Doing something about Ninjaing/Scamming. [Poll Added!]

[Karma.]

I agree with this. Though I'm still very new and joined in November 2021. I traded a user and didn't know my values and a lot of users were letting me know that I got scammed, when I sent in a report the admin assistant said I wasn't scammed, I was Ninjad. But Ninja and Scam trading are technically the same thing. I even stated in my trade message that I was new to trading, this lead to me probably getting scammed in multiple trades I've sent so far because I'm new and I have no clue about trading. I'm still waiting to get adopted from "adopt a newbie" thread and it's been a few months without me getting an adopter. I'm very sad and trying to get pets that I need are very hard because people want massive overpay, shouldn't overpay also be considered scamming? Overpay is technically going over the value of a pet on purpose. I would consider overpay scamming too, but that's just me.

I think the difference between overpaying and scamming is that scamming is about being tricked and uninformed about a pet, whereas with overpaying, you may know the correct “value” of a pet but be happy to pay more for it if it is a pet you badly want. and someone may be willing to part more with a pet if they love the overpay. overpaying is the choice of the trader, scamming is malicious and against those who may not be completely informed about demand

i understand where you’re coming from, but overpaying is arguably just trading up or down. a lot of people advertise things like “H: UR Bee, LF: [insert something of lesser value that they want more and that they’re willing to pay that price for] - that’s how I’d see the difference anyway!!

[Candilicious]

I agree with this. Though I'm still very new and joined in November 2021. I traded a user and didn't know my values and a lot of users were letting me know that I got scammed, when I sent in a report the admin assistant said I wasn't scammed, I was Ninjad. But Ninja and Scam trading are technically the same thing. I even stated in my trade message that I was new to trading, this lead to me probably getting scammed in multiple trades I've sent so far because I'm new and I have no clue about trading. I'm still waiting to get adopted from "adopt a newbie" thread and it's been a few months without me getting an adopter. I'm very sad and trying to get pets that I need are very hard because people want massive overpay, shouldn't overpay also be considered scamming? Overpay is technically going over the value of a pet on purpose. I would consider overpay scamming too, but that's just me.

I usually don't consider overpay scamming as the over-payer typically knows what they're offering is more than the worth of their partner's side, but they're either just very generous or don't care. It sometimes happens when older users want to catch up on events they missed or just people in general wanting to complete a collection they might have by using valuable doubles. Though I will note that sometimes a newer user might overpay without knowing, offering something very valuable for something less so, and I think their trading partner should inform them before accepting anything, it just seems like the morally right thing to do.

I was actually talking about how a new player, like myself, don't know rarities and demands too well and accidentally overpay for the pet. This is what I was trying to say that should be considered a scam as the new player probably doesn't have any ideas on what they are doing.

[×Seven of Nine×]

I would like to say that just because a person has "really good pets" doesn't mean they understand trading. These could be gifts, December 18th pets, etc.

Going by that alone isn't a good way to tell if someone is a scammer or something.

[far]

I would like to say that just because a person has "really good pets" doesn't mean they understand trading. These could be gifts, December 18th pets, etc.

Going by that alone isn't a good way to tell if someone is a scammer or something.

This is true, but the difference between having a few really good pets and having a folder just for list pets is noticeably different imo

[Cygnetta]

I think there should be a default setting--that can be manually turned off--where every time you accept or send a trade that involves something rare+ (and maybe any item), it should have a message saying: "Are you sure you want to send/accept this trade? This trade involves a valuable pet. If you're not sure of its worth, you can consult these threads:" and under that message are links to the current threads that people use for information about rarity. This would ensure that new users know the threads are there.

[Nicnova]

I think there should be a default setting--that can be manually turned off--where every time you accept or send a trade that involves something rare+ (and maybe any item), it should have a message saying: "Are you sure you want to send/accept this trade? This trade involves a valuable pet. If you're not sure of its worth, you can consult these threads:" and under that message are links to the current threads that people use for information about rarity. This would ensure that new users know the threads are there.

I like this idea too, but like Lacuna said it'd be kind of hard for staff to decide what threads they want to support and use for this kind of warning. Maybe just a general link to the Chicken Smoothie Discussion forum where players generally talk about pet values would work? It would be really vague though, and new players would still have to do a lot of work themselves to weed out the ones that are outdated.

[phxyvi]

From an outside perspective, sure, this sounds like a great idea! I don’t want anyone to believe that staff likes or supports ninja trading, because we don’t and it frustrates us too. However, in practice, it is incredibly hard to moderate. Common criticism we get of any rule that moderates user behavior is that it is too subjective, no matter how specific we try to make it, and banning “ninja trading” is the ultimate level of subjectivity where staff would have to decide if users were sending trades based on genuine ignorance or malicious intent, or even just a neutrality toward the majority opinion.

The first issue this is CS pets do not have set values beyond their rarity bar and users are not required to agree on pet values. Of course if someone posts on the forum that they believe x equals y and then sends a trade that they say is fair because x equals twice y then that is an issue, but that’s unlikely. There are common ideas of supply, demand, amount in circulation, etc. but values are what people will pay, end of. Someone may only care that a trade was deemed “unfair” between two OMGsoRare! pets because they found out it is subjectively considered “unfair” by some other users. People could argue that this could be solved with a more specific rarity system implemented by the site, but that’s not something I can speak to or have any control over, though I would support more levels of rarity distinction. However, I do not support knowing exactly what each pet is worth because it wouldn’t change anything. People would still want more or say the value is greater for demand, supply, etc. reasons.

In addition, users cannot see trade messages or trading partner names on shared trades. You can post trades received or sent, but you cannot see if the person you believe is scamming/scammed actually communicated or agreed to the value of the trade, which if we allowed users to post “users to watch out for” would inevitably get twisted.

We do not mandate fair trades. You can offer overpay and accept overpay if you want and users often do, especially for new releases. You are also not banned from sending unfair trades, because of the subjectivity of value and as a protection for users who know less or care less about what the community believes values to be. You cannot prove someone read one specific thread and say “well that user knew better” because that requires us to say they both fully understood and agreed with what they read.

Staff post links, warnings, and guides everywhere we currently can, especially around December 18th. I would not be opposed to a link in the trading page, but to what thread? No one can 100% accurately answer “is this trade fair” since it’s intentionally subjective. We cannot endorse just one guide; that failed in the past.

Personally, I favor a less specific way of looking at pet values and less emphasis on trades being perfectly fair based on someone else’s guide, as it only fuels popular pets being priced higher and higher over time. However, I know this is an idyllic view and not likely because many people enjoy a virtual economy based play style. As a staff member (and adult) I have other responsibilities on CS (and in life) that bar me from knowing exactly what is going on in the trading community. I am always worried I will send a trade unknowingly that is considered “unfair” so I mostly don’t trade. If we had staff specifically to help with trade values, their word would be taken as law and that’s not good either unless you want to change the way CS fundamentally functions on user taste and preference in collecting pets.

Finally, a dragon cat (saw someone talking about it so I’ll use it as an example) is worth more than other similarly dated/released store pets because some people like it better aesthetically. It’s true value is not what people pay, so should we say anyone who says it’s worth more than another similar date store pet is scamming? Of course not, because we all know personal valuation factors in.

TL;DR: There is no way to fairly moderate “ninja trading” because values are based on personal opinion, and making values unsubjective will hamper the ability to play CS freely.

I think that the dragoncat example is a bad one
Although there are more outliers than usual, it still HAS a widely accepted market value. Most, if not all pets, trade above or below their rarity. So yes, I would consider it scamming if someone were to value it the same as a similar date storepet because that is not its market value. They would be misleading you.

A better example would be the UR rat. The ur rat is quite rare. But undesirable.

It is not scamming to trade only a non for an UR rat. But it is worth much more than that. Its market value is only around a non at most to the majority of users.

But I believe you know it isn’t trades like this we are talking about in the first place. I understand the difficulty of moderating it, and sympathize there, but there are many examples where the ninjaing is glaringly obvious. There are trades and numerous sources showing it is unfair. But because it is against the rules, nothing can be done. Those are the trades this thread is about.

[Lacuna]

@DrMoneyBags: The pet has a value that you consider a widely accepted value, but it is not endorsed by anything other than a small number of user opinions, specifically those users who have taken it upon themselves to influence and discuss the economy. And I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, of course! I’m saying that there is a silent (subjective, not saying they all never post on the forums, just that they’re off in other parts of it) majority of users who have literally no idea or care about what those users believe, myself included frankly. If we go by your post, someone saying they think it’s fair to ask for another user for the Non for their UR Rat is both scamming and not scamming. Schrodinger’s scam, if you will. You cannot have it both ways, because we cannot have an individual rule on what counts as a scam for each pet. This gets back to the subjectivity of trading which we cannot truly effectively moderate.

[nicole]

From an outside perspective, sure, this sounds like a great idea! I don’t want anyone to believe that staff likes or supports ninja trading, because we don’t and it frustrates us too. However, in practice, it is incredibly hard to moderate. Common criticism we get of any rule that moderates user behavior is that it is too subjective, no matter how specific we try to make it, and banning “ninja trading” is the ultimate level of subjectivity where staff would have to decide if users were sending trades based on genuine ignorance or malicious intent, or even just a neutrality toward the majority opinion.

The first issue this is CS pets do not have set values beyond their rarity bar and users are not required to agree on pet values. Of course if someone posts on the forum that they believe x equals y and then sends a trade that they say is fair because x equals twice y then that is an issue, but that’s unlikely. There are common ideas of supply, demand, amount in circulation, etc. but values are what people will pay, end of. Someone may only care that a trade was deemed “unfair” between two OMGsoRare! pets because they found out it is subjectively considered “unfair” by some other users. People could argue that this could be solved with a more specific rarity system implemented by the site, but that’s not something I can speak to or have any control over, though I would support more levels of rarity distinction. However, I do not support knowing exactly what each pet is worth because it wouldn’t change anything. People would still want more or say the value is greater for demand, supply, etc. reasons.

In addition, users cannot see trade messages or trading partner names on shared trades. You can post trades received or sent, but you cannot see if the person you believe is scamming/scammed actually communicated or agreed to the value of the trade, which if we allowed users to post “users to watch out for” would inevitably get twisted.

We do not mandate fair trades. You can offer overpay and accept overpay if you want and users often do, especially for new releases. You are also not banned from sending unfair trades, because of the subjectivity of value and as a protection for users who know less or care less about what the community believes values to be. You cannot prove someone read one specific thread and say “well that user knew better” because that requires us to say they both fully understood and agreed with what they read.

Staff post links, warnings, and guides everywhere we currently can, especially around December 18th. I would not be opposed to a link in the trading page, but to what thread? No one can 100% accurately answer “is this trade fair” since it’s intentionally subjective. We cannot endorse just one guide; that failed in the past.

Personally, I favor a less specific way of looking at pet values and less emphasis on trades being perfectly fair based on someone else’s guide, as it only fuels popular pets being priced higher and higher over time. However, I know this is an idyllic view and not likely because many people enjoy a virtual economy based play style. As a staff member (and adult) I have other responsibilities on CS (and in life) that bar me from knowing exactly what is going on in the trading community. I am always worried I will send a trade unknowingly that is considered “unfair” so I mostly don’t trade. If we had staff specifically to help with trade values, their word would be taken as law and that’s not good either unless you want to change the way CS fundamentally functions on user taste and preference in collecting pets.

Finally, a dragon cat (saw someone talking about it so I’ll use it as an example) is worth more than other similarly dated/released store pets because some people like it better aesthetically. It’s true value is not what people pay, so should we say anyone who says it’s worth more than another similar date store pet is scamming? Of course not, because we all know personal valuation factors in.

TL;DR: There is no way to fairly moderate “ninja trading” because values are based on personal opinion, and making values unsubjective will hamper the ability to play CS freely.

Thing is, there have been times where people DO take staff's word as advice and others have said that "Oh TD isn't worth more than RR because a staff member said so!" and so goes that argument that went down in the "How much is this Pet Worth?" Thread. I genuinely do believe there should be staff members dedicated purely for Trading as there are moderators for Oekaki and Roleplay. Letting moderators purely for Trading purposes that can and will handle with trades like this would actually be able to handle it as other staff members aren't part of this section of CS. " If we had staff specifically to help with trade values, their word would be taken as law and that’s not good either unless you want to change the way CS fundamentally functions on user taste and preference in collecting pets. " Wouldn't that be good? It would actually help users not get scammed and listen to other people trying to ninja them or undervalue/overvalue their pets? Listening to a CS staff saying proper values by actually taking the time to look at successful trades, talking to other users on the CSTM, or CSDS, or any other discord server that has a bunch of Chickensmoothie users on it, looking at what people are saying on the threads and such thus finally offering ACTUAL advice and helping out instead of other users unknowingly, or willingly giving false advice and pushing demand and value. There is also the cases of people using auction trades, and overpay trades to justify their own trades and values which is just not fair.


Something I also wanted to mention was that no, you don't have to agree with pet values, but it's most of the time that it's players who DO agree on these pet values and then actually push the demand for these pets to be worth even more and making others pay unfairly and then posting these successful trades? It's the same issue with c$ inflation as well, but that's a whole different thread/suggestion. It's not simply assuming that "that user knew better" it's moreso they're known in the community, have posted many successful trades, swaps, advice, and such on many of these trading threads.

I just want to say that yes, users do post trades but they also send screenshots of what those other users have said with the username blurred out, and out of curiosity, users will message the person asking who they are and such so we can avoid them.

It sucks because it just feels like there's really no rules regulating any of these trades and allowing many users to get scammed & users have to rely on other user's words on threads, and feels like WE have to help mandate these threads and help not get these users scammed or have unfair trades and accepting it not realizing it was unfair to them. And absolutely anybody will say anything on the "Is This Fair Trade Thread". Sure, you can trade for whatever you want, but at the end of the day, even you Lacuna, I'm sure nobody wants to get scammed out of a valuable pet.

[phxyvi]

@DrMoneyBags: The pet has a value that you consider a widely accepted value, but it is not endorsed by anything other than a small number of user opinions, specifically those users who have taken it upon themselves to influence and discuss the economy. And I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, of course! I’m saying that there is a silent (subjective, not saying they all never post on the forums, just that they’re off in other parts of it) majority of users who have literally no idea or care about what those users believe, myself included frankly. If we go by your post, someone saying they think it’s fair to ask for another user for the Non for their UR Rat is both scamming and not scamming. Schrodinger’s scam, if you will. You cannot have it both ways, because we cannot have an individual rule on what counts as a scam for each pet. This gets back to the subjectivity of trading which we cannot truly effectively moderate.

Then do those users even have the pets we’re talking about trading? And if they do, Do they care if they’ve gotten scammed? Likely not. They’d have no intention of reporting and could be removed from the equation entirely, couldn’t they? If they’re happy with the trade then they’re happy. A lot of ninjaing upset comes from people who didn’t willingly set themselves away from the trading community. They just didn’t know, that doesn’t mean they didn’t want to know.

It is rather disheartening to see concerns dismissed as impossible when it comes to ninjaing. I know you didn’t have ill intent in saying you don’t really care about market values, of course, but surely you realize others do? If this is not a conversation you care about it would be less damaging to simply step out of it, rather than stay here and say that not only is it impossible to address but you don’t want to do it because you don’t care about the standard of fairness people are trying to uphold.

I’m not asking for an individual rule on what’s a scam for each pet. I’m asking for staff to look at the community they moderate and judge the situation based on that. Are scams not already dealt with on a case-by-case basis? What is the difference for ninjaing.