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

[Nicnova]

If they are all you have, you have nothing and it only hurts your point.

I didn't see this part of your original post, so to add: we do not have nothing. There's countless people here who tell their stories about being scammed/ninjaed, who have screenshots to provide, conversations they've had with staff. A poll with a bunch of people who think that CS needs to do more to deal with this situations. But even with proof, sometimes it's still not enough to even get a trade reversal.

Ninja traders needn't even be punished so harshly. Sometimes it would be enough for a player to just get their pets back.

[Lacuna]

I don't understand. We have more but we aren't allowed to post them because they are seen as "called out specific users/posts/situations". We can't offer proof because it will get deleted even if no username is mentioned. Any concrete proof can't be used because it's real.

@ Lacuna since I didn't get a reply earlier I will rephrase my question!

Say there is an user who ninja's another user. The other person reports the trade but "due to lack of evidence nothing can be done". The user will then go on to ninja, say, 4 other people who also report it. At WHAT point will mods look at said user's past trade history and reports towards them and go "hmm, maybe this isn't an isolated instance"? This is NOT a reference to any real user btw, purely hypothetical. You say ninjaing is "near impossible to determine" and in some instances I can definitely believe that! But where is the line drawn? Because there comes a point where it's... really obvious.

@Nicnova too:

If a situation is real, the user involved (preferably) should report it. If someone not involved reports it and it turns out they don't have all the information about it though, it might not be what they think it is and the handling of it may not match what they thought should have been done, because they are without that context. No one should be using "proof" to call people out on the forums; that breaks our rules.

The hypothetical situations are covered especially in the very first line of Simon's post (as we do take everything possible into account, scamming is dealt with by higher-level staff), and I believe where the line is drawn is also covered in said post: Simon's post.

[Nicnova]

@Nicnova too:

If a situation is real, the user involved (preferably) should report it. If someone not involved reports it and it turns out they don't have all the information about it though, it might not be what they think it is and the handling of it may not match what they thought should have been done, because they are without that context. No one should be using "proof" to call people out on the forums; that breaks our rules.

The hypothetical situations are covered especially in the very first line of Simon's post (as we do take everything possible into account, scamming is dealt with by higher-level staff), and I believe where the line is drawn is also covered in said post: Simon's post.

The user .destiny made a great response to Simon's post earlier that was never addressed. .destiny's post

Also: no one is reporting anything for anyone. All these situations were reported by the user involved.

[Lanayru]

I don't understand. We have more but we aren't allowed to post them because they are seen as "called out specific users/posts/situations". We can't offer proof because it will get deleted even if no username is mentioned. Any concrete proof can't be used because it's real.

@ Lacuna since I didn't get a reply earlier I will rephrase my question!

Say there is an user who ninja's another user. The other person reports the trade but "due to lack of evidence nothing can be done". The user will then go on to ninja, say, 4 other people who also report it. At WHAT point will mods look at said user's past trade history and reports towards them and go "hmm, maybe this isn't an isolated instance"? This is NOT a reference to any real user btw, purely hypothetical. You say ninjaing is "near impossible to determine" and in some instances I can definitely believe that! But where is the line drawn? Because there comes a point where it's... really obvious.

@Nicnova too:

If a situation is real, the user involved (preferably) should report it. If someone not involved reports it and it turns out they don't have all the information about it though, it might not be what they think it is and the handling of it may not match what they thought should have been done, because they are without that context. No one should be using "proof" to call people out on the forums; that breaks our rules.

The hypothetical situations are covered especially in the very first line of Simon's post (as we do take everything possible into account, scamming is dealt with by higher-level staff), and I believe where the line is drawn is also covered in said post: Simon's post.

This is where I wish I could reference actual instances (without identifying info or names of course) because there are cases I've witnessed firsthand where this just doesn't hold true. :-/ I try to refrain from commenting here because the thread is pretty hectic and I suck at wording things, but it just. sucks to see staff say one thing but do another when these instances actually happen.

[far]

Here is an example of pet rarity inflation experienced by me.
Recently I was trying to get a Dragoncat PPS. One user sent me trade including this very desired pet.
https://www.chickensmoothie.com/trades/viewtrade.php?id=97844812&userid=631842&signature=_syjfaTcNzKBbuPiANHPVA
In this trade they included in the message:
"i recently got .5+ wort for my last pps cat dragon (as seen below) so im willing to do this?

link to trade"
This is the problem. Users should not be trading and messaging users that their pet is worth more than it is.
The Dragoncat PPS goes for .25 non not .5 non.
It should be an issue if a user is citing clearly unfair trades as the new norm.

It is frustrating to get trades like this and be told "it's fine it's subjective" if I was inexperienced I would of accepted a clearly unfair trade, no new user wants to experience that. There is obviously an issue if players are willing to send you a trade containing the pet you want and trying to up the value of the pet with the trade. I get wanting overpay. But here they are trying to up the value of the pet. Trades like this are cited to up value of pets.

[Lacuna]

So you want a user saying they got a trade with this value (true) so they personally want that value again to be against the rules?

You said they said the pet is worth more than it is (not true, they said they got that and want that). They did not say that you had to accept or it would be unfair if you asked for less, they just weren't willing to accept it. This is just how trades work on CS, and if we implemented something else, you saying that that pet goes for .25 nons would also be against the rules because that is user inflated valuation, not true valuation. The only difference is someone said "I got this for this so I want it again" longer ago, and more people have copied it.

This is a perfect example of why this doesn't work.

[morax]

im not trying to be disrespectful or anything but if you aren’t going to change anything staff then why bother going back and forth with users ? it’s very blatant you guys just don’t want to budge anything , unless there is still staff considering doing something …?

[far]

So you want a user saying they got a trade with this value (true) so they personally want that value again to be against the rules?

You said they said the pet is worth more than it is (not true, they said they got that and want that). They did not say that you had to accept or it would be unfair if you asked for less, they just weren't willing to accept it. This is just how trades work on CS, and if we implemented something else, you saying that that pet goes for .25 nons would also be against the rules because that is user inflated valuation, not true valuation. The only difference is someone said "I got this for this so I want it again" longer ago, and more people have copied it.

This is a perfect example of why this doesn't work.

I just think what they said was very misleading. To a new user who doesn't understand rarities it would be very easy to see why they would regret that.
If this changes your point of view before I got that trade I got this trade from the same user with the message
"im wiling do to this i value my cat dragon at .5 nons"
https://www.chickensmoothie.com/trades/viewtrade.php?id=97811603&userid=631842&signature=fTlg5w4jRUu7S1ul7fuG4w
They sent and said this before the other trade was ever accepted.
Which I suppose doesn't matter because it was their opinion

[Lanayru]

to be slightly more helpful here's a further suggestion: moderate the FTT and STT more closely. Incorrect advice and values are against the rules in both but users giving deliberately bad advice continue to be free to post despite reports and others correcting them. This is not a new instance, but another case where having some dedicated trade mods would help.

Of course everyone is incorrect sometimes and users shouldn't be banned from giving advice over one mistake! However if an user continuously gives incorrect info something should be done as it shouldn't be entirely on other users to correct them!

(reposted and reworded better to keep this from being buried)

[Lacuna]

im not trying to be disrespectful or anything but if you aren’t going to change anything staff then why bother going back and forth with users ? it’s very blatant you guys just don’t want to budge anything , unless there is still staff considering doing something …?

You're right. As the posts here are not productive anymore and we have already agreed to look into changes such as adding links, so I'm going to lock the thread.