Jump to content

Discussion on Reinstating the Rule Regarding Obvious Alt Accounts and Backpack-Banned Scammers


RussellSproutz

Recommended Posts

Hey everyone,

As requested, I'd like to open a discussion about the possible reinstatement of the rule regarding obvious alternative accounts (alts). This rule, which was scrapped in 2019, was designed to address the issue of obvious fence accounts used to cash out scammed items.

The rule can be found here: https://forums.backpack.tf/topic/70966-new-rules-for-background-checks/

I'd also like to propose including the bans for trading with backpack-banned scammers and obvious alts. This additional measure aims to further enhance the security and integrity of our trading environment on backpack.tf by discouraging interactions with accounts that have a track history of scamming.

It's worth noting that the ban obvious alt rules have been inactive for about five years. I would like feedback from the Backpack.tf community whether there is support for reactivating them or not. Please feel free to share your feedback and suggestions. Your thoughts and feedback on these matters are highly valued.

Thanks, and have a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • RussellSproutz changed the title to Reinstatement of the rule on the Obvious Ban Alt.

I think it should be reinstated but looked at for a trial of around a year. There was a reason it was changed in the past. I do think the current situation of no consequence for trading with obvious scammers hours before bans is worse.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • RussellSproutz changed the title to Discussion on Reinstating the Rule Regarding Obvious Alt Accounts and Backpack-Banned Scammers

Why do you want to ban people for trading with obvious alts. Are you aware what an obvious alt is? Just because it is an obvious alt doesn't mean it is connected to fraud. Besides if people trade with the same person multiple times who is already banned on bptf for being a scammer alt, they already get bonked. So whats the point here?

 

If you do have a bot on gladiator, there are plenty of obvious alts but not connected to anything fraudulent.

 

This is like shooting at civilians in a war what you are proposing here.

 

Besides this causes plenty of new issues. How are bots supposed to know if we have an obvious alt? When do we decide that it is an obvious alt? An obvious alt can be different from person to person. And what about other websites, they have other rules. Am I gonna get banned now because I do not fit your agenda? And who takes care of this rule? Having a rule and no one enforcing it seems vague.

 

Kinda sounds ridiculous to me. I remember when teeny once said that a rule should be something useful and not an obstacle. And this rule you are trying to re-add seems like it would open a new can of worms but well. Not surprised anymore that you have tunnel vision and do not think at all before you post. Literally third time I am telling you this. You are an engima to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NineDevil said:

Why do you want to ban people for trading with obvious alts. Are you aware what an obvious alt is? Just because it is an obvious alt doesn't mean it is connected to fraud. Besides if people trade with the same person multiple times who is already banned on bptf for being a scammer alt, they already get bonked. So whats the point here?

 

If you do have a bot on gladiator, there are plenty of obvious alts but not connected to anything fraudulent.

 

This is like shooting at civilians in a war what you are proposing here.

 

Besides this causes plenty of new issues. How are bots supposed to know if we have an obvious alt? When do we decide that it is an obvious alt? An obvious alt can be different from person to person. And what about other websites, they have other rules. Am I gonna get banned now because I do not fit your agenda? And who takes care of this rule? Having a rule and no one enforcing it seems vague.

 

Kinda sounds ridiculous to me. I remember when teeny once said that a rule should be something useful and not an obstacle. And this rule you are trying to re-add seems like it would open a new can of worms but well. Not surprised anymore that you have tunnel vision and do not think at all before you post. Literally third time I am telling you this. You are an engima to me.

Hey NineDevil,

I appreciate your perspective on the proposal to reinstate the rule regarding obvious alts. Your concerns are true, and I'd like to address them to provide more clarification on the matter.


Firstly, the reason behind considering bans for trading with obvious alts is to hone in on the security and integrity of our trading environment. While it's true that not all obvious alts are connected to fraudulent activities, the concern lies in the potential association with scammer alts and the risk of facilitating the cashing out of scammed items.


You rightly pointed out that trading with the same person multiple times who is already banned on Backpack.tf results in consequences. The proposed rule seeks to address situations where individuals might unknowingly engage with accounts that are flagged as obvious alts due to their connection with fraudulent activities.


Regarding the identification of obvious alts, the process would need careful consideration. It's vital to establish clear criteria and guidelines to avoid subjective judgments. Clarity in the identification process is key to ensuring fairness and consistency. Your concerns about the potential vagueness and enforcement of the rule are valid. Thanks for your feedback and I'm always open for more. Have a good day.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are beating a dead horse Russell. Just accept that the rules as they are rn are advantageous for a lot of different shady business practices and be the better person.

Rules won't change because of the 10th forum post on this exact topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Heidecker said:

You are beating a dead horse Russell. Just accept that the rules as they are rn are advantageous for a lot of different shady business practices and be the better person.

Hey Heidecker.

I appreciate your honesty, but I do think the rules have to be improved. I believe having a periodical (like a yearly) review of backpack rules will help improve the trading environment. They can when we have proper dialogues like this.

Thanks for the feedback and have a good day, homie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VC FP RussellSproutz_YT HF said:

Hey Heidecker.

I appreciate your honesty, but I do think the rules have to be improved. They can when we have proper dialogues like this.

Yeah but we had this exact dialogue like 10 times by now just on forums and it will lead to nowhere again, at this point it's just engagement farming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey man i think you should stay off the forum with all the recent dramas you get yourself into.I wouldn't be surprised if people are fed up with you by now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Heidecker said:

Yeah but we had this exact dialogue like 10 times by now just on forums and it will lead to nowhere again, at this point it's just engagement farming.

Honestly, I understand your frustration and I do appreciate your honesty on this once again, homie. I just feel like if we do nothing, it'll be no use, but we have to make an attempt.

 

7 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

Hey man i think you should stay off the forum with all the recent dramas you get yourself into.I wouldn't be surprised if people fed up with you by now

I can understand that given all the past situations, such as the dog suggestion, community mod app, and the case trade, people are not happy with me. After all that, I still really do value the Backpack.tf community's well-being, Shotgun. 

Look I appreciate you both for the feedback. I'm always open to constructive criticism. I'm always open to more. Have a good one now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
14 minutes ago, Heidecker said:

You are beating a dead horse Russell. Just accept that the rules as they are rn are advantageous for a lot of different shady business practices and be the better person.

Rules won't change because of the 10th forum post on this exact topic.

 

I encouraged him to make this because I (and the mods as a whole) do care about how users feel about the rules and are happy to consider constructive feedback, so please do express your opinion or suggestions if you have them.

 

We have no interest in allowing "shady business practices" we just need the rules to make practical sense, be enforceable and serve a purpose.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the author. But those people, who were trading with scammers and alts, when the scammers and alts has not been exposured (like the man got ban after the trade), should not be banned. Otherwise, if there are enough proofs that person traded with a scammer\alt, and he knew that he was doing it, the person should be banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

I encouraged him to make this because I (and the mods as a whole) do care about how users feel about the rules and are happy to consider constructive feedback, so please do express your opinion or suggestions if you have them.

 

We have no interest in allowing "shady business practices" we just need the rules to make practical sense, be enforceable and serve a purpose.

Thank you, Teeny. I appreciate it.

 

3 minutes ago, Golden Pyro said:

I agree with the author. But those people, who were trading with scammers and alts, when the scammers and alts has not been exposured (like the man got ban after the trade), should not be banned. Otherwise, if there are enough proofs that person traded with a scammer\alt, and he knew that he was doing it, the person should be banned.

You're right Golden Pyro as I responded earlier to NineDevil. I believe we need to consider a careful consideration per the situation. If it's Gladiator bot as an alt for a user, that is fine. If it's an exit scammer's fencing alt to quicksell items though, that's a no-go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, VC FP RussellSproutz_YT HF said:

I believe we need to consider a careful consideration per the situation. If it's Gladiator bot as an alt for a user, that is fine. If it's an exit scammer's fencing alt to quicksell items though, that's a no-go.

I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re talking about here, but the rules for bots and users are the same. This was also the case in the old system and I see no reason to change this.

For this reason bot.tf, when was still live, had a system where potential scammer alts (based on several factors outlined in the old rules) were checked by a team of volunteers, one of which was me, when a trade was received and then the trade would go through or not.

 

 

For anyone else reading it might be useful to read the past discussions that caused the concept of obvious alts to be scrapped in the first place ~5 years ago

They’re linked in the current rules, but you can find them here and here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zeus_Junior said:

The rules for bots and users are the same. This was also the case in the old system and I see no reason to change this.

For this reason bot.tf, when was still live, had a system where potential scammer alts (based on several factors outlined in the old rules) were checked by a team of volunteers, one of which was me, when a trade was received and then the trade would go through or not.

 

 

For anyone else reading it might be useful to read the past discussions that caused the concept of obvious alts to be scrapped in the first place ~5 years ago

They’re linked in the current rules, but you can find them here and here

Hey Zeus_Junior,

Thanks for sharing your perspective on the consistency of rules for both bots and users. It's interesting to hear about the historical context and how the concept of obvious alts was handled in the past.

Maintaining uniform rules for both users and bots does have its merits, fostering a sense of fairness and equality within the trading community. It's intriguing to learn about bot.tf's approach to potential scammer alts, involving a team of volunteers to assess trades based on outlined factors.

I'm curious to explore the past discussions that led to the scrapping of the concept of obvious alts around five years ago. Understanding the context can provide valuable insights into the evolution of trading policies and community expectations.

If you have any specific recommendations or insights based on your experience with bot.tf, feel free to share. Your perspective is valuable in shaping discussions around fair and secure trading practices.

Looking forward to your insights and continuing the dialogue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Zeus_Junior said:

For anyone else reading it might be useful to read the past discussions that caused the concept of obvious alts to be scrapped in the first place ~5 years ago

They’re linked in the current rules, but you can find them here and here


yuck. well thanks for the proof that my community has been sliding down the gutter for awhile. Steamrep removed the trading with scammers rule in 2016, Bp in 2019.

 

Both should be reverted, the excuses people had to ban the rule in the first place were weak at best, lazy at worst. “I’m tired, I trade a lot” aren’t excuses. 
 

takes a grand total of 3 minutes to fully check out if someone is suspect

 

1 yr account, 100 hours in tf2, no items except for 6k in expensive shit? Probably sus. Probably not worth risking a trade. 
 

im sure my opinion is extremely unpopular, but if you’re willing to put in the effort and money in making consistent profit, you can take a little extra time in vetting your trading partners. 
 

it’s getting tiring seeing a bunch of people profit and rise to the top because they are willing to do grey area shit that technically is wrong but isn’t enforceable (a certain whale bought 10k usd in items from clear exit scammer for example)

 

like I’ve said before, if a pawn shop bought 10k in hot goods and the police confiscated them the shop would be SOL. But in virtual land, all the pawn shop owners get slaps on the wrist and are told “hey, don’t do that again sillypants! :)” they get to keep their items, sell the stolen goods, and continue to profit with 0 marks anywhere and 0 damage to reputation.

 

the “rules” are ridiculous. you get banned if you make the wrong killstreak kit buy order but if you buy a 1 of 3 GE Noh Mercy from a clear fishy alt it’s just ok then lol, no need to do ANY background checks on where it came from 

  • Like 2
  • Astonished 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bananas said:


yuck. well thanks for the proof that my community has been sliding down the gutter for awhile. Steamrep removed the trading with scammers rule in 2016, Bp in 2019.

 

Both should be reverted, the excuses people had to ban the rule in the first place were weak at best, lazy at worst. “I’m tired, I trade a lot” aren’t excuses. 
 

takes a grand total of 3 minutes to fully check out if someone is suspect

 

1 yr account, 100 hours in tf2, no items except for 6k in expensive shit? Probably sus. Probably not worth risking a trade. 
 

im sure my opinion is extremely unpopular, but if you’re willing to put in the effort and money in making consistent profit, you can take a little extra time in vetting your trading partners. 
 

it’s getting tiring seeing a bunch of people profit and rise to the top because they are willing to do grey area shit that technically is wrong but isn’t enforceable (a certain whale bought 10k usd in items from clear exit scammer for example)

 

like I’ve said before, if a pawn shop bought 10k in hot goods and the police confiscated them the shop would be SOL. But in virtual land, all the pawn shop owners get slaps on the wrist and are told “hey, don’t do that again sillypants! :)” they get to keep their items, sell the stolen goods, and continue to profit with 0 marks anywhere and 0 damage to reputation.

 

the “rules” are ridiculous. you get banned if you make the wrong killstreak kit buy order but if you buy a 1 of 3 GE Noh Mercy from a clear fishy alt it’s just ok then lol, no need to do ANY background checks on where it came from 

Hey Bananas,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the trading rules, and I understand your frustration regarding the removal of the trading with scammers rule in 2016 by SteamRep and in 2019 by Backpack.tf. I'm hoping once we get this rule reinstated for Backpack.tf, then we can push for SteamRep's case as well. Your perspective on vetting trading partners and the potential for abuse in certain scenarios is a valid concern.

The balance between efficient trading practices and maintaining a secure environment is indeed crucial. Your point about the ease of checking for suspect accounts based on factors like account age, playtime, and item history is well taken. It's clear you're advocating for a more robust vetting process to ensure the integrity of trades and prevent potential abuses.

The comparison with real-world scenarios, like a pawn shop dealing with confiscated goods, adds an interesting layer to the discussion. It raises questions about the accountability and consequences within virtual trading environments.

I appreciate your input, and I'm curious to know what specific changes or additions to the existing rules you would suggest to address these concerns. Your insights can contribute to a more comprehensive and fair trading policy that benefits the entire community.

Thanks again for your input, homie.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, VC FP RussellSproutz_YT HF said:

I'm curious to know what specific changes or additions to the existing rules you would suggest to address these concerns.


strike system should be reinstated, but instead of a baseball 3 strikes rule it should be more like a 10 point system. You start at 0, maybe at 3, 6, 9 points you get temp suspensions and at 10 points you get a permanent suspension that can be appealed. Appealing and then getting 10 more would result in a permanent suspension that could not be appealed this time, aka the ban hammer.

 

The points can vary based on the infraction. Shark someone out of 20 keys in value? 1 point. Buy a GE Noh Mercy from a clear alt that gets banned 12 hours later? 2 points. 10k in spelled items from a clear alt? I would say 10 points instantly, but a lot of people would disagree so probably 3-5 points for a severe infraction.

 

The point of a system like this is to discourage both whales from cashing out bad actors, and scammers who feel emboldened to use the whales because it doesn’t hurt anyone. Obviously this doesn’t stop scammers or illicit activity, it’s just a way to keep things fairer for those who actually play by the rules and don’t give scammers free profit.

 

If you don’t trade with scammers or do anything illicit activity, why would anyone be concerned about the rule coming back? If it doesn’t affect you it shouldn’t be a concern, right? :)

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, VC FP RussellSproutz_YT HF said:

Hey Bananas,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the trading rules, and I understand your frustration regarding the removal of the trading with scammers rule in 2016 by SteamRep and in 2019 by Backpack.tf. I'm hoping once we get this rule reinstated for Backpack.tf, then we can push for SteamRep's case as well. Your perspective on vetting trading partners and the potential for abuse in certain scenarios is a valid concern.

The balance between efficient trading practices and maintaining a secure environment is indeed crucial. Your point about the ease of checking for suspect accounts based on factors like account age, playtime, and item history is well taken. It's clear you're advocating for a more robust vetting process to ensure the integrity of trades and prevent potential abuses.

The comparison with real-world scenarios, like a pawn shop dealing with confiscated goods, adds an interesting layer to the discussion. It raises questions about the accountability and consequences within virtual trading environments.

I appreciate your input, and I'm curious to know what specific changes or additions to the existing rules you would suggest to address these concerns. Your insights can contribute to a more comprehensive and fair trading policy that benefits the entire community.

Thanks again for your input, homie.

Stop with the bulky, obviously AI generated posts please. Its borderline spam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bananas said:


strike system should be reinstated, but instead of a baseball 3 strikes rule it should be more like a 10 point system. You start at 0, maybe at 3, 6, 9 points you get temp suspensions and at 10 points you get a permanent suspension that can be appealed. Appealing and then getting 10 more would result in a permanent suspension that could not be appealed this time, aka the ban hammer.

 

The points can vary based on the infraction. Shark someone out of 20 keys in value? 1 point. Buy a GE Noh Mercy from a clear alt that gets banned 12 hours later? 2 points. 10k in spelled items from a clear alt? I would say 10 points instantly, but a lot of people would disagree so probably 3-5 points for a severe infraction.

 

The point of a system like this is to discourage both whales from cashing out bad actors, and scammers who feel emboldened to use the whales because it doesn’t hurt anyone. Obviously this doesn’t stop scammers or illicit activity, it’s just a way to keep things fairer for those who actually play by the rules and don’t give scammers free profit.

 

If you don’t trade with scammers or do anything illicit activity, why would anyone be concerned about the rule coming back? If it doesn’t affect you it shouldn’t be a concern, right? :)

That's very thorough. Yeah exactly. I couldn't agree more, Bananas 

 

5 minutes ago, STEVE said:

Stop with the bulky, obviously AI generated posts please. Its borderline spam.

Oh sorry I'm just very thorough with my post, Steve. I'll keep it brief from here on out.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, STEVE said:

Stop with the bulky, obviously AI generated posts please. Its borderline spam.

 

Would be an awesome automated email response, actually....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bananas said:


strike system should be reinstated, but instead of a baseball 3 strikes rule it should be more like a 10 point system. You start at 0, maybe at 3, 6, 9 points you get temp suspensions and at 10 points you get a permanent suspension that can be appealed. Appealing and then getting 10 more would result in a permanent suspension that could not be appealed this time, aka the ban hammer.

 

The points can vary based on the infraction. Shark someone out of 20 keys in value? 1 point. Buy a GE Noh Mercy from a clear alt that gets banned 12 hours later? 2 points. 10k in spelled items from a clear alt? I would say 10 points instantly, but a lot of people would disagree so probably 3-5 points for a severe infraction.

 

The point of a system like this is to discourage both whales from cashing out bad actors, and scammers who feel emboldened to use the whales because it doesn’t hurt anyone. Obviously this doesn’t stop scammers or illicit activity, it’s just a way to keep things fairer for those who actually play by the rules and don’t give scammers free profit.

 

If you don’t trade with scammers or do anything illicit activity, why would anyone be concerned about the rule coming back? If it doesn’t affect you it shouldn’t be a concern, right? :)

I fully agree, a point system would great

 

"If you don’t trade with scammers or do anything illicit activity, why would anyone be concerned about the rule coming back? If it doesn’t affect you it shouldn’t be a concern, right? :)"

could not agree more with this statement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has been up for 12 hours and has already found ways to derail, which is extremely counterproductive to discussing a topic like this. For that reason, I'm going to lock this thread and instead link this thread to continue.

 

If you don't have any actual thoughts or constructive criticism to offer, please don't comment on the new thread. If you're found spamming on this thread, your posts will be hidden and you'll receive warnings points for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ѕιи locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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