New Rule For Repeated Premium Abuse

[SirDapper]

It goes without saying that BP Premium is a powerful tool, if you possess it, searching for recent unboxes is easy. It's beneficial in searching for specific chase items when new events drop.

However, there has been an uptick in bad actors using this tool to approach new players/unboxers which often leads to them receiving these items for current b/o or right above it.

So what's the problem?

Items Targeted

While yes, they are offering above b/o, they are consistently targeting things such as new hats/effects from events and warpaints. 
- New hats/effects historically start with low b/o. These b/o will climb over time in most cases until they reach a stable point, sometimes items unboxed are so new they don't possess b/o at all and it's free range.
- Warpaints are in a worse case. Normally they tend to be lower to non-existent due to variations and the hardsell nature of some. Though when they do sell they can sell for a lot at full. Experienced traders can often gauge full value.
Those are the main issues with those items specifically listed.

Players Targeted
The main issue is that the premium users approach first. When they seek out these users, a majority of the time they are new players unaware of the economy or sites like bp.tf. This gives the trader an instant advantage.
- A lack of knowledge of these sites allows the traders to convince the user of what their item is worth. These new unboxers, or Little Timmys as I will refer to them often seek advice from the premium trader for their item's value, allowing them to suggest b/o.

- Often repeat offenders will fall on the argument of "Well I offered and they liked it" This is a weak argument. If Little Timmy spent 15 keys unboxing and someone offered 100 keys, they wouldn't question it and would take the profit, without realizing the premium user flipped it for ~800 keys within 24 hours.
                   - The problem is Timmy got rinsed, that 100 key b/o is now worth 260 and that hat recently sold for well over 800 pure and is being listed for 2000+ (I'm using a recent situation with the sapped legendary lid as an example)
                   - "We can't predict the future, we take losses" You're right, no one can. However, if you are aware enough of the market, you know the average prices for similar items, and you know how much you can theoretically get, in most cases guaranteeing profit.
- There are many more examples of this happening countless times to many traders, and more often than not it's the same group of individuals.

Repeat Offenses
This is where the boat gets rocky. While premium again, can be used for people to occasionally score deals, there are often a select number of individuals who go out of their way to use this method a bit too frequently.
- (Opinion) I believe if someone does it occasionally without the intention of flipping but keeping said item, it is fine. This can fall under collections or buying items for personal use.
- If someone buys many random items and instantly lists them, this is where the line is drawn. No number can truly be placed but intention should be easy to spot.

B/O
This is a grey area, I believe if a b/o is placed, and the user approaches the b/o to dump, it is fine.
- This whole reasoning comes from intention, if the user consciously uses the site and decides to dump to b/o, that's the b/o being used as intended. It only becomes a real issue when the buyer approaches the unboxer.
- Disguising intentions. There are several cases where these users will place b/o before going in for the kill to cover their tracks. Often leading to them using their b/o to coax the user into selling to them. While this can be hard to identify, it does happen and would require approaching the seller to get said info.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I propose

I believe there should be a rule in place that works as follows:

If a user is caught continuously targeting fresh unboxers through premium to pay at or near b/o, they should face a premium ban.
Continuous implies a repeated pattern of targeting the listed items above and more that source from new accounts/non-traders that they approached first. 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Counter Points

1. Users get unbalanced trades all the time in trade servers, how is this different?
   - When a user joins a trade server, they are directly interacting with the market and are at least aware of it, if they make a mistake there it was their choice to interact with the market. These unboxers aren't given a choice and are often thrown into negotiations with little to no knowledge. 

2. It gets the item into the market and they're happy with what they sold it for, who cares?
   - We should truthfully care, again it wasn't their intention to get into the market. The item would eventually find its way to the market if someone wanted it.
   - This also goes back to my point about personal use, if someone wants it they should approach the unboxer, but more often than not I see new items listed by the same 5 accounts that aren't unboxing themselves.
   - Even if the user is happy at the moment from what they got, they will eventually realize they were swindled and regret their decision heavily. 

3. What if they find them in casual?
   - Same thing, the user never asked to be a part of the trading community.

 

4. What if they make an alt, what's stopping them?
   - That would fall under ban evasion, and it would be obvious to tell if a user is continuing these actions through their listings and talking to the unboxers. 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Conclusion

I believe these actions should face repercussions, and many people have voiced their agreement as well. More often than not these bad actors will simply claim users like us are just mad we didn't get the deal. I disagree, I believe the trading community should be more open and welcoming to those lucky enough to unbox something great. Instead, we are currently allowing and encouraging users to hunt down these new unboxers like sport by not taking action. I believe we should condemn this type of behavior, and I think many will agree. Rules should be made regarding the continued abuse of premium features, at least to moderate bad actors. 
Now I'm not saying ban everyone who uses premium or reduce the features of it. I'm simply asking that action be taken against those bad actors who continuously abuse the feature to target the vulnerable. This shouldn't affect 99% of traders out there but protects countless unboxers.

 

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

[RussellSproutz]

21 minutes ago, SirDapper said:

It goes without saying that BP Premium is a powerful tool, if you possess it, searching for recent unboxes is easy. It's beneficial in searching for specific chase items when new events drop.

However, there has been an uptick in bad actors using this tool to approach new players/unboxers which often leads to them receiving these items for current b/o or right above it.

So what's the problem?

Items Targeted

While yes, they are offering above b/o, they are consistently targeting things such as new hats/effects from events and warpaints. 
- New hats/effects historically start with low b/o. These b/o will climb over time in most cases until they reach a stable point, sometimes items unboxed are so new they don't possess b/o at all and it's free range.
- Warpaints are in a worse case. Normally they tend to be lower to non-existent due to variations and the hardsell nature of some. Though when they do sell they can sell for a lot at full. Experienced traders can often gauge full value.
Those are the main issues with those items specifically listed.

Players Targeted
The main issue is that the premium users approach first. When they seek out these users, a majority of the time they are new players unaware of the economy or sites like bp.tf. This gives the trader an instant advantage.
- A lack of knowledge of these sites allows the traders to convince the user of what their item is worth. These new unboxers, or Little Timmys as I will refer to them often seek advice from the premium trader for their item's value, allowing them to suggest b/o.

- Often repeat offenders will fall on the argument of "Well I offered and they liked it" This is a weak argument. If Little Timmy spent 15 keys unboxing and someone offered 100 keys, they wouldn't question it and would take the profit, without realizing the premium user flipped it for ~800 keys within 24 hours.
                   - The problem is Timmy got rinsed, that 100 key b/o is now worth 260 and that hat recently sold for well over 800 pure and is being listed for 2000+ (I'm using a recent situation with the sapped legendary lid as an example)
                   - "We can't predict the future, we take losses" You're right, no one can. However, if you are aware enough of the market, you know the average prices for similar items, and you know how much you can theoretically get, in most cases guaranteeing profit.
- There are many more examples of this happening countless times to many traders, and more often than not it's the same group of individuals.

Repeat Offenses
This is where the boat gets rocky. While premium again, can be used for people to occasionally score deals, there are often a select number of individuals who go out of their way to use this method a bit too frequently.
- (Opinion) I believe if someone does it occasionally without the intention of flipping but keeping said item, it is fine. This can fall under collections or buying items for personal use.
- If someone buys many random items and instantly lists them, this is where the line is drawn. No number can truly be placed but intention should be easy to spot.

B/O
This is a grey area, I believe if a b/o is placed, and the user approaches the b/o to dump, it is fine.
- This whole reasoning comes from intention, if the user consciously uses the site and decides to dump to b/o, that's the b/o being used as intended. It only becomes a real issue when the buyer approaches the unboxer.
- Disguising intentions. There are several cases where these users will place b/o before going in for the kill to cover their tracks. Often leading to them using their b/o to coax the user into selling to them. While this can be hard to identify, it does happen and would require approaching the seller to get said info.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I propose

I believe there should be a rule in place that works as follows:

If a user is caught continuously targeting fresh unboxers through premium to pay at or near b/o, they should face a premium ban.
Continuous implies a repeated pattern of targeting the listed items above and more that source from new accounts/non-traders that they approached first. 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Counter Points

1. Users get unbalanced trades all the time in trade servers, how is this different?
   - When a user joins a trade server, they are directly interacting with the market and are at least aware of it, if they make a mistake there it was their choice to interact with the market. These unboxers aren't given a choice and are often thrown into negotiations with little to no knowledge. 

2. It gets the item into the market and they're happy with what they sold it for, who cares?
   - We should truthfully care, again it wasn't their intention to get into the market. The item would eventually find its way to the market if someone wanted it.
   - This also goes back to my point about personal use, if someone wants it they should approach the unboxer, but more often than not I see new items listed by the same 5 accounts that aren't unboxing themselves.
   - Even if the user is happy at the moment from what they got, they will eventually realize they were swindled and regret their decision heavily. 

3. What if they find them in casual?
   - Same thing, the user never asked to be a part of the trading community.

 

4. What if they make an alt, what's stopping them?
   - That would fall under ban evasion, and it would be obvious to tell if a user is continuing these actions through their listings and talking to the unboxers. 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Conclusion

I believe these actions should face repercussions, and many people have voiced their agreement as well. More often than not these bad actors will simply claim users like us are just mad we didn't get the deal. I disagree, I believe the trading community should be more open and welcoming to those lucky enough to unbox something great. Instead, we are currently allowing and encouraging users to hunt down these new unboxers like sport by not taking action. I believe we should condemn this type of behavior, and I think many will agree. Rules should be made regarding the continued abuse of premium features, at least to moderate bad actors. 
Now I'm not saying ban everyone who uses premium or reduce the features of it. I'm simply asking that action be taken against those bad actors who continuously abuse the feature to target the vulnerable. This shouldn't affect 99% of traders out there but protects countless unboxers.

 

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

Ngl backpack premium is a glorified item scanner database such as the ones back in the day like hatsdb, and gibhatpls to name a few, SirDapper.

 

Thanks for giving your extensive take.

 

 

[Breacher]

isnt determining whats "continously targeting fresh unboxes" a bit subjective

[SirDapper]

1 minute ago, Breacher said:

isnt determining whats "continously targeting fresh unboxes" a bit subjective

 

I'm of the personal belief that it's more objective than subjective. You can see patterns between some users who go out of their way to partake in that specific action. Targeting those only inexperienced within the tf2 trading scene.

[FishtheFish]

24 minutes ago, SirDapper said:

 

I'm of the personal belief that it's more objective than subjective. You can see patterns between some users who go out of their way to partake in that specific action. Targeting those only inexperienced within the tf2 trading scene.

I think what Breacher is saying is that it would be better to suggest a clear guideline and a reason for the clear guideline. What constitutes "targeting?" 20 fresh unbox trades? 15? 30? Which number did you choose and why? When a limit is established, it allows for a more consistent application of the proposed rule.

[SirDapper]

3 minutes ago, FishtheFish said:

I think what Breacher is saying is that it would be better to suggest a clear guideline and a reason for the clear guideline. What constitutes "targeting?" 20 fresh unbox trades? 15? 30? Which number did you choose and why? When a limit is established, it allows for a more consistent application of the proposed rule.

So my counterpoint to that is that if you give a number, they will go right below it, these users are already known for finessing the rules to the point where they can get away with these actions unscathed.  
If I say 15, they do 14, if I say 5, they do 4. I think it should be up to the jurisdiction of bp.tf staff if they notice a repeated and trackable pattern. I think anyone can notice these patterns occurring between a handful of users.

If a hard number was needed, I would say 5 per month, as someone genuinely waiting for things to get unboxed won't get hit in the crossfire. However, this will again, just lead bad actors to do it 4 times per month. 
If a bp.tf member notices a pattern however and takes action, then the user can submit evidence and proof to counter said claims if they are truly innocent.

By defining the rules so strictly, in many cases, bad actors have been given more leeway and power on the website to circumvent the rules. At least, this is what I've noticed occur more frequently lately.

[FishtheFish]

33 minutes ago, SirDapper said:

If a hard number was needed, I would say 5 per month, as someone genuinely waiting for things to get unboxed won't get hit in the crossfire. However, this will again, just lead bad actors to do it 4 times per month. 
If a bp.tf member notices a pattern however and takes action, then the user can submit evidence and proof to counter said claims if they are truly innocent.

By defining the rules so strictly, in many cases, bad actors have been given more leeway and power on the website to circumvent the rules. At least, this is what I've noticed occur more frequently lately.

But the rules aren't being circumvented if the limit is 5 per month and they do 4 per month? That seems pretty clearly within the proposed rules.

 

Also fair disclaimer I'm not a report mod and I am probably worse at making decisions and forming opinions for rules-related discussions, but isn't the rules being so nebulous right now exactly why they can get away so much? If we set a hard rule at 15 per lifetime and they go 14, the next time is a ban. There is no clear rule about uneven trades (unless there's evidence of deceiving behavior in Steam DMs or whatever- but that's neither here nor there), which is why you see them happen over and over again.

[SirDapper]

9 minutes ago, FishtheFish said:

But the rules aren't being circumvented if the limit is 5 per month and they do 4 per month? That seems pretty clearly within the proposed rules.

 

Also fair disclaimer I'm not a report mod and I am probably worse at making decisions and forming opinions for rules-related discussions, but isn't the rules being so nebulous right now exactly why they can get away so much? If we set a hard rule at 15 per lifetime and they go 14, the next time is a ban. There is no clear rule about uneven trades (unless there's evidence of deceiving behavior in Steam DMs or whatever- but that's neither here nor there), which is why you see them happen over and over again.

While you are correct about the uneven trade rules, the rules generally stem from "Is it below or above b/o" In most cases, these users will buy right above b/o but on items with short-term low buy orders due to circumstances. They can't be persecuted due to that stipulation as they always default to "well it was above b/o" making the rule less of a way to stop individuals from making these trades, and instead giving them a line to toe across so they don't get banned.

If we take your suggestion of "well if they do 4 it's still pretty clear" will raise hell and cause these bad actors to flip out and say "Well the rule says 5 and I only did 4". Putting that hard number down just gives them a counter. Where if the rules are more ambiguous in this case, more action can be taken, and again, the user can appeal if needed. It's a tough decision but I think it would be beneficial to stay grey and allow the moderation team to look into cases and come to conclusions themselves. 

[FishtheFish]

3 minutes ago, SirDapper said:

While you are correct about the uneven trade rules, the rules generally stem from "Is it below or above b/o" In most cases, these users will buy right above b/o but on items with short-term low buy orders due to circumstances. They can't be persecuted due to that stipulation as they always default to "well it was above b/o" making the rule less of a way to stop individuals from making these trades, and instead giving them a line to toe across so they don't get banned.

If we take your suggestion of "well if they do 4 it's still pretty clear" will raise hell and cause these bad actors to flip out and say "Well the rule says 5 and I only did 4". Putting that hard number down just gives them a counter. Where if the rules are more ambiguous in this case, more action can be taken, and again, the user can appeal if needed. It's a tough decision but I think it would be beneficial to stay grey and allow the moderation team to look into cases and come to conclusions themselves. 

Now here's something I'm more qualified to speak about. Above/below BOs is kind of a horrible metric. It's not even that uncommon that BOs are paying so much, that people dump their crap to them en masse: https://backpack.tf/suggestion/658dcf14931d901d1d001c6e#comment-658e2ffe53d050999c0b4055  https://backpack.tf/suggestion/6593d4e997f0d0f9dd0bf602#comment-659a68411267b20d200300a8. In both of these cases, no way in hell I would have paid what bots are paying. I have even received item overpay offers in which I valued items like these below buyers if I felt the buyers were fickle and could drop by the time we settle on a deal. This is why I agree with more clear rules in the first place; "above/below buy orders" is clear as mud and I would argue can even make deception easier.

 

As for the counter- let 'em have it so long as it's within the rules. I don't know what the true perfect number should be, or why it should be. But I also think that on the other hand, this makes it harder for sharks to appeal. "The rules clearly state 5 shark-esque trades, and you did exactly 5: here, here, here, here, and here. Appeal denied byeeeeeeeeeeeeee"

[SirDapper]

3 minutes ago, FishtheFish said:

Now here's something I'm more qualified to speak about. Above/below BOs is kind of a horrible metric. It's not even that uncommon that BOs are paying so much, that people dump their crap to them en masse: https://backpack.tf/suggestion/658dcf14931d901d1d001c6e#comment-658e2ffe53d050999c0b4055  https://backpack.tf/suggestion/6593d4e997f0d0f9dd0bf602#comment-659a68411267b20d200300a8. In both of these cases, no way in hell I would have paid what bots are paying. I have even received item overpay offers in which I valued items like these below buyers if I felt the buyers were fickle and could drop by the time we settle on a deal. This is why I agree with more clear rules in the first place; "above/below buy orders" is clear as mud and I would argue can even make deception easier.

 

As for the counter- let 'em have it so long as it's within the rules. I don't know what the true perfect number should be, or why it should be. But I also think that on the other hand, this makes it harder for sharks to appeal. "The rules clearly state 5 shark-esque trades, and you did exactly 5: here, here, here, here, and here. Appeal denied byeeeeeeeeeeeeee"

While items like the ones you provided have much more solid buy orders, I explained in the initial post how the buy order abuse is achieved (warpaints/new unusuals). However, they still use b/os as a way to feign innocence. 
If we want to put a number down, I could see 5 trades targeting new unboxers within a 6-month window. While I still think they will do 4 and go "I'm innocent" It should heavily reduce the number of members that partake in these actions, and if they use alts they can be easily tracked. As long as some action is taken to prevent this from happening as frequently as it does I, alongside many others, will be satisfied.

[N.J]

7 hours ago, SirDapper said:

What I propose

I believe there should be a rule in place that works as follows:

If a user is caught continuously targeting fresh unboxers through premium to pay at or near b/o, they should face a premium ban.
Continuous implies a repeated pattern of targeting the listed items above and more that source from new accounts/non-traders that they approached first. 

 

 

The majority of sharks happen to people with new hats or war paints primarily because their pricing is barely established. Most new items don't have buy orders at all until someone lists them on backpack. Added to that, there is such a thing as buy orders being "too high". There isn't a good objective benchmark to form the basis of a concrete rule but this is also why abc is able to run rings around bp staff in issues. Imo it needs a common sense approach that takes a range of factors in, and should utilise a warning system (with exception for extreme cases).

[Norah]

I think it's one of those things that staff seem to want to be in place but it's just difficult to quantify. It's been a few years since the ability to just search for Unusual effects via Premium was blocked off and that was a pretty huge move at the time. But as you say, if the limit is hard-set at say, 5, bad actors will just leave it at 4. It's too much subjectivity for a site that is kinda notorious for operating by-the-book.

 

I really would love to see it, I know several people who will open a few cases during event season but don't know the first thing about trading. And every one of them has unboxed an Unusual and been approached by some scuzzball trying to take advantage of them. (When it's something good, anyway. Suspiciously these individuals will never offer for Little Timmy's freshly unboxed Steaming Warhood).

[Relish]

Lets talk about a blud who copped a Sapped Lightning Lid for like... ermmm under 100 keys and then like ermmm sold it for like several hundreds of keys like infinite money glitch via loophole in da matrix like moderator AI can't compute such an exploit

[hollowka]

Like I said in a similiar post. We are not the guardian angels to defend new traders. If you unbox something, you have the facilities aka internet and dedicated websites to item pricing, also a shit ton of traders with experience to ask from. Nobody going to be like go away I don't have to talk to you, in the worst case scenario they will say to wait for sales, or list it for a price you would take and wait for offers. If you dumb enough to get sharked, aka getting added instantly after unboxing something and selling it right away its your own fault.

 

Help yourself, and God will help you.

[Littlepudintater]

How about anyone who sharks on premium has their IP publicly displayed and they have to pay you to remove it then you can still get money from them!!!!!

[Flaim]

1 hour ago, hollowka said:

Like I said in a similiar post. We are not the guardian angels to defend new traders.

 

I tend to hold this mentality pretty aggressively too. However, it is a huge shame to see a case like abc's where he was able to get away with what... 10? 20? in one single event?? That's wild and egregious. So I do support the idea of some official rule so that we can at least have some sort of punishment for a case like that.

 

I really enjoy Dapper's idea of revoking premium access. I don't know how aggressively they can do that- can they restrict the offender's device IP, network IP, and any related device IPs from the last 30 days? I don't know if that's possible for this site, but it would make the punishment a little more enforceable. And then obviously if in the future their account is strangely getting random event unusuals again, and more than one comes from the same source, a case of ban evasion could open up for investigation and if proven true- thats obviously a perma. It's just a way to introduce SOME punishment for a case like that. My personal idea for how many you should be allowed to do.. I think 10 lifetime seems right. If you buy TEN DIFFERENT NEW UNUSUALS for a low enough price to reported for all ten of them... you should probably face the described punishment

[TraL]

17 hours ago, SirDapper said:

new players unaware of the economy or sites like bp.tf.

How bp.tf got the (updated) backpack then ?

I can go on bp page with an ID of a player I know, and bp will update it (I can also go directly to the player inventory in that case).

I'm curious to know how much of people described here really doesn't know about bp.tf before the unbox...

[Onion-Turtle]

Taking advantage of inexperienced traders is obviously super scummy, but let me talk about what this was like just 5 years ago: 

 

In 2018 I tried building a collection of unusual jungle wreaths. These were unboxed very rarely, so I regularly checked if any new ones were unboxed so I could make a fair offer.
Every-single-time an unboxer accepted my friend request the same 5-ish other names appeared on top of their friend list as well. Some of these guys are still among the top 20 inventories on here and they used to make ridiculously bad offers. I used to have a buy order for 600 keys on the burning flames wreath and someone paid 500 USD PayPal to a younger than 10 year old boy who had finally unboxed one… I have to assume these assholes sharked thousands of people over the years. Back then nobody bothered as long as they paid like 10 or 20 % of the items value.

 

If these sharks actually started to consistently pay slightly more than buy orders I’d honestly be positively surprised with the development.
As you said, with new effects there is sadly still more leeway for scumbags to abuse unpriced items without buy orders though.

[STEVE]

4 hours ago, TraL said:

How bp.tf got the (updated) backpack then ?

I can go on bp page with an ID of a player I know, and bp will update it (I can also go directly to the player inventory in that case).

I'm curious to know how much of people described here really doesn't know about bp.tf before the unbox...

Correct, the users or their friends are loading their backpacks for the items to be registered. Either way, its something that requires knowledge of the site's existence to do. Especially so when the steam rate limits have made loading inventories even more of a chore lately.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

I don't disagree with the sentiment of your post, but the issue is with finding practical and enforceable rules to regulate this kind of thing in practice. Believe it or not, it's been an issue for a long time, and one that we have looked at repeatedly and worked on over a long period. The way premium used to function, you could search any/all hats at once by date to get a rolling list of new unboxes as they happened, and removing that is one thing we have done over the years to attempt to protect users. 

 

On 1/11/2024 at 12:54 AM, SirDapper said:

What I propose

I believe there should be a rule in place that works as follows:

If a user is caught continuously targeting fresh unboxers through premium to pay at or near b/o, they should face a premium ban.
Continuous implies a repeated pattern of targeting the listed items above and more that source from new accounts/non-traders that they approached first. 

 

I don't necessarily have an issue with not setting a defined value on "repeated pattern" the way others have mentioned, as that is the way I drafted the rules for unbalanced trades. I initially wrote a lot of questions out in here to highlight the amount of subjectivity in your proposal, but ultimately, could your suggestions not just fall under the existing rules? What is specific to premium and unboxing that would prevent you from reporting users under the already-existing rules for unbalanced trades? 

 

Here is the current rule for unbalanced trades, for reference. When we leave a negative trust, we also ban from premium (and any alts reported will receive similar bans or worse):

 

 

[SirDapper]

Thank you for taking the time to respond.
 

31 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

The way premium used to function, you could search any/all hats at once by date to get a rolling list of new unboxes as they happened, and removing that is one thing we have done over the years to attempt to protect users. 

 

You can still do this on next.bp.tf by using the Itemdb and just selecting unusual, then you can even apply a cosmetic tag to narrow it down to hats if you see fit. I may be wrong but this seems like what you are describing.
 

43 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

What is specific to premium and unboxing that would prevent you from reporting users under the already-existing rules for unbalanced trades? 

After refreshing myself with this rule I can certainly see the similarities, however, some users actively participate in this type of behavior who are still active within the platform. I believe the rule you have shown me is considerably too open-ended and allows users to escape them freely as long as no one takes the time to make a report. Furthermore, some cases where reports are made with arguably overwhelming evidence still find inaction taken towards them. - https://next.backpack.tf/issues/654554c55fb73bdbd4026d42.

Maybe the true solution as opposed to creating a new rule would be to re-fresh the current rule. The existing leaves too much room for the user to claim negligence and several other reasons to fight for innocence (As we see in the report thread above) exonerating them from the repercussions they should be facing. 

 

On 1/10/2024 at 7:54 PM, SirDapper said:

Items Targeted

While yes, they are offering above b/o, they are consistently targeting things such as new hats/effects from events and warpaints. 
- New hats/effects historically start with low b/o. These b/o will climb over time in most cases until they reach a stable point, sometimes items unboxed are so new they don't possess b/o at all and it's free range.
- Warpaints are in a worse case. Normally they tend to be lower to non-existent due to variations and the hardsell nature of some. Though when they do sell they can sell for a lot at full. Experienced traders can often gauge full value.
Those are the main issues with those items specifically listed.

Players Targeted
The main issue is that the premium users approach first. When they seek out these users, a majority of the time they are new players unaware of the economy or sites like bp.tf. This gives the trader an instant advantage.
- A lack of knowledge of these sites allows the traders to convince the user of what their item is worth. These new unboxers, or Little Timmys as I will refer to them often seek advice from the premium trader for their item's value, allowing them to suggest b/o.

- Often repeat offenders will fall on the argument of "Well I offered and they liked it" This is a weak argument. If Little Timmy spent 15 keys unboxing and someone offered 100 keys, they wouldn't question it and would take the profit, without realizing the premium user flipped it for ~800 keys within 24 hours.
                   - The problem is Timmy got rinsed, that 100 key b/o is now worth 260 and that hat recently sold for well over 800 pure and is being listed for 2000+ (I'm using a recent situation with the sapped legendary lid as an example)
                   - "We can't predict the future, we take losses" You're right, no one can. However, if you are aware enough of the market, you know the average prices for similar items, and you know how much you can theoretically get, in most cases guaranteeing profit.
- There are many more examples of this happening countless times to many traders, and more often than not it's the same group of individuals.

Repeat Offenses
This is where the boat gets rocky. While premium again, can be used for people to occasionally score deals, there are often a select number of individuals who go out of their way to use this method a bit too frequently.
- (Opinion) I believe if someone does it occasionally without the intention of flipping but keeping said item, it is fine. This can fall under collections or buying items for personal use.
- If someone buys many random items and instantly lists them, this is where the line is drawn. No number can truly be placed but intention should be easy to spot.

B/O
This is a grey area, I believe if a b/o is placed, and the user approaches the b/o to dump, it is fine.
- This whole reasoning comes from intention, if the user consciously uses the site and decides to dump to b/o, that's the b/o being used as intended. It only becomes a real issue when the buyer approaches the unboxer.
- Disguising intentions. There are several cases where these users will place b/o before going in for the kill to cover their tracks. Often leading to them using their b/o to coax the user into selling to them. While this can be hard to identify, it does happen and would require approaching the seller to get said info.

I propose the additional stipulations to be based on these points above.

1. Consistent purchases of freshly unboxed items for profit.
  - This could be warpaints/hats/taunts purchased to be re-sold at a massive upcharge, if evidence points to the shark consistently approaching these users over DMs manipulating them into the deal, then it should be punishable.
2. Consistently purchasing from unboxer accounts not involved in trading. 
  - This can be seen if the account does not participate in bp.tf or other platforms, if they were approached by the shark, and have no listings for said item, chances are they weren't intending on selling the item. Therefore it should be punishable.
3. B/O Dumping
  - If the user gets an item dumped to them at b/o, while at times may be low, that is the victim agreeing on the price without any outside involvement. Therefore, clear in my book. However, if logs surface of the unboxer being coerced into dumping, then the coercer should be punished.

The reason why I am suggesting these be added is because it helps clarify the rules further and gives better guidelines as to what's reportable or not. This will also assist individuals in the reporting process as it leaves it less open-ended as well.
Let me know what you think, feedback is appreciated!

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

36 minutes ago, SirDapper said:

You can still do this on next.bp.tf by using the Itemdb and just selecting unusual, then you can even apply a cosmetic tag to narrow it down to hats if you see fit. I may be wrong but this seems like what you are describing.

 

That would be a bug, and something that should be reported. I'll let the dev know.

 

36 minutes ago, SirDapper said:

After refreshing myself with this rule I can certainly see the similarities, however, some users actively participate in this type of behavior who are still active within the platform. I believe the rule you have shown me is considerably too open-ended and allows users to escape them freely as long as no one takes the time to make a report.

 

If users escape because no one takes the time to make a report, why would a new rule help? People will still... not take the time to make a report?

 

36 minutes ago, SirDapper said:

Furthermore, some cases where reports are made with arguably overwhelming evidence still find inaction taken towards them. - https://next.backpack.tf/issues/654554c55fb73bdbd4026d42

 

There is no inaction here, it is being actively worked on and will be addressed soon. Just because you don't see something happening, doesn't mean it's not happening. Reports like that can take considerable time from multiple mods.

 

36 minutes ago, SirDapper said:

I propose the additional stipulations to be based on these points above.

1. Consistent purchases of freshly unboxed items for profit.
 

 

I don't think freshly unboxed plays a role. If people are making unbalanced trades, they're making unbalanced trades. If people are targeting inexperienced traders, they're targeting inexperienced traders. The fact that a hat is unboxed is not the issue here, the only reason it's in your mind at all is because it's the main way inexperienced traders would end up with expensive hats that don't have clear value, but it's just as inexcusable to be doing this to new traders who didn't unbox the hat they have. The issue is the experience discrepancy and the value discrepancy, the fact that it may be an unbox is just how they got there.

 

36 minutes ago, SirDapper said:

This could be warpaints/hats/taunts purchased to be re-sold at a massive upcharge, if evidence points to the shark consistently approaching these users over DMs manipulating them into the deal, then it should be punishable.

 

It already is punishable under the rule I linked. If there's evidence of deceit/manipulation, it is a full site ban or scammer tag, depending severity. If it lacks that evidence but a pattern of unbalanced trades can be shown, it's a negative trust and a premium ban.

 

36 minutes ago, SirDapper said:

2. Consistently purchasing from unboxer accounts not involved in trading. 

 

There's nothing wrong with doing this if making fair offers, making offers to new traders or unboxers is not in itself a problem. The problem is when a fair value is not offered. Which, again, is already covered under current rules.

 

36 minutes ago, SirDapper said:

3. B/O Dumping
  - If the user gets an item dumped to them at b/o, while at times may be low, that is the victim agreeing on the price without any outside involvement. Therefore, clear in my book. However, if logs surface of the unboxer being coerced into dumping, then the coercer should be punished.

 

Again, this already exists in the rules. Users applying deceitful tactics of coercion to get someone to sell at a lower value than they would with all the clear info is already bannable if reported with evidence.

 

I don't think there really needs to be a change in the rules, what is needed is more report staff so we are better able to handle reports like this when they do happen. I understand and appreciate that it takes a lot of work from users to compile information to make unbalanced trades reports, and I know it must be frustrating to feel like they aren't being handled. The reality is that they are being handled, just slowly. We have to have a detailed look at every single trade involved and compile notes over time, with multiple mods signing off on the report before it is accepted. We're short staffed and we need more mods. We're working on it.

[SirDapper]

11 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

The fact that a hat is unboxed is not the issue here, the only reason it's in your mind at all is because it's the main way inexperienced traders would end up with expensive hats that don't have clear value

 

Very fair point. Inexperienced does work as a better blanket statement that covers all bases.
 

13 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

If users escape because no one takes the time to make a report, why would a new rule help? People will still... not take the time to make a report?

Many of the points you mentioned above show there are overlap in many of our points. In the last post, I abandoned the idea of a new rule due to the similarities between my proposal and what exists. What I suggested above wasn't a re-proposal of rules, but a clearer outline combining both ideas. With this issue gaining steam as more users begin to participate in these actions, a more well-defined guide to approaching this specific report could be beneficial for victims and users. This is just my opinion, perhaps it doesn't weigh much, but I do believe a re-fresher could be nice. 

 

28 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

The reality is that they are being handled, just slowly. We have to have a detailed look at every single trade involved and compile notes over time, with multiple mods signing off on the report before it is accepted. We're short staffed and we need more mods. We're working on it.

This type of communication goes a long way. Whenever the report in question has previously been brought up it falls on deaf ears, leading to users believing there is complacency in these types of actions, which increases users' participation in these acts. However, I understand being silent to be diligent, even short-staffed, may be a solution to the problem. Report Moderation seems like a position that is heavily scrutinized/difficult to fully grasp so I can see how individuals would be apprehensive to be a part of it. I am unsure what can be done to increase staffing for this role. Thank you for your efforts however, they are appreciated whenever situations are handled accordingly.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

8 minutes ago, SirDapper said:

Many of the points you mentioned above show there are overlap in many of our points. In the last post, I abandoned the idea of a new rule due to the similarities between my proposal and what exists. What I suggested above wasn't a re-proposal of rules, but a clearer outline combining both ideas. With this issue gaining steam as more users begin to participate in these actions, a more well-defined guide to approaching this specific report could be beneficial for victims and users. This is just my opinion, perhaps it doesn't weigh much, but I do believe a re-fresher could be nice. 

 

Ok, moving away then from your original post and the focus on unboxers or unboxed hats; what changes to the rule do you think would make it easier for users to make reports?

 

Or is it just that more clarity would help? Maybe instead of the post in the thread I linked, a separate guide thread on this type of report and a step-by-step for how to go about compiling and presenting evidence, what's useful evidence and what's not, how to value items that are unpriced or out of date, etc? 

[SirDapper]

Just now, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

Or is it just that more clarity would help? Maybe instead of the post in the thread I linked, a separate guide thread on this type of report and a step-by-step for how to go about compiling and presenting evidence, what's useful evidence and what's not, how to value items that are unpriced or out of date, etc? 

Exactly this. I believe that our back-and-forth dialogue helped me understand the clarity behind the pre-existing rules. A separate guide with clearer outlines and a step-by-step could be a great step in the right direction. Everything you listed there would be a great resource to link victims to collect information. 

 

8 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

Ok, moving away then from your original post and the focus on unboxers or unboxed hats; what changes to the rule do you think would make it easier for users to make reports?

The rules seem to cover a similar basis, genuinely the existing one covers a larger blanket than mine. The only stipulation I could see suggesting is something for fragrant abusers of premium to seek inexperienced traders could be directly reported and simply linked to compares if there is a sizable enough number of transactions.