I believe Sharking, regardless of the relative or absolute difference in value, is just plain lying. It doesn't matter if it was a 1 bud hat for a burning TC, it can't be a shark as long as both users are happy with the trade acknowledging their actual values. However, if the buyer were to lie to the unassisted user about their hat(s)/item(s)' value (e.g. cool laser weapons for crappy burnt hats/chained boxes) then it would actually be a shark, and thus, a scam.
I don't really see any problem with Lamebro's purchase, as he did all proceeding correctly and fairly, and the previous owner of the beak was content with the trade.

On a side note, it just sickens me that people like http://www.tf2outpost.com/user/33048 are on the wild sharking hats actively with none of the mods doing anything despite the several reports made. 100% of MSX's hats are sharked, and most of them have their history wiped.
I first got alerted of this through http://forums.steamrep.com/threads/76561198037235237.35440/ , where it is explained that he bought a burning plug in prospector for roughly 5 keys worth of items, that the user thought would be a fair trade.
http://manncotrading.com/index.php/topic,3809.msg13425.html#msg13425 - Also explains several of the sharks done previously.

Sharking is one of those hard to define things.
Because it is really hard (basically impossible) to see evidence within steam(trade) chats.

Deception of a new player is a large part of what is wrong about sharking.

I think a set standard (criteria) would be a great idea
Put into consideration the hours of each user. (Age of account)
Their previous trading experience.
And how large of a one sided trade it was.


No veteran trader offers or expects to get a god tier hat for a bills hat, if their excuse was I offered and they accepted, it isnt a good excuse because they had a slight expectation that the low offer might be accepted beforehand by looking at the other users profile and seeing they were new.
However, if i user goes around outpost and finds a trade for a god/high tier hat with an extremely low buyout. That shouldn't be in the category of sharking, as a seller posting a trade and asking for a price, you should expect that every seller on outpost has access to price guides and resources to find item values. ( Category should be: "quickselling" )
Same can be said about when a god/high tier hat gets offered on a low(-er) tier hat, and you just accepted it. However, it should be noted that if the seller was a very experienced trader and he knew the offer-er was new to try to make the trade a bit more 'fair'. (But i don't necessarily think that should be required)
In the case of lamebro, he was selling his unusual he was expecting 10-11 buds and overpay in unusuals and was offered that beak, he accepted because he was already expecting unusual overpay. Both were unpriced hats (No price suggestion on a pricing guide;bp.tf) , so it was up to the offer-er to have looked for other more experienced traders to give a price estimate on both hats before committing to an offer.

Veteran traders who actively seek out new players to greatly profit, probably don't lie about item values (or perhaps they do). But because, most of the time, they are actively exploiting new traders, they aren't a good member of the tf2 outpost community and should be dealt with. These active 'sharkers' are the real problem that should be dealt when deciding to ban for sharking.

The definition of sharking never seemed that controversial to me. Sure there are always cases that are difficult to determine who (if anyone) is in the wrong, but sharking always seemed like a really simple concept to me. By my definition, sharking involves at least one of the following:

• Lying about prices, value, or worth of either party's hat; lying about circumstances surrounding certain items (e.g. saying Valve has confirmed a Halloween spell will not disappear from a Bill's Hat); or otherwise deliberately misleading another trader with a vested self interest in that trader's lack of knowledge.
  
• Specifically seeking out new users or users who most of their backpack value is in one or a couple items.

In addition to meeting one of these criteria, the trade must also not otherwise classified as scamming (e.g. misrepresenting items with name tags) and the shark must know the deal is one-sided. The person shorted in a sharking trade being happy does not absolve the shark from responsibility, unless the other person informed them, in which case they are clearly not deceiving or preying on an inexperienced trader. The trade must also not otherwise be classified as scamming (e.g. misrepresenting items with name tags).

What a lot of people seem to disagree on is whether "getting a good deal" counts as sharking, and whether the person being happy at the time of the trade justifies the unfair trade. So consider the following scenarios:

Trader1 has this old promo from several years ago, and thinks they might be worth something, but admits (s)he does not know exactly what they're worth. (S)He reaches out, asking for some good games to trade for them. Trader2 senses that Trader1 is probably going to get ripped off, and privately notifies Trader1, giving sound advice on what they're worth. Trader1 appreciates the warning, but says (s)he does not care about their value. Trader1 then offers earbuds for Trader2's Portal 2 bundle (~4-5 keys). Trader2 has done their due diligence in this trade, and is not considered a shark.

Alternatively Trader3 approaches Trader1 from above (Trader2 is not in the picture), offering Portal 2 bundle for the Earbuds saying to look at how much Portal 2 costs in the Steam store. Trader1 is amazed at getting this well-known $25 game pack for free because (s)he signed into TF2 from a Mac several years ago; what a steal! Trader1 may or may not find out (s)he was ripped off badly, but Trader1 was clearly taken advantage of no matter happy (s)he was at the time of the trade.

Following the same circumstances as the 2 above scenarios (Trader2 or 3 not in the picture), Trader1 notices Trader4, has a giftable Portal 2 bundle. Trader1 approaches Trader4, offering the earbuds for the Portal 2 bundle. This is probably the most difficult scenario to evaluate, but if Trader4 didn't intentionally do anything to attract Trader1's attention (second bullet point), and didn't make the offer (first bullet point), then (s)he is in the clear because it's not Trader4's responsibility to educate Trader1 about prices (although I personally would). The catch is many sharks count on inexperienced traders doing this and ask people to post offers (instead of listing prices) for that very reason. Waiting for inexperienced traders to offer, or offering absurd deals like that is predatory, and falls under point 2 (in the first case, you could also argue the items are not actually for sale when reporting the trade). Personally, I am always transparent about my prices, and if something like that happens (usually more than 50% higher than the value) I let them know they're getting a bad deal, but if they insist I continue. I wouldn't expect other people to do this though, and usually instead let Trader1 know if they look like they're going to end up making that kind of offer with someone.

Originally posted by LiddoJunior:

Sharking is one of those hard to define things.
Because it is really hard (basically impossible) to see evidence within steam(trade) chats.

That doesn't make it harder to define, just harder to prove.

Originally posted by LiddoJunior:

However, if i user goes around outpost and finds a trade for a god/high tier hat with an extremely low buyout. That shouldn't be in the category of sharking, as a seller posting a trade and asking for a price, you should expect that every seller on outpost has access to price guides and resources to find item values. ( Category should be: "quickselling" )

Putting aside the fact you're referring to an unusual, for which the price is very arbitrary, if someone posts an unusual on Outpost for a low price, it should be assumed they did their research. The person searching did nothing to deceive or manipulate them, and did not make the offer. The seller could very well be uneducated, but it's not the buyer's responsibility to fix that. The owner of an unusual is free to set whatever price they want, and trying to regulate or enforce that tends toward price manipulation. Regardless of knowledge, the seller intended to sell the unusual, possibly at a deviant price, and the buyer met that demand. If the buyer were to say "Oh hey, I'll trade this rainblower for that purple-text hat in your backpack" and the hat wasn't listed, that would be manipulating.

Originally posted by LiddoJunior:

Same can be said about when a god/high tier hat gets offered on a low(-er) tier hat, and you just accepted it.

Again, you didn't make the offer. The person offering that hat fully intended to get rid of it, and I'd probably accept it if I were selling any of my unusuals.

While you are at it to implement the term sharking in the rules, you could also add the definition of the word scammer there. I'm tired of people throwing that word around not knowing what it really means.

Originally posted by ♫ Woifi ♫:

While you are at it to implement the term sharking in the rules, you could also add the definition of the word scammer there.

Isn't that defined by steamrep?

Sharking or not - At the end of it all, it's nearly impossible and contradictory to be an fair and wealthy trader - whether in TF2 or in life in general.

Making a lot of money means that you need to exploit someone, somewhere down the line. A poor person may voluntarily offer their services / goods for very god value - technically it should be a fair trade, however it is really exploitation.

Guys classified as Sharking are either too greedy / unlucky / too obvious :) Some get caught the first time - some become pros and master the art successfully :)

I don't support any of this - However (as far as TF2 Trading) I feel that if a trader is smart enough to have an unusual - they should be smart enough to be a good trader; otherwise, perhaps the guy who ''Scammed'' (Should be SHARKED) you deserves the item as they do know it's true value - It's become pretty easy find out the rough value of items in TF2 through quick searches - so there should really be no excuses;

It's increasingly becoming the trend that users are not sharp enough and pretty relaxed as they know that they can just get back the item by reporting it as a ''scam'', or reporting the trader as a ''scammer'' and bringing the other traders name into disrepute. Maybe users ought to take at least some of the responsibility.

Just my random thoughts :)

Originally posted by Terminus:

Sharking or not - At the end of it all, it's nearly impossible and contradictory to be an fair and wealthy trader - whether in TF2 or in life in general.

Not true. Most of my profit is made from (a) reselling items; (b) capitalizing on timing with new or hyped items I expect to change in price; (c) over the past few months, reselling giftable games bought during Steam sales for less than their regular retail value, but more than I paid during the sale; and (d) accepting item overpayment in place of keys/metal when selling things, often repeatedly accepting item offers by the same rules. When reselling or asking for item overpayment, I'm also always transparent and fairly flexible about it, and emphasize that buyers should not feel pressured to make a trade they may regret; in a few cases, I turned them away because they were essentially offering their entire backpack and I didn't feel comfortable causing them a hardship.

Early on, when keys were less than 4 refined metal, I made an extra 0.66-2 refined metal from raffles and games on a few trade servers in addition to ~0.66 in item drops. I mostly resold the weapons via scrapbanking and then bought keys as soon as I could afford them, which I used for more reselling. Is it easy to make honest, ethical profit? No, and as key prices soar it becomes harder and harder, but I maintain that it can be done and in some cases I've helped people get off the ground over the past 9-ish months. I've seen people come out ahead after I helped them out, some even ending up with unusuals.

Originally posted by Terminus:

Making a lot of money means that you need to exploit someone, somewhere down the line. A poor person may voluntarily offer their services / goods for very god value - technically it should be a fair trade, however it is really exploitation.

The claim there is "no such thing as a free lunch," which is widely true and accepted, only applies in a zero sum game[en.wikipedia.org]. While TF2 trading usually is, you have to realize the prices are mostly arbitrary, and different people want different things. Some trades are clearly advantageous from your profit-only perspective, but to someone looking for a high five taunt (which you bought from someone who needed a key right now that 1.5 keys in metal is not as meaningful. Perhaps the simplest to understand would be scrapbanking, where you accept any craftable weapons at 1/2 scrap, then charge the extra 1/2 scrap for the convenience of having whatever weapon your buyer happens to be looking for.

Originally posted by Terminus:

It's increasingly becoming the trend that users are not sharp enough and pretty relaxed as they know that they can just get back the item by reporting it as a ''scam'', or reporting the trader as a ''scammer'' and bringing the other traders name into disrepute. Maybe users ought to take at least some of the responsibility.

There are very few cases of people getting back items that were scammed or sharked. Just because apparently some moderators tried to enforce it in this one case doesn't mean users should expect it to happen, and even Valve will not return their items. Maybe some people expect that, but they almost invariably end up sorely disappointed, and if you need examples then look no further than the steamrep forums for the people asking when they will get their unusuals back.

Wow that is such a dumbass move. I remember shadow buying a NnB noh for 10 buds and my friend just sold his NnB noh for almost twice that.

Shouldn't shadow be banned by that logic?. I also remember shadow trying to offer very low(sharking prices) on my friend's nuts noh.(I might have this wrong)

What about the guy who bought burning beak for 20 keys?

Lava has explained the term really well in the above posts, using examples. I thought sharking was complex - but it seems like a pretty simple term if understood correctly.

Long story short - Sharking depends on the knowledge and information of both parties (Buyer and Seller) involved

Sharking is one of those buzzwords in trading that brings about different definitions, emotions and community policies, depending on what individuals or trading communties you ask.

An easy example of varied opinions on sharking, take Pyroman's example. If someone trades 1 bud, a couple laser weapons, stranges, or vintages (doesn't matter on what the junk item is, take your pick) for a Burning TC, and both traders happily agree is this a shark?
There's so many factors to consider here:
- Did the buyer SEEK OUT the owner of the tc through an item search engine, or did the Seller of the TC put it up for sale somewhere (trade site or in-server)?
- Did the buyer lie about/manipulate the value of either items in the trade?
- Is the buyer trying to quickly flip it for profit, or is he planning on keeping it for a long time?
- Even after the seller of the TC is informed he made a trade that most people would consider back, he still is okay with what he got in the trade and isn't scrambling for a trade back?

Questions like these are important to most people when investigating a potential shark case. The answers of these kind of questions may have different repercussions in different trading communities, too. Some people will tell you a shark only a shark when there is PROVABLE evidence of lying/deciet/manipulation about item value.
Other people will tell you a shark is any unbalanced trade where a percentage (often 20%, but this number varies from person to person), regardless of the answers to questions like the ones I wrote above.
Many people feel very strongly about their personal position on sharking, and that's fine. I personally think it's never a good idea to quickly jump to conclusions and say "Oh, did you hear about Trader X sharking that Burning whatever?" In each potential shark case, theres plenty of factors to consider.

Originally posted by Shinichi Kudo S> Glitched hats:

Wow that is such a dumbass move. I remember shadow buying a NnB noh for 10 buds and my friend just sold his NnB noh for almost twice that.

Shouldn't shadow be banned by that logic?. I also remember shadow trying to offer very low(sharking prices) on my friend's nuts noh.(I might have this wrong)

What about the guy who bought burning beak for 20 keys?

You bring up two situations, the latter is easily addressed: The person who put the burning flames beak up on outpost on 20 keys, in MY opinion, didn't get sharked because he:

• Stated what he wanted (and got it)
  
• Was on a TRADE SITE to begin with. He could have easily searched up Unusual Blighted Beak, Burning Flames in the search section and found out the true value of his hat in under a minute.
  
• The seller went forth with his own items and put them up for sale. He wasn't seeked out by someone using a backpack viewer/item search.

Your first situation you bring up is a very poor example, and quite honestly, insulting. Back when I was actively seeking Noh Mercies, I contacted many owners, one being Starburstman.

At the time of be contacting him, a Nuts Noh had not been sold in months, and the next sale wouldn't BE for another few months. He told me his price that he'd accept: 10 buds. At the time, I told him I didn't want to pay that much, especially since buds were so high at that point (I was selling at $42).

A few months time passes, I have a few more Noh mercies (over 10 at this point) and I eventually decide to pay HIS PRICE of 10 buds. He was obviously not a newb by any standards, he owned other promo items and other unusuals for many months.

When I bought that Nuts Noh for 10 pure, it was over 3x any amount it had ever sold for in the past. Think about that. Your friend that you mentioned, Yomigama, paid UNDER 3 buds worth of HATS for his, and you're saying I should be banned when I paid 10 buds pure? Do I also need to remind you that your friend said he'd "never sell it" & "no matter how many buds you offer", yet couldn't resist the buds another collector offered him?

Yes, it is true that Yomigama's Nut's Noh did sell for ~19 a month or two after I bought mine for 10 buds pure, but how could anyone have known it would sell for ~19 months down the road? I don't have crystal ball to know that information. Nor did I buy my Nuts Noh to instantly try to flip it like your friend Yomigama did.

The entire premise of you trying to accuse someone of paying a buyout of 10 buds who isn't trying to resell of sharking, vs someone who paid under 3 in hats and DID resell for ~19 is laughable, to say the least. Complete backward logic, but it's no surprise you're trying to take this personal jab at me though, after I rejected your lowball offer of overpriced 3rd gen hats on my Nohs after I told you they were not for sale.

Also, nohs are one of the things that keep rising since no more are unboxable. a year and a half ago, burning was in the 25 range..

It's possible to be a fair and wealthy person without sharking, but it does require making profit which can be done in a safe manner.

This is where the grey line is. Quicksell buyers are buying up to (let me remind you) 70% off LOWER Backpack.tf prices. Somehow this isn't sharking.. Well it isn't. Only one word separates the two though. Manipulation. Then again, aren't you manipulating the prices if you buy quicksells?

Anyways -- A definition of sharking is essentially this: When you lie to, exploit, or manipulate a person that doesn't know the full extent of a price of an item and buying it from them from an extreme outlier lower price with huge profit.

Example: When Underscore sharked that Demonflame Brotherhood of Arms for 2 buds in items when the item is originally worth somewhere in the 50 bud price range.

Sharking is more of a moral issue, and it should/is considered scamming by most but is glamorized by shows such as Shark Tank or Dragon's Den.

When trading, there's huge differences between lying to a person about a price and accepting a low price from a person.

As Shadow had said, the person that got 20 keys for that Beak, was in fact the seller. It's only sharking when the buyer manipulates the price. There's a difference between agreeing to the price and manipulating it. Yes it wasn't right, but it was the seller's set price, not the buyer's manipulated price.

Examples:

1) A new player (about 2 weeks in TF2) has no idea about unusual hats, tries their luck on a Spooky Crate, and unboxes a Chiroptera Venenata Team Captain, and has no idea what it's worth. Mr. Shark comes along to new player after he unboxes it, and offers him a few keys for it saying the hat is not very valuable (etcetc.), and trades him approximately 5 keys for the Team Captain.

This user lied and manipulated the price of the said item and downplayed it and ultimately made about 250x profit (.33 saying buds are 15 keys for example * 250 and you get 82.5 which would probably be the closest price of this item) on this hat, therefore making him a huge shark.

2) A well knowing user who has an unpriced..lets say.. Arcana Brown Bomber on backpack.tf opens a trade on Outpost. Then Ms. Shark adds him and asks if he can buy it off of him for 2 buds because Arcana is a low effect and isn't worth much at all. The knowing user accepts the offer and trades the bomber for 2 buds. Though indirect, this is still sharking as the user made a huge profit margin on this deal.

Sharking indirectly is still sharking. Even if not meaning to manipulate price, if you even lie about an item's value or importance, it's still sharking.

About lamebro, while both parties MAY BE HAPPY, it doesn't make the trade right. He's going to need screenshot proof from the guy that said he was happy with the free downgrade, and didn't in fact manipulate the price. Vinny, you're contradicting yourself when you say you're okay with lamebro who sharked a probably 17ish bud unusual, when other sharks aren't okay.

Hope this helped, have a nice day! :3

Shadow, then what about Lamebro? I think both parties were happy with the trade so why the permanent ban and why was he asked to give back the unusual?

And as for Yomigama, he gave back the previous owner 50% of the buds he got from the noh mercy.(need to confirm from him)

well lamebro is still a problem. i honestly dont think he sharked, but thats not up to me

also.

it has come to me that you buys have been banning people more and more for sharking. An example would be JJJon. I believe that it is time for you guys to set a term for a shark, because there are people like lamebro who paid ~7 for ~18 and people like slank who paid around a bud for a disco impaler (~20) and he is still not banned.

Originally posted by Vince The Shamwow™ Guy - Away:

well lamebro is still a problem. i honestly dont think he sharked, but thats not up to me

also.

it has come to me that you buys have been banning people more and more for sharking. An example would be JJJon. I believe that it is time for you guys to set a term for a shark, because there are people like lamebro who paid ~7 for ~18 and people like slank who paid around a bud for a disco impaler (~20) and he is still not banned.

You're contradicting yourself in your statement. Sharking is 20% or below due to manipulation. That's about 60% that lamebro did and about 90% below normal price Slank got. Doesn't matter whether it was 13 buds or 1 key lame paid, it's still sharking.

Stop naming and shaming various possibly innocent people in this thread. You're defending an obvious shark and he was banned for a reason. BSoD has already set a term for sharking, and there have been many definitions shared on this thread. Slank has nothing to do with this thread. Yes, he may have sharked, but if you'd like to get him banned, report him.