Open discussion on rules for trading with scammers (Part 3)

[ѕιи]

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the old rules around trading with backpack.tf site-banned scammers and "obvious alts" that may not be banned at all. The site used to ban for these things, and the rules were changed in 2019 after community feedback and extensive discussion. Those previous discussion threads can be found here and here; please read them as they contain a lot of information and discussion which informs this topic.

 

While there was clear rationale for changing the previous rules, and we believe that rationale still stands, we are happy to consider community opinions and suggestions if people feel the old rules worked better. If you feel the old rules should be reinstated, or the current rules should be modified in some way, please give a clear explanation of how and why. Bear in mind that rules are meant to serve a purpose, and need to be practical and enforceable.

 

To be clear, this isn't the place to reference specific reports or users; we all know what an obvious alt is and we don't need examples. Additionally, this is a serious discussion & we don't want this thread to derail. If you don't have any actual thoughts or constructive criticism to offer, please don't comment. If you're found spamming on this thread, your posts will be hidden and you'll receive warnings points for them.

 

Current rules for background checks: https://forums.backpack.tf/topic/70966-new-rules-for-background-checks/
Previous rules for background checks, including "obvious alt" criteria: https://forums.backpack.tf/topic/29027-rules-for-background-checks/

 

[Bananas]

gonna yoink my comment from the other thread because it’s valid here. while I don’t think a system like this is perfect and would definitely need tweaking I personally believe it would be a step up from the current wrist slapping we have for “offenders”

 

-

 

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? 

[Gaia]

If bp mods cant be bothered to make an alt to check mann co sales for suggestions why should people be expected to run background checks for items.

 

Not supporting scammers/fencers btw just tryna point something out that I find funny lol

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

11 minutes ago, Goyman Sachs said:

If bp mods cant be bothered to make an alt to check mann co sales for suggestions why should people be expected to run background checks for items.

 

We're not making alts to bypass a website's rules, that's literally a thing we ban for here? If mannco don't want us on their website that is entirely their right. Try to stay on topic, please.

 

[Vincentius]

1 hour ago, Bananas said:

The points can vary based on the infraction

This idea would possibly lead to more loopholes in accounts trying for specific values if limits were introduced, though it could easily be left open ended to speculated value or listed value etc. 

 

Overall a strike system could lead to people going for only 9 strikes in total and then hoping the strikes disappear in time etc, though this could easily be taken as a strikes would not expire unless stated after an appeal a/of specific strike/s.  

If written correctly into rules it could be a very viable solution tbh, it would force users to check for blatantly obvious accounts (brand new, lvl 0, 10k bp, no hours, etc) and if they were to buy from them they would be hit with a strike of equal value. 

 

Personally in my opinion a "blatant alt" would need to be defined out in the rules to what they are as some people just have decently bland profiles anyway.

 

----

 

A strike system would have 4 different rankings for situations (knowledge, value, impact, number of items) and based on each of the following that would determine the amount and or size of said strike/punishment.

 

Knowledge being quite obvious, if the user knows its an obvious alt or is an alt of a scammer the strike/punishment would be larger

Value, accidentally accepting a scrap or even a craft hat from a scammer alt not being a big enough while trades passing 10+ keys being noted of.

Impact, was the items involved in a recent scam thats made big news around the trading scene? 

Items, did the user cash out a blatant alt of a large number of items (100+ etc) still not valuing past 10+ keys (or whatever set value)? Then that should be noted of. 

 

----

 

Overall this is just some thoughts that come to my mind when it comes to a strike system that could be implemented.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

I will note that there is already a strike system in place for trades with steamrep-tagged accounts. Details here. The question here is whether or not we should be also banning for trades with accounts that have a backpack site ban but no steamrep tag, and obvious alts. 

 

The old rules and what constituted an "obvious alt" can be found here.

 

 

[NineDevil]

As I said in the previous post.

 

Banning people for trading with an obvious alt is dumb. There was a reason why it got removed in the first place.

 

An obvious alt account is nothing bad. Maybe back in 2013 it mattered but we live in 2024. People make alts to gamble, to trade on other websites, to trade in other games, to store and so on. Besides I would assume that bp.tf has the tools for figuring out if a person is connected to fraud. And if so, they are getting bonked. I as well want to add that people are going to farm their play time or either buy an account to "match" the criteria which makes it even more pointless. People as well are able to buy steam levels super cheap. This is not expensive or some voodoo magic anymore.

 

Banning people for trading with bp.tf banned users (Where the ban reason is smth FRAUDULENT) gives me a mixed feeling. This used to be fine back in the days but nowadays it is not *only* bptf. There are other communities out there. Some even, some smaller some bigger. For some people, if I send them a bp.tf trust link they believe it is a scam link, to give an example. In the other hand I do see the frustration when people do trade with marked bptf scammers and they do not get punished for it. So obv there needs to be a middle line. Besides we would need tools and time to adapt to this change. (For the trading bots mostly...)

[RussellSproutz]

I believe we do have to reinstate this rule, because at this moment, we're rewarding people to cash out scammers. There's next to no consequences for them. I'm sure we can do a test trial with this reinstatement and I do agree with Banana's strike method as well.

[`Yahiamice]

I certainly don't miss the 2014-2017 times where every time i'd have to trade with someone who wasn't already a reputable member of the trading scene, i'd have to conduct 30 minutes of background checks that led nowhere and had to ultimately weigh "should i really risk trading with this guy who i have no idea if he's just a 250 hour player or a scammer alt and get banned by ToughSox the next morning over a ~5 key profit...?"

 

The old rules sucked in how unpredictable they'd be at times (the definition of obvious alt used to be SO BROAD), and the paranoia they induced was mindnumbing to deal with. Though, i'd much rather take out the rest & keep the part where mods enforced those rules with an iron fist, so many ppl get away with borderline fraud nowadays. If you report mods had even HALF the gall of partner communities (firepowered, FOG) when it comes to marking folk that deserve to be marked, it'd already solve much of the issues here. But unfortunately, since bptf's acquisition and centralization of the entire TF2 market, i understand you guys have to take a more lax approach to such reports and let other communities judge as to not be too overcentralizing, but i'd much rather take TF2Outpost's harsh two-strike system than the slap-on-the-wrist that sharkers and fences get nowadays.

 

Plus, what reason is there not to offer users (or donators + premium if it's too resource intensive) a button on other's profiles that matches IP's w/ other known alts and lets you know if this user matches addresses w/ scammers? Don't make it show their IP obviously, and only show results/account names if there's a positive match, and in the case of false positives, manually flag the user as safe or something. It's not a perfect system, but it'd be as close to perfect as possible

[eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee]

yoo is russelposting getting something done?!?

 

getting back on topic, bananas idea seems pretty reasonable. i think we can do a testing of that. yahi's idea of a match users from ip's also seems nice, but i dont think the mods are able to monitor such a system and flag users. i think a full or part time mod would be the best for managing such a thing

[JayTuut]

On 3/3/2024 at 5:04 PM, Bananas said:

gonna yoink my comment from the other thread because it’s valid here. while I don’t think a system like this is perfect and would definitely need tweaking I personally believe it would be a step up from the current wrist

 

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.

 

This sounds a whole lot like how warnings work on somewhere familiar...... couldn't be this forum could it?  

 

[JayTuut]

On 3/3/2024 at 11:01 PM, `Yahiamice said:

I certainly don't miss the 2014-2017 times where every time i'd have to trade with someone who wasn't already a reputable member of the trading scene, i'd have to conduct 30 minutes of background checks that led nowhere and had to ultimately weigh "should i really risk trading with this guy who i have no idea if he's just a 250 hour player or a scammer alt and get banned by ToughSox the next morning over a ~5 key profit...?"

 

This is why there should be a minimum, trade with an alt for a trade value of ur 10 key item for his 10 key item? Doesn't matter

 

50 keys? eh

 

200 keys? eh

 

But over >300 keys potentially is when you should be checking, especially since you don't normally trade 300 keys pure or in items for a 5 key profit, that sounds like a waste of time lol

[wersady]

6 hours ago, JayTuut said:

 

This is why there should be a minimum, trade with an alt for a trade value of ur 10 key item for his 10 key item? Doesn't matter

 

50 keys? eh

 

200 keys? eh

 

But over >300 keys potentially is when you should be checking, especially since you don't normally trade 300 keys pure or in items for a 5 key profit, that sounds like a waste of time lol

 

I agree that there should be a minimum, but 300 keys seems way too high imo since scammers will likely try to cash out just under the minimum to multiple buyers. I think a better approach would be to set the minimum to 20 or so but increase the amount of scrutiny needed as the value of the trade increases. A trade worth 20 keys needs to check X, 100 keys X Y, 300 keys X Y Z.

[RussellSproutz]

58 minutes ago, wersady said:

 

I agree that there should be a minimum, but 300 keys seems way too high imo since scammers will likely try to cash out just under the minimum to multiple buyers. I think a better approach would be to set the minimum to 20 or so but increase the amount of scrutiny needed as the value of the trade increases. A trade worth 20 keys needs to check X, 100 keys X Y, 300 keys X Y Z.

I agree. I think the 20 keys minimum would be the best standard and then from 20 and up, we can implement the justified repercussions as the value of items continues to rise.

[TheLetterZed]

Hey! I just got back into trading this past fall. I was really active in the 2010 - 2013 era and helped moderate the /r/tf2trade Steam group chat and trade servers when that was a thing. I'm also a professional software developer and work on a large community-based platform (unrelated to gaming) that deals with the creation of rules and policies like this.

 

I don't have a rules solution in mind. To quote Mark Rosewater from Magic: the Gathering, "Your audience is good at recognizing problems and bad at solving them." I don't feel equipped to propose a solution to this problem. However, I want to acknowledge the problems that I see.

 

Finding and understanding these rules is difficult for me. I've only heard through trading discussions in other Discords what these rules are. I didn't realize they were posted on a forum post and had just assumed that these rules were told through bans. I find Community rules and guidelines - backpack.tf difficult to parse and understand. It does not feel up-to-date nor does it seem to comprehensively talk about all the rules. In fact, the rules say that "you are strongly recommended to avoid" trading with scammers, which is not the sentiment I'm seeing in these discussions where it's a bannable offense to trade with a SteamRep scammer. The difference between "backpack.tf banned" and "SteamRep banned" is not meaningful to me because they both are big scary red text screens, they both feel like an equivalently bad offense. I should be able to understand the rules enough to feel confident to trade just by visiting the rules page.

 

Fencing scammed items seems really easy. If you're a banned scammer, you don't care about breaking the rules. You can easily make an alt account and trade all your items there. Once it's in an alt account, every other trader has plausible deniability for buying these fenced goods since your alt isn't banned. In fact, shady traders can take an approach like sharking where they message banned accounts and ask them to create an alt to sell their banned goods. Getting caught doing any of this seems difficult, especially since banned users are incentivized to keep quiet and participate in this fencing to offload their items. Maybe this isn't important though, as banned users can already just fence goods through the Steam Community Market with little visibility that they're banned.

 

It's unclear what due diligence for background checks is. Methods for background checking are not listed on the main site rules anywhere I can find, but are probably in a forum post somewhere. The rules just mention that it's your responsibility to check for trading with scammers. You can check directly on Backpack.tf or SteamRep. You can also install extensions like SteamDetective to automatically show these on their Steam Community profile. However, none of these tools offer a great way to check if the items were traded from banned users onto an alt.

 

I don't want to be marked as a scammer if I didn't do the background check correctly. If stricter rules are introduced, it becomes more difficult to trade reasonably. I really liked @`Yahiamice's perspective about how paralyzing doing background checks can be. It shouldn't take several minutes to do a background check in order to trade safely. You shouldn't feel anxious about trading after doing a background check. The rules should be considerate to the burden placed on legitimate traders.

 

It's possible but difficult to find the source of these illicit items through item history. Backpack.tf already keeps track of item history for meaningful inventories. If you're trading with a freshly created alt account that's being used for fencing, you could inspect each item's history to see where it came from. If all of the items are coming from one banned profile, this is likely a fencing alt. However, checking this is not intuitive nor very quick. It's frustrating that the item history database "knows" that these are coming from SteamRep banned accounts, but don't show this to you unless you dig into each item history.

I wish that Backpack.tf had a feature to check for fencing accounts and fenced items. I expect that feature requests are outside the scope of this rules discussion, so I've put it in another discussion thread. 

 

=======

 

To summarize my points:

- All rules should be clearly laid out on the https://next.backpack.tf/help/rules page

- The burden of a background check should be placed on automated tools (SteamRep, Backpack.tf site features, third party sites), not individual users doing the work

- Users should feel psychologically safe to trade after doing a background check

- It shouldn't be easy for scammers to fence their items to alts and scammed items

Edited March 14 by TheLetterZed
Removed feature request suggestion from post

[Littlepudintater]

What's the game plan when scammer's start offloading to gladiator.tf bots?

[Mrs TS]

I may be a bit biased but, I feel the changing of the rules allowed a casual approach to scammers.   A normal trader knows all too well when they are getting a great deal that they wouldn't from a normal trader.   If seeing a new account with no game time and thousands of dollars in items doesn't make you sit there wondering if it's all legit, then you are just as bad.

I have traded for years and can not think of anyone I ever dealt with that needed to trade off an alt account (unless it was for their storage)

A legit trader WANTS their main account known so they can be +repped.

[JayTuut]

8 hours ago, wersady said:

 

I agree that there should be a minimum, but 300 keys seems way too high imo since scammers will likely try to cash out just under the minimum to multiple buyers. I think a better approach would be to set the minimum to 20 or so but increase the amount of scrutiny needed as the value of the trade increases. A trade worth 20 keys needs to check X, 100 keys X Y, 300 keys X Y Z.

 

20 is far too low, 300 might have been a bit high but 20 is in the range of still trying to make potentially 1-2-3 keys profit, I'd say at least 50.

[wersady]

21 minutes ago, JayTuut said:

 

20 is far too low, 300 might have been a bit high but 20 is in the range of still trying to make potentially 1-2-3 keys profit, I'd say at least 50.

 

That's why I said the amount you need to check should increase with the value of the trade. At 20 keys it should just be some simple things to check like if they have recent negative reps on bp for scamming or blatant impersonators (fake mannco.store bots and such). You're already supposed to check if a person is a marked scammer on SteamRep for trades above 15 keys so I don't think requiring someone to check a few more things while they're already on their bp profile is a big deal.

[Mickey Mouse]

On 3/3/2024 at 8:48 AM, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

 

 

The old rules and what constituted an "obvious alt" can be found here.

 

 

 

These criteria really need some more thinking. This account meets all but one of those criteria, but I wouldn't call it an "obvious alt", I'd call it run by one of the largest TF2 trading sites. I myself have accounts that meet these criteria, will people now refuse to trade with them?

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

49 minutes ago, Mickey Mouse said:

 

These criteria really need some more thinking. This account meets all but one of those criteria, but I wouldn't call it an "obvious alt", I'd call it run by one of the largest TF2 trading sites. I myself have accounts that meet these criteria, will people now refuse to trade with them?

 

Those are the old rules, which we changed...

[RussellSproutz]

 

6 hours ago, Mickey Mouse said:

 

These criteria really need some more thinking. This account meets all but one of those criteria, but I wouldn't call it an "obvious alt", I'd call it run by one of the largest TF2 trading sites. I myself have accounts that meet these criteria, will people now refuse to trade with them?

I also wanted to mention from my previous post about this discussion that the obvious alt is aiming for fencing accounts. Not your MPTF bots, Gladiator.tf bots, or Mannco.bots. They're fine. Just those alts of scammers that want to offload for a quick $ tbh.

[Sir Spoon The Second]

8 hours ago, Mickey Mouse said:

 

These criteria really need some more thinking. This account meets all but one of those criteria, but I wouldn't call it an "obvious alt", I'd call it run by one of the largest TF2 trading sites. I myself have accounts that meet these criteria, will people now refuse to trade with them?

 

1 hour ago, RussellSproutz said:

 

I also wanted to mention from my previous post about this discussion that the obvious alt is aiming for fencing accounts. Not your MPTF bots, Gladiator.tf bots, or Mannco.bots. They're fine. Just those alts of scammers that want to offload for a quick $ tbh.

 

agreed

any account that falls under a bot for a person and or trading site/ service is exempted from this rule if it goes through

 

with that being said

the rule would most likely put into place the idea that an "obvious alt" adds you to sell an item and or you are looking for said item and this "obvious alt" owns it

we need to be vary clear of what an "obvious alt" of a scammer or similarly banned person is

 

going off of what Yahiamice said

not knowing if its an alt or not can be anxiety enduing seeing as there is the possible that someone can miss judge an alt and now is facing punishment 

witch is why we need to be very clear when a punishment is handed out whether that is points added or ban of some kind

using a point system over 3 strikes would allow for a bit of leniency for those that are

A. not as experienced

B. New to trading

C. the account is not obvious

[RussellSproutz]

13 minutes ago, Sir Spoon The Second said:

 

 

agreed

any account that falls under a bot for a person and or trading site/ service is exempted from this rule if it goes through

 

with that being said

the rule would most likely put into place the idea that an "obvious alt" adds you to sell an item and or you are looking for said item and this "obvious alt" owns it

we need to be vary clear of what an "obvious alt" of a scammer or similarly banned person is

 

going off of what Yahiamice said

not knowing if its an alt or not can be anxiety enduing seeing as there is the possible that someone can miss judge an alt and now is facing punishment 

witch is why we need to be very clear when a punishment is handed out whether that is points added or ban of some kind

using a point system over 3 strikes would allow for a bit of leniency for those that are

A. not as experienced

B. New to trading

C. the account is not obvious

I couldn't agree more, Spoon. I just wanted to make sure this was clarified in this discussion.

[SirDapper]

I have been very vocal on this topic for a few months now, it is wildly complex and I understand both sides of the coin.

The current system is flawed, and it grants traders too many ways to sneak around the current rules. A system is impossible to account for all variables, HOWEVER, LetterZed has an amazing solution that I was thinking of myself, which is marking items. 

 

On 3/5/2024 at 2:45 PM, TheLetterZed said:

My suggestion, and take it with a grain of salt, is to develop a site feature which marks items that were traded from a SteamRep scammer after they were banned. This should be marked as an attribute in the same way that duplicate items are marked.

 

I think this system is important. The whole reason why dupes were initially tracked was because those items were often involved in a scam. Furthermore, it's generally good to know if an item shares an ID due to duplication as some users prefer non-duped items. Having an item that is involved in a scam to be permanently stained would discourage users from purchasing from these scammer accounts. While I'm at it, I think a few more changes should be suggested.

Backpack Marking
Steamrep has some silly outdated rules, many scammers out there are not marked on Steamrep but are banned for being a scammer on bp.tf. I believe they should be held at the same level as Steamrep marked users. I really can't see a con to this suggestion as there's no reason for a distinction at this level, a scammer is a scammer at the end of the day. 
- I propose users who are banned for scamming, should face a ban similar to a mark.
Maybe users who are banned for other reasons, fencing and other silly things that make them shady, should be given a yellow ban line instead of a red, similar to rep cautions. This could also help distinguish users who ask "can i trade with this person"

Obvious Alts
Alts can be painfully obvious, I can generally find them within 2 seconds of researching a single item. Most traders complain that it's just too much work. If you add marking of banned items it could make it even more obvious, in which the blame gets put on the user fully. The excuse of "I didn't know" only works so far. 

Bots
While I would say bots shouldn't face repercussions, some users in the community have been using bots to almost fence scam items on purpose. I think if a bot owner actively seeks to transact with scammers, they should be marked. For example, "bots" placing buy orders for scammed 1/1s. For example, blizzardy storm co-pilot https://next.backpack.tf/stats?item=Co-Pilot&quality=Unusual&priceindex=30 there's no reason why b/o should be placed on known scammed items. It's disingenuous and inviting for scammers to dump. Even on websites such as STN https://stntrading.eu/item/tf2/Unusual+Blizzardy+Storm+Co-Pilot invite scammers to dump. Many more 1/1 scammed items are riddled with b/o of users hoping scammers dump. 

I believe it should be the responsibility of bot owners to blacklist specific items from being dumped into their bots. I mean this can even be tackled by bp by banning classified b/os on specific items. There is no reason why B/O should be allowed for scammed 1/1s it invites scammer dumps.

If the item isn't a 1/1 rules should stand as they currently are. Marking of said item will make it a harder sell anyway :^)

Marked Items
To elaborate on Zed's idea, I'm in the belief pool that all items currently in banned scammer or marked bps should be marked. This is a rule that shouldn't retroactively be put in place. Items should remain marked until they have spent 3 years historically in an unmarked inventory. Those entering a marked/banned scammer inventory should reset the timer, or add it for said item, additionally, if an item is no longer trackable (private or scm), the timer pauses. This stops scammers from offloading to alts easily as it gives time for the item to be tracked and for the alt to be potentially banned as well. It will also give traders who happen to purchase these items a harder time selling them, which is the whole point of banning people in the first place. Instead of the user being punished, the specific item should be publicly seen as "dirty", this will give the trader a hard enough time selling. If there is a high volume of trades it should be noted and the user should face punishment. 

The Big Problem
The one, and only time, this whole idea falls apart is a scammer dumping right after the scam. I believe in these cases the situation becomes grey and it should be up to the jurisdiction of the report mods to strike or not. The recent scam with Moist was handled poorly in my opinion, as it's painfully obvious many of the buyers who participated in that scam, should have known the items were scammed. Many of those items were unique, and many spell traders knew they belonged to moist. All it would take is one DM to ask if they were scammed or not, though, because of the way the rules stand, they didn't have to and knew they could get away with anything (which they did). I think for these cases a genuine investigation should be put into place, and a verdict should be determined that bends the rules similarly to how these users bend them.

Conclusion
I do believe the current rules can be added upon, instead of re-written, to find a better solution for handling scammers, their alts, and items from these transactions. I also believe if marked items are instated, responsibility can be re-shifted onto the traders, as at that point it should be painfully obvious if the item comes from a scammer/alt. If they fail to check bp tf, the most basic task in any trade, that's on them, and claiming ignorance should have no grounds.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk, feedback is appreciated