle all scams and trades done with scammers, especially when it should be putting that power towards other issues, whatever they may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat
Just now, 12th said:

Thats originally what I wrote but after reading other peoples comments and discussing with Archimo, the rule doesnt matter at all at this point. The items will be sold regardless, other sites dont enforce the rule, and people already know trading with scammers is bad, though those who want to make a quick buck will do it regardless of the rule if they get a free chance or 2. Leave it up to traders to decide if they want to trade with scammers or not. After years of being told not to and new traders being cautious in the first place, I dont think anything will chance drastically, just marginally, and it isn't like BP has the man power to handle all scams and trades done with scammers, especially when it should be putting that power towards other issues, whatever they may be.

 

You're missing my point. I was responding to the idea of only issuing temporary bans, not making any statement about bans being necessary or useful in themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12th
2 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

You're missing my point. I was responding to the idea of only issuing temporary bans, not making any statement about bans being necessary or useful in themselves.

The bans may be punishment for trading with scammers but that wont discourage people doing it as a whole. They will still do it and those that have been banned will continue to do so since they already got banned so now there's no punishment anymore. It is ridiculous to do only temp bans if they dont escalate but bans or not, those who do it will continue to. Which is why I changed my mind of the whole only temps and no perm to nothing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat
6 minutes ago, 12th said:

The bans may be punishment for trading with scammers but that wont discourage people doing it as a whole. They will still do it and those that have been banned will continue to do so since they already got banned so now there's no punishment anymore. It is ridiculous to do only temp bans if they dont escalate but bans or not, those who do it will continue to. Which is why I changed my mind of the whole only temps and no perm to nothing at all.

 

Again, I was simply responding to temp vs perm bans. Not to the topic as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12th
1 minute ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

Again, I was simply responding to temp vs perm bans. Not to the topic as a whole.

Both are useless regardless, nothings gonna change with perm bans, temp bans or no bans. Most comments in this thread seem to recognize that already. It'd be easier to do a poll rather than a whole forum to get an absolute answer since comments here will say one or the other "BUT..." and then something along the lines of scammers will still sell, banned users will still trade with and etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rndmchrs
51 minutes 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.

Thanks for your feedback on the formatting!

I share the same opinion with you; I think permanent bans for non-scammers are quite unfair.

The warning instead would be way better. I think it could look like the Impersonator-Tag, but just in red with an exclamation mark and would say something like "This user has been temp-banned several times for trading with scammers; treat with attention.

 

Wait, isn't that basically fencing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teeny Tiny Cat
Just now, rndmchrs said:

Thanks for your feedback on the formatting!

I share the same opinion with you; I think permanent bans for non-scammers are quite unfair.

The warning instead would be way better. I think it could look like the Impersonator-Tag, but just in red with an exclamation mark.

 

See my response to this above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rndmchrs
Just now, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

See my response to this above.

Just saw it; when I answered to 12th, the 6th page hadn't loaded yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RussellTheBear

I think the rule needs modification, there's a growing problem with TF2 trading, the more items scammers get into their backpacks the less of a chance there is to get said item for everyone else. The problem is that a lot of the unobtainable or extremely hard to obtain items end up in the scammerpacks and end up becoming unobtainable unless you want to be called a scammer for trading for it.

 

Here's how I see it, we could either make scam trading allowed which I think is pretty stupid OR we could remove value from scammers backpacks, what I mean is that we X out ANY scammers backpack from the economy. IE if I have an XX with burning flames, and scammer has XX with burning flames, the one in the scammed backpack gets marked in a way where it no longer influences the economy, IE vanishes.  If this is a system already in place let me know as I haven't traded in a very long time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rndmchrs
19 minutes ago, RussellTheBear said:

I think the rule needs modification, there's a growing problem with TF2 trading, the more items scammers get into their backpacks the less of a chance there is to get said item for everyone else. The problem is that a lot of the unobtainable or extremely hard to obtain items end up in the scammerpacks and end up becoming unobtainable unless you want to be called a scammer for trading for it.

 

Here's how I see it, we could either make scam trading allowed which I think is pretty stupid OR we could remove value from scammers backpacks, what I mean is that we X out ANY scammers backpack from the economy. IE if I have an XX with burning flames, and scammer has XX with burning flames, the one in the scammed backpack gets marked in a way where it no longer influences the economy, IE vanishes.  If this is a system already in place let me know as I haven't traded in a very long time. 

So you want to EXTINGUISH item histories in scammer's backpacks?

That makes no real sense... They will most likely dump their items (depending on scammer or situation), other users will buy them and they get in circulation again, just the same thing which happened to my Steaming Tundra Top, it's luck-based though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12th
21 minutes ago, RussellTheBear said:

I think the rule needs modification, there's a growing problem with TF2 trading, the more items scammers get into their backpacks the less of a chance there is to get said item for everyone else. The problem is that a lot of the unobtainable or extremely hard to obtain items end up in the scammerpacks and end up becoming unobtainable unless you want to be called a scammer for trading for it.

 

Here's how I see it, we could either make scam trading allowed which I think is pretty stupid OR we could remove value from scammers backpacks, what I mean is that we X out ANY scammers backpack from the economy. IE if I have an XX with burning flames, and scammer has XX with burning flames, the one in the scammed backpack gets marked in a way where it no longer influences the economy, IE vanishes.  If this is a system already in place let me know as I haven't traded in a very long time. 

It isnt but would also be detrimental to the economy because it would remove any rare hats from existence that are in scammer BPs and any hats that are say 1:5 or so, if any are in a scammers BP would make that hat a "1:4" which could bump up the price since it would be "rarer" and then hats start to jump like wild for no reason whatsoever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Danny | QB Backpacks/Spell
1 hour ago, RussellTheBear said:

OR we could remove value from scammers backpacks, what I mean is that we X out ANY scammers backpack from the economy. IE if I have an XX with burning flames, and scammer has XX with burning flames, the one in the scammed backpack gets marked in a way where it no longer influences the economy, IE vanishes.  If this is a system already in place let me know as I haven't traded in a very long time. 

This wouldnt work. An item would still have value even if backpack.tf said it doesn't because someome would most likely still be willing to pay the same price as other users. For example, items with spells attached still have higher value even though it isnt stated on backpack.tf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swagman!

Not gunna read everything else everyone said but just gunna put my opinion here, I believe someone sound never receive a permanent ban for trading with scammers especially when the evidence is clear that they are not fensing items with this user, or intentionally doing it with the same scammer multiple times. Further more I believe small trades with scammers from many years ago should be ignored by the 3 strike rule, and there should possibly be a renewal of all strikes a user has every year or so. I also believe that the maximum ban for trading with scammer should be no more than a year, based off the evidence and amount of times the user traded with that scammer and/or scammers in during that time period.

 

Also yes, I am currently perma banned but I also have not traded with a scammer, or anyone close to that since my ban and I believe this is good proof that a backpack.tf ban is not the only thing holding people from trading with scammers, and is also not stopping anyone from trading with scammers as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pixxi0us
13 hours ago, Swagman! said:

Not gunna read everything else everyone said but just gunna put my opinion here, I believe someone sound never receive a permanent ban for trading with scammers especially when the evidence is clear that they are not fensing items with this user, or intentionally doing it with the same scammer multiple times. Further more I believe small trades with scammers from many years ago should be ignored by the 3 strike rule, and there should possibly be a renewal of all strikes a user has every year or so. I also believe that the maximum ban for trading with scammer should be no more than a year, based off the evidence and amount of times the user traded with that scammer and/or scammers in during that time period.

 

Also yes, I am currently perma banned but I also have not traded with a scammer, or anyone close to that since my ban and I believe this is good proof that a backpack.tf ban is not the only thing holding people from trading with scammers, and is also not stopping anyone from trading with scammers as well.

"and there should possibly be a renewal of all strikes a user has every year or so"
you have 3 chances per year if you stay 1 year without getting any "temp ban" the strikes are renewed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apoq

I think that banning users for unintentially trading with scammers is not a solution to the problem since there really isn't a problem there. The issue comes with fences and people intentially and repeatedly trading with scammers. With so many websites like tradeitgg and swapgg scammers will always have a way of reselling their goods too. Steamrep use to mark people who traded with scammers but that rule is long gone. I think backpack.tf should do the same and at least rework the rulings to only ban scammers and fences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ᴏᴅʏssᴇʏ

I think an important factor that's missing in this thread is that changing the rules to allow people to trade with scammers really just enables scammers to trade their stolen/scammed items to a new or alt account and continue on like nothing ever happened, or even as far as scamming people on alts and sending the items to their main account for example. Not sure if there's an overall solution that would combat this issue, but maybe marking items as stolen on backpack.tf if enough proof is found (although that sounds like a shitload of effort with probably not much reward). I think the current system works decently, the only flaw I find is that most people don't background check with small trades and accidentally trade with scammers from time to time resulting in punishment. Another possible solution is to only allow trading with scammers with trades under a certain value (for example, any trades under a key or 5 keys or something ?). Again, difficult to monitor, and not much reward from that effort. Just some ideas and input on the subject. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeus_Junior
13 minutes ago, ᴏᴅʏssᴇʏ said:

I think an important factor that's missing in this thread is that changing the rules to allow people to trade with scammers really just enables scammers to trade their stolen/scammed items to a new or alt account and continue on like nothing ever happened, or even as far as scamming people on alts and sending the items to their main account for example. 

Like said before, scammers have many ways to sell their items. They have countless of throwaway alts. To do exactly what you said 😛

 

14 minutes ago, ᴏᴅʏssᴇʏ said:

Not sure if there's an overall solution that would combat this issue, but maybe marking items as stolen on backpack.tf if enough proof is found (although that sounds like a shitload of effort with probably not much reward). I think the current system works decently, the only flaw I find is that most people don't background check with small trades and accidentally trade with scammers from time to time resulting in punishment. 

Pretty sure this is way too much effort. Not only because we dont have an active dev but also because that would just take more mod time away from focussing on educating users and actually handling scamming reports.

 

16 minutes ago, ᴏᴅʏssᴇʏ said:

Another possible solution is to only allow trading with scammers with trades under a certain value (for example, any trades under a key or 5 keys or something ?). Again, difficult to monitor, and not much reward from that effort. Just some ideas and input on the subject. Thanks.

The current rules allow you to unknowingly trade with scammers <15 keys already 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
🔥Master Throne Crimson🔥

I don't see why this rule would need to be removed completely. I think if anything, modifying it is more, than enough. Ive never traded a single scammer nor alt and still fail to understand how someone does trade one multiple times. Ive accepted offers while even being drunk before and even then i background check lmao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S T E W

I believe this argument is somewhat analogous to drug use. Marijuana has been legalized at the state level in certain parts of the United States because it was a strain on prisons, etc. It is wrong of me to take a multifaceted circumstance and pull a singular piece of material from it, but I believe the green light for trading scammers would be beneficial. One, it lessens the strain on the moderation team. Two, it now allows the average Joe to profit more. Scammers already dump their items through any means possible, so why not put the money back into the economy in a positive way? Third, it allows rarer hats back into circulation, therefore having an economic multiplier effect for the economy. I'm sure there were plenty of holes in my post here, but please do try to avoid taking a moral high ground because one somehow believes an anonymous reputation on the internet will be disparaged if you upset the status quo.

 

Edit: I'm proud to see staff members understanding the reality of this. Shout out to you guys who make it all happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakminis

I think that gambling with scammers should be allowed or something. On most gambling sites like tf2hunt,you cant choose a guy to gamble with. I think that it will be super unfair to perma ban guy for just gambling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakminis

too many people got banned for unknowingly gambling with scammers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_inu

I've been for removal of the rule in private staff discussion and am for it again here in public.

 

I don't see the need for a rule that does not punish its target but rather the user who happened to make a bad trade.

Who are we really getting with these bans? The scammer who has tons of sites to unload to, tons of accounts he can buy with 10 years logged for a few bucks, tons of connections to other markets that do not respect our bans or the average Joe who happened to not background check for once?

 

Let's face it. This has not worked for SteamRep, it has not worked for Outpost and it is also not working here or anywhere else for that matter. The only one who could have prevented this would have been VALVe by issuing trade bans, which has the negative effect of locking the items away completely.

 

We are wasting a ton of time on handing out bans that prevent absolutely nothing that we could have been using on educating people in order to prevent more items being scammed to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S T E W
9 hours ago, _inu said:

I've been for removal of the rule in private staff discussion and am for it again here in public.

 

I don't see the need for a rule that does not punish its target but rather the user who happened to make a bad trade.

Who are we really getting with these bans? The scammer who has tons of sites to unload to, tons of accounts he can buy with 10 years logged for a few bucks, tons of connections to other markets that do not respect our bans or the average Joe who happened to not background check for once?

 

Let's face it. This has not worked for SteamRep, it has not worked for Outpost and it is also not working here or anywhere else for that matter. The only one who could have prevented this would have been VALVe by issuing trade bans, which has the negative effect of locking the items away completely.

 

We are wasting a ton of time on handing out bans that prevent absolutely nothing that we could have been using on educating people in order to prevent more items being scammed to begin with.

Agreed with everything you have said. It's like sex Ed movements in public schools. Educate people, and the rates of pregnancy(or in this case scamming) go down.

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...