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

[Ariete]

^ The thing is, staff don't know real values. I think there's maybe 1 or 2 people who do? And CS has always made it clear as long as I've been lurking around that it won't release real values. Staff aren't at fault for that nor can they do anything about that. Staff operate under the same values that we do.

Also for the post underneath: There's already a way to factor in inactive users. I remember that point from a discussion about deactivating inactive accounts for that reason.

[eyesemote]

I heavily support .destiny's post, there's no way to gauge pet value properly without real hard data to back it. I'd also like to add we should have numbers for pets owned by active and inactive users so people are aware of the difference. It'll be confusing to see a pet have high demand when a high number exist but would be more understandable if a sizable portion was owned by inactive players.

[axelandria]

I heavily support .destiny's post, there's no way to gauge pet value properly without real hard data to back it. I'd also like to add we should have numbers for pets owned by active and inactive users so people are aware of the difference. It'll be confusing to see a pet have high demand when a high number exist but would be more understandable if a sizable portion was owned by inactive players.

Pets' rarities are determined by how many of the pet is owned across all active accounts. Inactive accounts are not taken into effect when determining a pet's rarity :)

[morax]

most of the scammers that get called out / found are actually some of the most common people we see in the threads everyday and nothing gets done about them. they also know values, current demand, market, etc. so there is nothing NOT ill intented about somebody who trades a non for a non to people everyday, but when it comes to an i experienced user, it’s 4 09s and a storepet for that non. there is even a user who has notoriously scammed countless URs and lists for YEARS on dec 18th and i know for a FACT atleast 4 people people i know have reported this user two december 18ths. (before you mention the “third party thing”, yes, they were people who were actually scammed by this user and/or had a sibling who reported the person.) i have never ever seen a single trade of theirs reversed at all in all the years i’ve been on cs. they do it every single year, and nothing gets done about them - and it’s really odd considering this is a very public user. i’m not going to vague or give detail of who this person is, i am just giving one great example.

i think the issue is that a lot of repeat offenders who have received over 5+ warnings with evidence and proof get nothing done about them, and punishing these offenders would probably decrease the amount of scamming by a good number? just in my opinion. because, when i find out a user was scammed, and i hear it was someone who was already known for scamming, it’s automatically in my head - “oh it’s them. i wonder when they’re gonna do something about this guy”

i’m having some ounce of faith maybe not a lot of scammers get their trades reversed and/or get banned because of the lack of staff to moderate these reports because they can’t access trade history? idk. also, there would be no worry about inspect elementing trades if the staff themselves could just take two seconds and look at the users’ trade history. but it’s kind of hard because it’s only admin accessible (iirc) .

the idea for giving mods the access to trades is the mods can handle the situation by looking at the trade history, analyze the report, and take it up to the admins for a choice of what to do consequence wise. maybe this will make it a little easier on the admins to not have to run around and fetch the story all by themselves, instead a moderator can do it and the admin can form an opinion and conclusion / consequence ? idk i’m tired. it’s 8 am.

my point is, staff, when are you going to do something about the users who have been repeat offenders for a while and have plenty of trade evidence rotting in their trade history for you to see. there’s nothing “userbased” about somebody trading three 09 rares for a lion tail. ain’t no way

[W0LFkiss]

I'd prefer not to be bound

If you can unpack that for us in a way that related to the topic of this thread, that would be better rather than being vague...

Ok, sure.

Please don't attempt to tell me how I should value my pets.
We likely wouldn't agree,
because a Rare '09 for a Rare '09
seems relatively fair to me.
Anything outside of that is personal preference,
or it's likely on someone else's list.

If I click send / accept on a trade,
it shows that I like the offer.
Even if on occasion, that means
I get nothing in return.

If they click accept, it's reasonable to assume that they like the offer, for whatever reason.

No one is forcing your hand.

I don't intentionally cheat anyone.
The tags have been in place for years!
Again, you could politely decline if you don't like it.

I deliberately avoid trading with someone who is
very new, because they likely don't grasp the concept, & I'd like to give them time to figure out
with their own mind on what seems fair.

If you're reading this, & you're that type of person who seeks out a new member, just to profit from them? I encourage you to look into yourself & identify what truely might be missing
- asside from pixels.

CS is meant to be fun, I thought.

Now it's all "Nons" & "MAs"
- Who cares what they look like??
Let someone else dictate what that pet is worth.

I won't be bound by the lack of logic
that someone should offer half their
collection on one pet.
(Unless they choose to, of course).

[W0LFkiss]

Point is, you have options.

Send / Edit / Accept / Decline.

Values are far too subjective to request a reversal on a decision that has already been made.

Yes - there are jerks out there, unfortunately.
They can't grab from your collection though.
If they could, that would be a real issue.

[Lanayru]

Point is, you have options.

Send / Edit / Accept / Decline.

Values are far too subjective to request a reversal on a decision that has already been made.

Values are subjective, yes - but only when both people are on the same page about them. When an user intentionally misleads or refuses to inform another to personally profit from them being unaware of 'popular' values that should absolutely be grounds for a reversal.

[velociraptor.]

values are subjective, but there is still sort of a "set value" for some pets/items. but not everyone knows the "set values" of said pets/items.
i feel like, for example, a player comes online for december 18th and gets an omgsr pet. then someone trades them saying "hey, your omgsr pet is worth [not what it's worth] so is this ok?" purposely tricking the other player is morally wrong, and should be something that is punishable. of course the player could ask for advice, but those questions tend to get lost in the forums, so their question may go unanswered, so they choose to believe the other person. i dont know, it was just on my mind hhhh

[Simon]

Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it is not happening.

We take action against scamming every single day. If a users says anything intentionally misleading in order to deceive someone we will take action. If someone claims something is worth x amount in a trade but have posted on the forums contradicting info, we will take action. If someone clearly accepted a trade accidentally, we will take action.

We simply cannot take action against "ninja-trading" (this is not an official CS term) for a multitude of reasons. I ask you to really take the time to read the following and try to view this from our perspective.

1) Banning "ninja trading" would force CS Staff to have to determine what is objectively fair versus not fair which we cannot do. We have never and will never endorse a certain methodology, list or system for determining fairness other than our rarity system. Saying we force users to have to learn a list is untrue. People are free to trade whatever they want as long as both parties are happy with the trade at the time of sending the trade or accepting the trade.

2) People might say that there are trades that are "obviously unfair" but is there really? How could we possibly draw a line somewhere between what is fair vs unfair. It's an impossible task. Some people intentionally propose trades that they feel are viewed by others as "unfair" to them because they simply want a certain pet. Also, this would allow anyone who simply regretted accepting trade to be able to get it reversed. There are millions of ways someone could argue a trade was unfair to them. We can't just go off of trade history and forum posts alone because that would mean that no one is every able to change their opinion about what they view a pet is worth - which is unrealistic. Values fluctuate, opinions change, economies are fluid by nature.

3) Furthermore, we can't release exact data of how many of each pet exists because it would cause people to over analyze every trade and suddenly nothing would ever be viewed as "fair" again. People would feel that swaps were unfair simply because a few more pets of one outcome exist over another - even though relatively speaking they are equally abundant.

Additionally, I don't agree with people saying that other sites would reverse trades akin to "ninja trades". From what I can tell - all other pet sites function the same way CS does. Blatant scams where there is proof users are intentionally scamming by providing false info about a pets value or similar are reversed- and trades where both parties agree the trade is fair at the time of accepting and no deception is involved are typically never reversed.

I hope you can see how from my perspective -there is no logical way we could enforce banning "ninja trading" as it would be a nightmare to have to make determinations of fairness, user intention, etc.




values are subjective, but there is still sort of a "set value" for some pets/items. but not everyone knows the "set values" of said pets/items.
i feel like, for example, a player comes online for december 18th and gets an omgsr pet. then someone trades them saying "hey, your omgsr pet is worth [not what it's worth] so is this ok?" purposely tricking the other player is morally wrong, and should be something that is punishable. of course the player could ask for advice, but those questions tend to get lost in the forums, so their question may go unanswered, so they choose to believe the other person. i dont know, it was just on my mind hhhh



That scenario IS against the rules. If someone clearly intentionally misrepresents the value of a pet in a trade message, it's a scam - the trade would be reversed and the user would be punished for scamming.

[.destiny]

i'll be quoting all statements made by simon in this post. just as my last, i mean this in the most civil way possible. this is essentially an analysis of the situation and statements. again, i apologize if my statements happen to be taken harshly but my intention is to attempt to tell staff outright over what can be done. i am genuinely not seeking to start an argument or bash any staff member.



Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it is not happening.

We take action against scamming every single day. If a users says anything intentionally misleading in order to deceive someone we will take action. If someone claims something is worth x amount in a trade but have posted on the forums contradicting info, we will take action. If someone clearly accepted a trade accidentally, we will take action. provide evidence so us as the players can feel like we can trust you at all in this moment.



you are able to see how dire the situation has become. you could obscure names, specific details, anything, and publicize what you do as a moderation team. anything to show us as a community that the actions are actually ideal or doing anything helpful.



We simply cannot take action against "ninja-trading" (this is not an official CS term) for a multitude of reasons. I ask you to really take the time to read the following and try to view this from our perspective.

1) Banning "ninja trading" would force CS Staff to have to determine what is objectively fair versus not fair which we cannot do. We have never and will never endorse a certain methodology, list or system for determining fairness other than our rarity system. Saying we force users to have to learn a list is untrue. People are free to trade whatever they want as long as both parties are happy with the trade at the time of sending the trade or accepting the trade.



you are externally and internally misrepresenting us, the players, by overcomplicating the issue. add a statute of limitations on when a ninja trade can be reported so you don't have retroactive issues that you continue to ream despite nobody saying it outside of staff members.
you say that 'ninja-trading' is not an official term despite staff members continuing to use the term, even in help tickets about scams. the situation is dire enough for you to use it on your own site's forums.
you say that banning 'ninja-trading' would force staff to determine what is objectively fair versus not fair; something you're not able to do. but you could if you had a base system.

if you WERE to ban ninja trading, here's how it should go:
1. ban ninja trading
1.1: add a generalized, vague statistic that represents what metric of the population a certain rarity pertains to. (please see my previous post about that.)
1.2: add a statute of limitations (time limit) on when a ninja trade can be reported, so genuine, positive traders don't get in trouble for something that used to be valuable for them but still fair.
1.3: using your new metric from 1.1, you can internally determine what level of rarity from 1 user is a "fair" trade-- utilize that system, publicize it, and enforce it for ninja trading and/or accidental trades.



2) People might say that there are trades that are "obviously unfair" but is there really? How could we possibly draw a line somewhere between what is fair vs unfair. It's an impossible task. Some people intentionally propose trades that they feel are viewed by others as "unfair" to them because they simply want a certain pet. Also, this would allow anyone who simply regretted accepting trade to be able to get it reversed. There are millions of ways someone could argue a trade was unfair to them. We can't just go off of trade history and forum posts alone because that would mean that no one is every able to change their opinion about what they view a pet is worth - which is unrealistic. Values fluctuate, opinions change, economies are fluid by nature.



fix the rarity system to be less vague by any means. you can base value off the number of each individual pets in circulation. i have mentioned this in my previous post if you're willing to read through that. if you are a willing staff team, make it clear that retroactive trades will not change after a change in policy. use the power that you do have.
please stop using the reason that people may "simply regret accepting the trade" which is why you can't go off of trade history. nobody has asked for historical trades to be undone. please stop using this non-request as a defense.

2. following the steps from point 1.
2.1: trades should only be punishable after they go through so you're not having issues with players getting "speculative" punishments.
2.2: nobody has said that things that could now be viewed as ninja trades should now be valid to be reversed. all you have to do is say "okay, we won't enforce this before X date because it would reflect poorly upon the market as when the trade went through it."
2.3: if you install any sort of base value system--as proposed in 1, you wouldn't have to deal with having to scour your own site for the information an individual user used because you could just cross reference it off of the official site data that would support users who are victims of scams but wouldn't affect trades that're simply weighted one way.

i have a lot of things to say for your third statement. instead of quoting it entirely, i'll quote certain phrases and respond to those.



suddenly nothing would ever be viewed as "fair" again. People would feel that swaps were unfair simply because a few more pets of one outcome exist over another



a member of the same team reiterates a free market yet you're outright refusing to provide the tools to make the market free. the market is not free when every pet is valued based on a vague determining statistic. you force your players to have to fight over the validity on a stat that is visible--the date.
you are essentially supporting chaos over one statistic by not releasing more for players to subjectively weigh which stats mean more. if people would feel as though those swaps were unfair, that is the fault of the site for not being public with statistics YEARS ago.

how is statement one (analysis of trades) a causation of statement two (removal of fair systems)?
what would happen if people were able to analyze their trades to a meaningful extent would be the truest and fairest possible market--the most basic things on earth, and how actual objects have their determined rarity, is by one of two things.
1. an intentional industrial choice to not report the rarity--diamonds aren't rare, but jewellery companies say they are. is CS doing this to drive demand?
2. an actual count or quantity representing that a thing is scarce, meaning being able to possess one is a larger achievement, increasing as quantity falls.



...it would cause people to over analyze every trade



people already over analyze every trade, why is this a concern. but also, no it wouldn't as it would 'cause' people to be in proper control of their account values. is there more fear compared to pride over the fact that this community wants more effort put into the game? is there a general lack of inexperience with a system like this? please just tell us the truth.



- even though relatively speaking they are equally abundant.



3. if they are equally abundant then why in the world is it an issue to display them. if they are in near equal quantities, players are smart enough to acknowledge it. so, display it.



I hope you can see how from my perspective -there is no logical way we could enforce banning "ninja trading" as it would be a nightmare to have to make determinations of fairness, user intention, etc.



your perspective is one of three things but two of which i'm a bit wary of saying. so, i'll just say it's unwilling to acknowledge arguments. if it's genuinely a nightmare to solve then i believe that says more about the CS staff than anything else.



That scenario IS against the rules. If someone clearly intentionally misrepresents the value of a pet in a trade message, it's a scam - the trade would be reversed and the user would be punished for scamming.


are you genuinely not concerned that a concept that is so simple to you (the fact that this scenario is against the rules) remains unknown because of how the team has failed to represent itself nor anything that makes any positive light of this situation?
if this point is still being missed (to the point where you need to emphasize it IS), then the team is not doing a good job communicating as a unit about the truths of the website they all use and claim to know plenty about the systems of.