Ninja Trading - Why is it not bannable?

[ACat]

Because they don't want to do anything about it. And I say that having been part of many discussions and suggestions wanting ninja trading to be banned or punished in some way. The m​ods will give the same answers and go around in circles without actually considering people's arguments, and get defensive when people question them. And there's been a ton of great, feasible suggestions from the community regarding the subject. Sooooo I gave up on that long ago.

They just believe it would be "too much work" to moderate, so they won't.

In reference to your edit; Yes, it hasn't happened to me but I've heard from people that were ninja'd by staff members.

Agreed, ninja trading can be combated by case-by-case basis, and investigations. It's VERY easy to find evidence if someone is ninja trading. (Heck, it doesn't even take LONG.) But like you said; the strange belief of "too much work" is often used

It does seem like a pretty flimsy argument.. especially if it's a case of a person being flagged up/reported multiple times for doing it. :<

[Darkcloud!]

Yeesh... Event pets are like rare at most when they get rarities aren't they? Maybe there should be a warning on the exchange page or something. People really take any opportunity to take advantage of others :<

I think that would be really cool, just like the warning for Dec 18th! Something about anyone saying that the new pets are worth old pets/ "will be extremely rare" is likely not trading fair.

While I don't want to speculate on who does/doesn't ninja trade, with how much it does get talked about- so much that we have a term for it! I would really like to see a stronger stance against it. It would be really neat, if is the kind of issue that could be addressed this way: have an "event hotline" of vetted volunteers to help review event trades within a few minutes for COPPA'd (or everyone!) users that is open during and until event rarities are released- specifically for helping make sure a scam isn't happening.

Anything else could still go on the usual "Is this a Fair Trade?" thread.

Overall, though, I am not sure how you combat the demand generated from likely to be rare pets that causes people to look in the members lists for new player and trade out those pets from under them, or the people that make new/returning players THINK they cost far more than they do by demanding that much for them in the forums/private trades.

[Darkcloud!]

It does seem like a pretty flimsy argument.. especially if it's a case of a person being flagged up/reported multiple times for doing it. :<

If I had a penny for every time the resolution was "Please block this user and do not trade with them anymore" I would have not quite a whole quarter but it's getting there. OFC I/the victim are not going to trade them anymore!

[ACat]

It does seem like a pretty flimsy argument.. especially if it's a case of a person being flagged up/reported multiple times for doing it. :<

If I had a penny for every time the resolution was "Please block this user and do not trade with them anymore" I would have not quite a whole quarter but it's getting there. OFC I/the victim are not going to trade them anymore!

That's such a silly resolution to give. Maybe they could at least compensate victims of ninja trading with a new pet etc but I'm not sure if that's work out as well in practice.

[peachy!]

the responses from staff surrounding scamming and ninja trading are... unhelpful and contradictory, to say the least.

the main answer is "difference in values," but if this was the case, why bother having a fair trade thread and compiling trade data? it doesn't make much sense to me.

if cs doesn't want to ban repeat offenders, there should be some form of warning/blacklist in my opinion.

[ACat]

the responses from staff surrounding scamming and ninja trading are... unhelpful and contradictory, to say the least.

the main answer is "difference in values," but if this was the case, why bother having a fair trade thread and compiling trade data? it doesn't make much sense to me.

if cs doesn't want to ban repeat offenders, there should be some form of warning/blacklist in my opinion.

I'd suggest a user made blacklist however I believe we're not allowed to name specific users which is unfortunate in this case :<

It'd likely just end up with victims getting punished and the actual scammers walking free

[.destiny]

this was a topic of discussion about two years ago and it didn't really go anywhere. it boiled down to staff being unable ban ninja trading because they can't determine what is objectively fair and what isn't, alongside being unable to discern user intent. and even if they did draw the line at what's fair and what isn't, it was stated that players would just simply 'regret past trades' and want them reversed.

[peachy!]

the responses from staff surrounding scamming and ninja trading are... unhelpful and contradictory, to say the least.

the main answer is "difference in values," but if this was the case, why bother having a fair trade thread and compiling trade data? it doesn't make much sense to me.

if cs doesn't want to ban repeat offenders, there should be some form of warning/blacklist in my opinion.

I'd suggest a user made blacklist however I believe we're not allowed to name specific users which is unfortunate in this case :<

there are blacklists on user made adoptables forums, so as long as cs staff were to handle the post themselves, i don't see why it wouldn't be allowed. iirc you have to refer to them by id, though.

to be fair, the 'victims' are punished as is, because currently, no action is taken against the scammer.

[ACat]

the responses from staff surrounding scamming and ninja trading are... unhelpful and contradictory, to say the least.

the main answer is "difference in values," but if this was the case, why bother having a fair trade thread and compiling trade data? it doesn't make much sense to me.

if cs doesn't want to ban repeat offenders, there should be some form of warning/blacklist in my opinion.

I'd suggest a user made blacklist however I believe we're not allowed to name specific users which is unfortunate in this case :<

there are blacklists on user made adoptables forums, so as long as cs staff were to handle the post themselves, i don't see why it wouldn't be allowed. iirc you have to refer to them by id, though.

to be fair, the 'victims' are punished as is, because currently, no action is taken against the scammer.

Do you have a link to the blacklist?

[peachy!]

Do you have a link to the blacklist? :o

i do not, and i couldn't share them if i did. they're for breaking user made adoptable community rules though, not scamming. if they're allowed in one area, i don't see why they shouldn't in another.