No trading on the forums.

Because 8 of those posts are threads you've made where we've explained why your ideas on phishing are not practical or goes against what we are willing to do. You've continued to spam the board by making asinine suggestions that we've already told you will not be implemented.

The other locked ones are because they're redundant when you do a simple search of the pinned topics to see that we have a dedicated thread on phishing and do not need loose ones mixed in with the others.

Take a quick look and see that we do in fact talk to our users, but we will not go around in circles explaining time and time again why certain ideas are not practical when a simple search of the forums can bring up dozens of threads where those explanations have happened before.

You have been told to stop spamming the boards and are only making this to try to paint us as the bad guys here. You'll be taking a bit of time off from the forums and when you're able to come back, please refrain from spamming topics like you have been for the past 24 hours.

I'll rephrase the post to make to hopefully make it easier to translate.

If a phishing bot owner finds our bot's ID, they will put it on a list for the phishers to not add. We would have to make more and more bots to keep up.

Users would have to look on the phishers friends to find the bots, which is more work than they do now. It isn't worth it for either us or the users to do these bots. And since these are Steam accounts and not Outpost, we have no way to know if it would work or not.

Originally posted by •L•R• MrOmNomNom3:

Uhhh... he never used Google Translate. He speaks english. He don't NEED Google Translate.

Please don't be rude. It was an awkward word for sure. English is a weird language and I'm amazed at how many people can pick it up.

All it would take is for the bot operator to find the Steam ID of our bots then and blacklist them for good. We'd have to constantly keep making more and more accounts just to avoid being detected. On top of that, most bots would be buried into the friends list of the phisher and would require someone to manually check in order to find it, resulting in more effort needed than would probably be done by just blocking the suspicious bot outright.

It just comes out to a massive workload without any real way to measure stressfulness and requires users to put effort in additional effort.

Originally posted by Roudydogg1©:

#1: I am a "legit user" although no real definition has been made about what a "legit user" even is, so I may not be. Where's the line from a non-legit user, to "legit"? What defines that.

A "legit" user is pretty much just us trying to put on a quickly identifiable title to someone who wants to use the site for trades and has no malicious intent. We're not trying to spin it into something to divide our actual community.

Originally posted by Roudydogg1©:

2. I would be painfully less annoyed with having to enter a captcha than having 2 pishers add me everytime I bump a trade.
And before someone goes and states the opposite, that right there is a cold hard fact; the "legit users" can only express their want for something like a captcha to be implmented so many times before simply getting tired of the admins responding with "The legit users think it's annoying" . Look at the FACTS, ladies and gentleman, it's what we want!

While you argue that Captcha would not sour your experience on the site, we have solid reason to believe that it will a very unwelcome addition should it have been added. It's been some time now when the phishing bots weren't added folks and were actually posting comments on the site in mass amounts that we added an early version of the colored bars that surround links today. This old warning was a red bar that showed next to links that were not familiar and were deemed to be possible phishing links, purely cosmetic and had no impact on functionality. A large portion of users gave us massive feedback that this was ruining their experience on the site and the system was removed within a week.

We take the experience of our users here very serious, and we have determined that adding captcha is not in our interest or in the interest of a sizable portion of our users. If something is going to be a detriment to such a large number of users, we've decided it isn't for us.

Originally posted by Roudydogg1©:

3. The fact that all the big shots are looking for an option that would "work 100% of the time". Quite plainly, that's completely absured! You cannot seriously say "this one solution won't solve it 100% so we won't even try to use it if it helped 60%" (for example).
It's taken you all this long to realize that "there's nothing we can do because there are no soluions" and it's taken you this long to start blaming people who have nothing to do with the problem, nor who are in any way shape or form responsible for it, for "not coming forward wih a 100% foolprof solution", but what have you been doing to try and solve this? Take some responsibility for your actions (or lack thereof).

We're not saying that a solution has to completely eradicate the problem or else we won't look at it. We're saying that we aren't going to consider things that are only going to slow the phishing bots down until they find a way to bypass it, especially when some of those ideas have us add features that are not user friendly. This isn't only referring to captcha, and is a flaw in a good deal of the suggestions we get.

Originally posted by Roudydogg1©:

tl;dr - Something has to be done, regardless of if it will work "100% of the time", and you know it.
I think the people who are trying to find solutions to this issue (I should say, doing the exact opposite because "there are no 100% prof solutions") are at the point where they can nolonger wait for a solution to magically present itself out of nowhere that will work 100% of the time, when clearly there is absolutely no obvious sign whatsoever of something like that happening any time soon.

Something absolutely needs to be done, however it isn't something that we have complete control over. I don't know how long you have used the site, but you may recall back when phishing links were rampant in the comments of nearly all trades. The staff here did what they could and have nearly eliminated all phishing comments on the site, and what little actually does get on the site is handled in a matter of minutes by the moderators.

The problem is now the phishers got wise about what they do and went to the place that we have little power over. Fighting them is a difficult juggling act when the measures have to actually be practical and effective, all while staying palatable to the general userbase.

This isn't new, and everyone has been dealing with them. We've taken as many measures as possible to get them off our site and that has driven them to Steam with is fully out of our reach. They've been attacking every major trade site and there is nothing we can do about it.

It is totally up to Valve now to help crack down on the dummy accounts, which they seem reluctant to do for some reason. There have been dozens of topics on this subject if you wish to read more.

http://outpost.gg/cb/60iu9m.png
Still there for me.

Nothing really related to that rule change if that's what you had in mind.

ReTired is mostly right in my opinion, but it is possible for a good set and just heavily depends on what you're selling in a set that matters.

Very very few people care that you can assemble a few low tier stranges that go on the same class, but people will certainly be interested in all the pieces of a specific cosmetic set with the same craft number.

The main thing to figure out is if you can make a set that is both difficult to replicate (some kind of craft numbered set or a level 0-100 vintage set) and has some coherent reason to be in a set (similar values, very likely to be used together)

Some of the biggest mistakes:
Low value stranges along with an unusual
Completely unrelated hats thrown in a set together
Clashing unusual effects in hat/misc combos
Collections that are not unusually large (10-20 of a random weapon/hat)

@BROSAMA UMADEN: This steam group is not intended to be a place to deal with problems, with the sole exception of the bug report board. We have this group to accept feedback and suggestions from our users, accept applications to join the team, and hopefully discuss general topics regarding trading.

@~Cyin~: You did not get banned for "having a go at a scammer", you got banned for calling someone a homophobic slur after it is clear that you did not agree with them in regards to a deal. That is completely unacceptable and you're free to no longer use the site if you find that it along with the rules are stupid.

Two admins have responded already and it is clear that this topic has nowhere else to go.

We're fully aware of this and the forums has dozens of topics on this.

We've done all that we can and have kept them from doing much on the site, which only drove them to using Steam where we have no power. It is out of our hands at this point.