Jump to content

Community feedback on positive trust


Teeny Tiny Cat

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

It's come up several times over the years that we should require proof in positive trust, the same way we do in negative. The issue with this has always been that there are years and years or proofless trust ratings already accumulated by hundreds to thousands of people, all of which would need to be removed if we made such a change. When I joined in 2015, this was already true, and the idea of starting over seemed way too late. The more time passes, the more true it becomes, and the harder it is to contemplate wiping the slate clean and starting over with new rules. I honestly wish I'd wiped all positive trust in 2015/16 and started over with better rules then, but it seemed like too much information to just get rid of and now here we are 6 years later still in the same situation. For that reason, I'm willing to give it more thought this time, and I want to know what the community thinks. 

 

My view on trust has always been that it's a flawed system that people need to take for what it is. It's a vouch, it gives you some information about which other people in the community have traded with or trust this person, but it shouldn't be taken as gospel. Each user ultimately has to read the content of each trust, consider who left it, consider everything else they know about the account they are considering trading with, and make their own decision about if they trust this user or not. Ultimately, there is no 100% certain way to ensure that the person you're making a cash trade with is trustworthy, even people who have never scammed in years of trading can flip and exit scam at any time, you simply need to make your own judgement of each user, trade, and situation you come across, and trust is only one tool in that calculation. 

 

Some mods feel it would be more useful with proof. I don't disagree, but I think it would have needed to be included from the start. The system should have been designed that way, and unfortunately was not. So the options we now have would be to either leave it as it is, or to begin requiring proof. If we begin requiring proof, I don't rationally see how we can allow old positive trust to remain, since it would no longer fit into what the system would be - it would be changing from a vouch system to a more proof-based system, so keeping it would simply make no sense. Someone new to the site seeing "200 positive trust" might reasonably assume that all that trust contained evidence and therefore bore more weight than it actually did, and that would not be at all fair to newer users who did not remember the old system. I am not willing to put users at risk in that way.

 

I want to know what you guys think, as the people who actively use this system. What would you prefer? What do you think would be more useful as a tool? Would you be upset to lose years of accumulated trust, or would it be worth it to improve the system? People would be free to leave backdated trust as long as they have proof saved (which I know some do in case of scam reports against them, but many more do not.)

 

Any other thoughts/comments on how to improve trust also welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could've sworn Sin talked about this a while back in the forums and I responded to him, but I can't find the original post.

Anyways, I still think trust could be split into two categories: old trust (before proof requirement) and new trust (after proof requirement).

 

Old trust would have its own page with a warning that tells users to take the information with a grain of salt and do more than just check a person's trust to determine if someone is trustworthy or not. You could also make it not count (essentially resetting the trust count but still make the old trust accessible to people that want to look at it).

 

The new trust system would count towards the trust count and require proof. A template for proof could be inserted directly into the user's trust description box, so less confusion over the new rules.

The only problem is if negative trust is given by lots of people at the same time (say 10-20 people that got exit scammed) and all those people didn't make a report AND didn't include proper proof in their trusts, all the negative trusts could get wiped. Which would mean a scammer could in theory take advantage of this.

 

As you've said in the thread, trust is flawed and only gives SOME information about a person's trustworthiness. There are multiple things to take into consideration for trustworthiness, behavior being one of the most important (but not the only criteria). Inexperienced traders will always be at risk of getting scammed no matter how many safeguards are put in place because they don't know where to look for red flags.

 

As a final note to this post, I would really like to see the join date of users for backpack.tf (the date and time someone joins backpack.tf for the first time), similar to scrap.tf.

There are lots of scammers that buy/acquire old accounts to look more reputable than they really are and it can be less obvious to people that don't use background checking tools.

I tried suggesting this to Fisk a while back, but it fell on deaf ears. I guess I'll write it here anyways just in case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Abstract, a split between old trust and new trust system would be really great. But I also wanna add a really important point, there shouldn't be trust for going first.  That's the easier way to farm rep, even if a new system is added it won't change that, unless you can't give rep to someone for going first.

 

I do think that the negative trust system should be let as is, because most of the times it helps to prevent/wary users about an scammer who hasn't been market yet, and the only downside could be a fake negative trust that would be removed in a few hours and in the worse case scenario a day or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding a way to apply proof to past +Trusts, like attaching screenshots of chat logs, trades, and cash transfers, could be beneficial to the community.

 

If the site had a larger moderator team, I'd have suggested that we have a team specifically for monitoring User Trusts to help review the screenshots submitted to the site.

 

-Trust spam is still a wee bit of a problem, but the only time it gets really bad is when a scammer is being flooded with -Trusts without any proper screenshot proof (which has happened a lot lately) except for what they claim in the trust message.

 

I reckon a requirement of at least a single screenshot for proof might help to weed out some of the false trust spammers, but it'll likely just be temporary since proof is just way too easy to fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the old trust system altogether has to go in favor of something more intuitive. "Old" trust sounds like an okay idea but also a lot of hassle for the effort it takes. 

 

If a new system was implemented there should be an image upload requirement with your complaint or you can't post a report. We're in 2021, if you have a computer or phone to trade pixel hats, you must know how to screenshot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought of an idea a while ago for cutting down on trust farming/trust4trust, where you'd need a third party to verify substantiality, like with price suggestions, but without the need for a moderator. 

 

"Anyone could accept them as evidential, if they think it follows the guidelines. You could endorse a trust rating to make it official, like a 'second' in parliamentary procedure."

 

You can change the rules to require evidence for trust ratings, keep all the old ratings in limbo, and anyone who thinks they're still within line can endorse them when going through a profile's ratings. This way old ratings can still count toward your overall score. If any endorsed ratings still lack evidence, they can just be reported like normal. If proof can be provided for old ratings, maybe there could be a "request endorsement" window, where you throw in any missing evidence and a moderator approves it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As always, too little, too late. This proposal could've been useful a couple of years ago. When this was the main way to farm trusts. And from totally empty accounts. (And Teeny and Mods were turning a blind eye to this fact in all my rejected reports).

 

Here's an example of fake trusts from 2019/2020 scammer's account: https://archive.ph/nQ9rU

  
Fast forward to 2021. Your scammer boy has grown up now. Finally realized that there's no need to fake trusts when you can just make them. 

 

Example from 2021: https://archive.ph/ARZDW

 

It has no less than five +trust from MP whitelisted sellers. Anyone wants to claim that these cash trades needed some proof? How would this proposal help for the cases like this?

 

And how exactly would this proposal help when (and no, I'm not saying "if") this account will finally do the so called "exit scam"?
Jotaro https://backpack.tf/trust/76561198003619617

 

Or how about this one with 12 +trusts from MP sellers?
Alassiâ https://backpack.tf/trust/76561198348006118 (most likely new incarnation of Esperin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just gonna put my thoughts and concerns down, not structured at all.

1. Scammers can still photoshop evidence, this happens on crypto websites a lot.  It would make it harder for sure but its not foolproof by any means


What you could try to do is make it even more harder is to combine the evidence approach with checking it against an inventory compare, this would rule out the scammer using alts easily and at the very least would make it much harder for them to coordinate.  So on each trust a compare link showing the item transaction can help to show it actually happened, plus can be checked by higher ups whether they are an alt of that account to determine whether it is fake or not.

2. Some forms of evidence can be privacy sensitive, for example payment information which would contain personal information and wouldn't want it to be public

This could be solved by what Matteomax said 

2 hours ago, Matteomax said:

Adding a way to apply proof to past +Trusts, like attaching screenshots of chat logs, trades, and cash transfers, could be beneficial to the community.

 

If the site had a larger moderator team, I'd have suggested that we have a team specifically for monitoring User Trusts to help review the screenshots submitted to the site.

 

-Trust spam is still a wee bit of a problem, but the only time it gets really bad is when a scammer is being flooded with -Trusts without any proper screenshot proof (which has happened a lot lately) except for what they claim in the trust message.

 

I reckon a requirement of at least a single screenshot for proof might help to weed out some of the false trust spammers, but it'll likely just be temporary since proof is just way too easy to fake.

 

We can have a team that essentially acts like a "Notary" that witnesses certain forms of evidence so that certain information is kept in the private.  In real life that is what the courts do to ensure evidence put forward is true.

 

2 hours ago, damnman said:

I agree with Abstract, a split between old trust and new trust system would be really great. But I also wanna add a really important point, there shouldn't be trust for going first.  That's the easier way to farm rep, even if a new system is added it won't change that, unless you can't give rep to someone for going first.

 

I do think that the negative trust system should be let as is, because most of the times it helps to prevent/wary users about an scammer who hasn't been market yet, and the only downside could be a fake negative trust that would be removed in a few hours and in the worse case scenario a day or two.


>There shouldn't be a trust for going first.

I would put an exception for certain forms of payment such as Paypal where regardless of whether you go first or not there is always the risk the buyer in the future for up to 180 days will attempt chargeback fraud. 

If someone has a trust over 6 months old for buying keys off someone that means they cannot chargeback that payment so it is good and was an honorable transaction, as Paypal lets users file chargebacks for up to 180 days after a transaction any trust for buying keys under that timeframe is worthless as they can attempt a chargeback in that time period. This is irrespective of whether they went first or not.



Trust is and always will be only an indicator of trustworthiness, it doesn't prove they are trustworthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, D.Alex said:

As always, too little, too late.

Better late than never. Lets try to be more positive towards bp.tf staff when they actually do something/consider something for the better and leave brutal criticism to when they just don't do anything, afterall why not, we got nothing to lose from doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the core question is

 

What is rep?

 

If you are trying to make cash rep, you need more rules and quite a lot of the old trust means very little.

 

Is rep about being 'trustworthy' or is rep about not scamming.?

 

I'll submit whatever the heck the -rep I've got is as an example of a rep with less than nothing to do with scamming.

Hey I even left one recently cause someone wouldn't honor a buy order (same deal, its not a scam).

I've seen -rep for reselling renamed/descriptioned items on SCM.

I've seen -rep for suspected buy order shilling.

I've seen -rep for sharking

 

What are the bounds for rep? Any action on steam? Cash trade? Any trade?

Lets say I see someone use a slur on a server, can I -rep them?

How about C/O lies? In classies? On Server? Via Chat?

Lets say I see someone lie about a price on a server, trade their own bot for that item at that price and act like they actually made the transaction, -rep?

 

Right now there is a massive grey area of ill defined things that sometimes result in rep + and - that aren't easy to understand or the same.

The tutorial is 3 lines and in dire need of expanded cases, even if the system remains the same.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the slate being wiped clean and replaced with a new system.

 

You can possibly implement a feature that puts all +trusts in limbo for a period of time while giving users the ability to flag +trusts that contain evidence to be placed back on their profile before permanently deleting the old trusts or placing them elsewhere.

 

While the notion that scammers can fake trades, no system is truly flawless. As D.Alex pointed out the old system is easily exploitable, so making it more difficult to abuse is a step in the right direction, even if that means removing or relocating old trusts that do not contain sufficient evidence.

 

Also defining what qualifies as sufficient evidence in a +trust should be discussed partly with the community before being implemented. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have well over 100,000+ (haven’t re-counted for a while) keys worth of trust, 230+, I cash trade pretty much everyday and frequently a lot per day, I update rep after every transaction even for a single key, adding proof every time would be a hassle, but if I have to do it I will, no choice.
 

Scammers will always be able to scam and will always find ways. They could still fake rep, do a cash trade with an alt and provide proof of them sending cash to one of their other say crypto wallets or whatever platform they’re using. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
5 hours ago, D.Alex said:

As always, too little, too late. This proposal could've been useful a couple of years ago. When this was the main way to farm trusts. And from totally empty accounts. (And Teeny and Mods were turning a blind eye to this fact in all my rejected reports).

 

Here's an example of fake trusts from 2019/2020 scammer's account: https://archive.ph/nQ9rU

  
Fast forward to 2021. Your scammer boy has grown up now. Finally realized that there's no need to fake trusts when you can just make them. 

 

Example from 2021: https://archive.ph/ARZDW

 

It has no less than five +trust from MP whitelisted sellers. Anyone wants to claim that these cash trades needed some proof? How would this proposal help for the cases like this?

 

And how exactly would this proposal help when (and no, I'm not saying "if") this account will finally do the so called "exit scam"?
Jotaro https://backpack.tf/trust/76561198003619617

 

Or how about this one with 12 +trusts from MP sellers?
Alassiâ https://backpack.tf/trust/76561198348006118 (most likely new incarnation of Esperin

 

I honestly wish I'd pushed devs to wipe trust and start over with new rules in 2015, but as I said... it felt like it was too late then and it's an ever growing problem with no good solution, which is why I'm asking what the community thinks. Not quite sure how your post is helpful. I'll also note that I've been suggesting that you join the mod team since 2019 or before, and you have consistently refused, so if you're unwilling to help us or actually get involved, then your criticism bears less weight.

 

I'll let discussion go for a bit and respond to specific ideas later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just no, sounds nice and all but as more as you think about it as more broken it gets.

 

1.

If i have to take screenshots of the PayPal transaction then i am FORCED to blur out the name, e-mail, etc. because of privacy. Most people who sold me items, mostly have an e-mail with their real life name, some even have selfies, and very few even an address. If i blur that out then it pretty much could be a fake too. Could be a payment i sent to my mom instead of actually buying keys, you get my point here... 

 

2.

Removing all the trusts screws people who already traded for ages. Fraud will just use an alt account and leave a fake screenshot with a fake rep as back in the days. Legit people start at 0 again and have the hassle to redo all this again.

 

3.

Who takes care of all of this? Don't get me wrong here but we already have reports/suggestions that are open for MONTHS which pretty much means it's already enough work for the staff. Now you wanna add more work for them? Who takes care of this? If this "project" gets as ignored as some reports/suggestions do, then the whole hassle was for nothing, just here to screw the people who do cash trades for ages. 

 

4.

People are lazy, i can't tell you how often i added people to fill out a report here and there and they just don't want to because "to much time". Now i have to ask people to make proper screenshots about the transaction and post it, which pretty much brings us back to the first point but lets forget that. The more important thing is that prolly 90% of all those screenshots aren't even valid in the first place, you prolly know that since you are a report admin and the amount of "meh screenshots" speak for itself. 

 

5.

The trust system doesn't mean that the person is save to trade. You as well said that yourself and you can't change that and i am not blaming you for this, neither should anyone else. It's just how it is. You are prolly long enough in the community to know that people just became mod to go on an exit scamspree back in the days. Even greenshielded SteamREP accounts did that. Few months ago a guy in a cs-go trading discord acted all nice and good. Became friends with few mods just to perform an exit scam after some time. You can't look into people.

 

There are for sure more points that speak against it that currently don't pop up in my mind but those mentioned ones should be enough to have some sort of a picture. 

 

 

Few ideas:

The thing that could be done here is by telling people to not leave a rep if there is no risk involved. Sounds logical, yes? But i can't tell you how often i see the rep "Once i recieved his item x i send him the funds, no issues, would trade with him again". I have talked about this for hours with an Admin and we both agree on how useless those reps actually are. And this isn't an issue from people who might be new in the trading scene who don't know better, vetran traders do that, even the mods here do that. Everyone here is to blame. 

 

Aaand prolly the most important thing is to make people aware that the trust system isn't the holy bible. Make a notification when opening the trust tab that trusts aren't here to garuntee 100% safety including that it is recommend to read the trusts yourself. You have to judge yourself if it's good or not because this is one of the biggest issues so far. You can hide the number on the profile page so people are FORCED to click on the "trust" button. People right now just see, "ahh 15 trusts, good to go, dont even read into it, meanwhile all those trusts are from reptuable traders/staff with exactly the same issue i brought up above "sold them 10 keys on Paypal. they went first. very communicative and kind! +rep can highly recommend ^w^" -> few months later, exit scam. 

 

The staff team could start to make very few "sample" checks, like requesting proof for certain trusts via site. Not a perfect idea but something at least. 

 

If you have watched a bit into the scene recently, the scammer meta rn is -> make a new account -> add staff and/or reputable traders -> sell them a handfull of keys -> get rep -> wait some time -> scam people -> repeat 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NineDevil said:

Just no, sounds nice and all but as more as you think about it as more broken it gets.

 

1.

If i have to take screenshots of the PayPal transaction then i am FORCED to blur out the name, e-mail, etc. because of privacy. Most people who sold me items, mostly have an e-mail with their real life name, some even have selfies, and very few even an address. If i blur that out then it pretty much could be a fake too. Could be a payment i sent to my mom instead of actually buying keys, you get my point here... 

 

2.

Removing all the trusts screws people who already traded for ages. Fraud will just use an alt account and leave a fake screenshot with a fake rep as back in the days. Legit people start at 0 again and have the hassle to redo all this again.

 

3.

Who takes care of all of this? Don't get me wrong here but we already have reports/suggestions that are open for MONTHS which pretty much means it's already enough work for the staff. Now you wanna add more work for them? Who takes care of this? If this "project" gets as ignored as some reports/suggestions do, then the whole hassle was for nothing, just here to screw the people who do cash trades for ages. 

 

4.

People are lazy, i can't tell you how often i added people to fill out a report here and there and they just don't want to because "to much time". Now i have to ask people to make proper screenshots about the transaction and post it, which pretty much brings us back to the first point but lets forget that. The more important thing is that prolly 90% of all those screenshots aren't even valid in the first place, you prolly know that since you are a report admin and the amount of "meh screenshots" speak for itself. 

 

5.

The trust system doesn't mean that the person is save to trade. You as well said that yourself and you can't change that and i am not blaming you for this, neither should anyone else. It's just how it is. You are prolly long enough in the community to know that people just became mod to go on an exit scamspree back in the days. Even greenshielded SteamREP accounts did that. Few months ago a guy in a cs-go trading discord acted all nice and good. Became friends with few mods just to perform an exit scam after some time. You can't look into people.

 

There are for sure more points that speak against it that currently don't pop up in my mind but those mentioned ones should be enough to have some sort of a picture. 

 

 

Few ideas:

The thing that could be done here is by telling people to not leave a rep if there is no risk involved. Sounds logical, yes? But i can't tell you how often i see the rep "Once i recieved his item x i send him the funds, no issues, would trade with him again". I have talked about this for hours with an Admin and we both agree on how useless those reps actually are. And this isn't an issue from people who might be new in the trading scene who don't know better, vetran traders do that, even the mods here do that. Everyone here is to blame. 

 

Aaand prolly the most important thing is to make people aware that the trust system isn't the holy bible. Make a notification when opening the trust tab that trusts aren't here to garuntee 100% safety including that it is recommend to read the trusts yourself. You have to judge yourself if it's good or not because this is one of the biggest issues so far. You can hide the number on the profile page so people are FORCED to click on the "trust" button. People right now just see, "ahh 15 trusts, good to go, dont even read into it, meanwhile all those trusts are from reptuable traders/staff with exactly the same issue i brought up above "sold them 10 keys on Paypal. they went first. very communicative and kind! +rep can highly recommend ^w^" -> few months later, exit scam. 

 

The staff team could start to make very few "sample" checks, like requesting proof for certain trusts via site. Not a perfect idea but something at least. 

 

If you have watched a bit into the scene recently, the scammer meta rn is -> make a new account -> add staff and/or reputable traders -> sell them a handfull of keys -> get rep -> wait some time -> scam people -> repeat 

Mmmminstead of changing the system to require proof, perhaps they should add some warning when someone has suddenly gained a suspiciously high amount of trust, to beware. We already have a warning for people who are being impersonated afterall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who's been PayPal trading for 8-9 years and keeps proof of every trade I make, I feel this won't really help very much. 
 

Quote

Ultimately, there is no 100% certain way to ensure that the person you're making a cash trade with is trustworthy, even people who have never scammed in years of trading can flip and exit scam at any time, you simply need to make your own judgement of each user, trade, and situation you come across, and trust is only one tool in that calculation. 


I completely agree with this, you shouldn't be jumping head first into a trade without looking more into a trader. However I don't see how requiring proof will change this. I think the major problem isn't the trust system itself but rather safe trading education. As others in this thread have mentioned, scammers will often just create a new account, make a few trades with reputable traders where they go first to build some rep, and will begin scamming when they acquire a small amount of rep. Nothing really changes if you require proof for these users' trust since these will have been successful trades. Considering these users can chargeback for up to 180 days, trusting anyone who only has recent rep with a large amount of money would be a mistake.


As mentioned, I do have proof to support every trade of mine but there are many who won't and I would absolutely be upset if I lost trust dating back 6 years. This happened to me and thousands of others in the past when sites like tf2-trader and MCT went down, and it wasn't easy to get back onto our feet. Completely wiping trust doesn't make any sense at all to me.
 

How would leaving backdated trust even work? We'd have to go hunt down traders, many who have probably quit trading years ago and request they leave the rep again. Would you have the option to pull rep from our old threads to provide proof? Who would need to provide the proof? Would the user leaving the rep need to post it, as I feel traders won't really care to do this. It could work if the user receiving the trust needs to provide the proof before the rep becomes public. And as Nine said, this is not an easy task for staff, who would have the time to verify every trust posted? I also wouldn't feel comfortable posting other users' personal information since they haven't and probably wouldn't consent. But if we can censor their personal information, then it just makes it way too easy to provide fake proof.
 

As others have mentioned, users who're selling items and going first, probably shouldn't be receiving rep since there isn't much trust involved on their part. Lots of the trust posted doesn't mention who went first so maybe require that you indicate whether the user went first/second. Ex. 
IK4ugab.png


Warnings could also be added if new traders start building some trust. Maybe after a user's first trust rep, you have an x month warning(preferably 6 months) on their profile indicating that this trader's rep is new and you shouldn't just rely on their rep since they still have up to 180 days to chargeback. This is something many traders don't know.


Although every trader should be collecting proof of all their trades, I don't think that requiring proof of every trade will accomplish much. However if a trust's validity is questioned, a trader should be absolutely be able to defend it with proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pride myself on my rep, and I know many other users do, the idea that I could wake up one day and that whole system changes and I dont have one of the most impressive cash rep threads on the platform....as the heavy would say "it scares me", scares me this is even something that is up for consideration. 

 

I dont hate,  no double sided proof to a degree, however;

 

If I bought a backpack and the user I bought it from went first, I get the rep, not that user. But with that same logic, how is that user ever going to obtain rep? Its already hard enough to get trusted, many of us are grandfathered into rep, we've been apart of the community for years and forget what it was like to build that rep, and it was probably easier back then because scam tactics and cash scammers weren't as complex as they are now.

 

"We" right now are potentially making changes that will effect all traders who have spent years of there lives collecting rep, building there business and creating a positive name for themselves, as well as effect all traders that will want to start building rep from the start.

 

Most traders live in a sense of fear, don't trade with this user, check rep, check histories, watch out, because your rep is never something that is immortal I can lose my rep by scamming someone, all of it, for a 1 key scam, or claim a banned tag on Backpack for trading with a user for not checking there rep, I think that's enough fear to live with, enough rules to follow and I agree with those rules. 

 

I did nothing wrong, I traded with banned  user, I didn't scam a user, why on earth is my rep in question of getting taken away, because the system isn't perfect? 

 

Admins, Mods and traders alike have all bore the weight of educating the new and noob generation of traders to avoid scams and scammers. So long as trading person to person is a thing, there will always be scams, and we will always have to keep educating and keeping an eye out, to the benefit of us all.

 

Educating users that backpack.tf rep is flawed only diminishes the rep we've all obtained, as if there is a chance it was obtained fraudulently.

 

The main only problem I see, is that users AREN'T checking rep, they aren't reading the reps, they just see the number and think they're trust worthy.

 

Why not force them to read it, put it right in there fucken face, slap a window that displays the first page of rep, in a small rectangle with its own scroll bar, if people dont read it then, well its on them.

 

backpack.tfnew.thumb.JPG.7a23f51bbcfee15ea63bbe75393b795a.JPG

 

 

Make it the same size as "History and Filters" and have it look just like " This user is often impersonated by scammers" but have it be their rep with a lil scroll bar to see the 1st page of rep, and then have a hyper link to the users rep.


Trust / Rep shouldn't be this tiny little number or this tiny little "Trust" word in the top corner of the page. I like talking to new users and helping new users (mostly people I know in real life) and all of them think backpack.tfs interface is extremely intimidating and hard to find what you want. Well make it so that  trust is something a user can't possibly miss.

I am all for helping new users and all for helping users not getting scammed, but Im not going to sign onto something that throws my rep and everyone's rep out the window because some noob didn't feel it was necessary to read a users rep to verify that it looks legit.

 

That doesn't get rid of the false rep and exist scam problem, but to avoid that, make it so that rep displays as Yellow if its obtained less then 6 months, give users who build rep a trial  period they can still obtain rep, but all positive rep displays as yellow and any negative rep (with proof) gets pinged to an admin and they handle it, and ban a user from using the trust function if they earn themselves a negative rep in the "probation period"

 

The 2nd idea is more spit balling, but slapping the rep directly on a users backpack, forces people to see it, the system will never be perfect but thats probably as good as it could get. 

 

- God help us all

 

Wayne 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Perhaps only require proof for large trades. 

 

The issue with proof is it would take a lot of work and most users likely wouldn't even bother.

Example: I need to blur X Y Z but what if the proof sort of requires I need part of X? How long is this going to take me? Fuck it, I just won't give rep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I understand I don't have any insane amount of positive trust nor a big sized bp compared to other people who have replied on this thread and have years of cash rep. But about the topic of "No trust for going first" , what if I am a completely new steam account who got into tf2 trading and I buy some keys for a non backtrack able payment method like crypto or UPI I pay the guy discussed amount and get my keys , here I ofc went first cause I am a new account without any trust with not much tf2 or steam stuff in-general. I +trust the guy for giving me my keys for what I paid but then how am I supposed to get trusts. If there is no trust for going first as suggested by some people in this thread.
For a general example lets go with Braxol  he has 250+ trusts and an 70k +$ backpack his +trusts from 5-6 years ago around 10 are for going first now imagine if he never got any trust for these 10 cash transcations do you think he would have been able to get the 250 trust that he has now? cause then everyone would've expected him to go first right and he would never get any sizeable trust. Not saying you should write "trusty guy he went first I can trust him with my life" but if there is no trust for going first how is an normal new accout gonna get any valid cash trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 1/15/2022 at 6:32 AM, Breacher said:

But about the topic of "No trust for going first" ,

Trust for going first is valid because you should read the ratings and not just trust the number 

If someone has 10 ratings and they’re all for going first, you should make a judgement call there if you want to go first or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Zeus_Junior said:

Trust for going first is valid

I was responding to suggestions like this 👇

 

On 11/16/2021 at 9:16 PM, Tony Reigns said:

As others have mentioned, users who're selling items and going first, probably shouldn't be receiving rep since there isn't much trust involved on their part.

On 11/16/2021 at 7:38 AM, Goldman Sachs said:

There shouldn't be a trust for going first.

On 11/16/2021 at 4:10 AM, damnman said:

there shouldn't be trust for going first.  That's the easier way to farm rep, even if a new system is added it won't change that, unless you can't give rep to someone for going first.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...