[Suggestion] Countability towards thread titles and context - Regarding Private/Slotted etc.

[lort1234]

This suggestion is regarding adding a rule that adds countability towards seller, claiming their product's/service's offer/is any kind of private/slotted/limited etc.


The problem:
As it is right now, sellers of any kind can promote and marketing their product's/service's as "private/slotted/limited" etc without it actually being any of these kinds, it can be found multiple places in the black market where especially resellers promote their resold products as private/slotted.

This gives the users of epvp/buyers a false sense of security, as it at best misleading and could even be argued to be scamming the user, since they aren't selling what is promised at the time of buying the product/service.

The solution:
1. A rule should be added where the sellers take countability of what they are promoting/advertising, focusing especially on misleading or false advertisement/promoting.

2. A rule should be added where the sellers aren't allowed to promote "reseller/resold" product's/service's as private/slotted, since it would be impossible to actually check the user base of these "reseller/resold" product's/service's.

Conclusion:
I believe this is a rule that the black market needs, to make sure that the sellers aren't misleading the user's/customer's of what they are actually buying.

[Luke]

Unfortunately we can't introduce rules which require investigative matters from the moderation as it is too time-consuming (it's basically not doable, even if we double/triple our manpower).

For example:

User A sells a slotted cheat, now User B claims the cheat isn't slotted, most of the time users don't provide evidence for their claim(s) or just post "I have evidence, PM for screenshots", and if they provide screenshots there is often context missing because they crop the images down to the pure messages (no servername, no channels, no userlist visible, basically a random name and message). Now, if we have such a rule as suggested, the moderator is required to go down the rabbit hole, he needs to

1. pm the user for evidence
2. wait until the user provides the evidence (this adds backlog risk)
3. verify the evidence*
4. doing an audit with the seller to allow him to post a statement/provide counter-evidence (another backlog risk, as we have to wait for user reply)
5. close the ticket/audit
6. punish the user or escalate the issue (if guilty) to the global mods.

*most of the time this isn't possible, and we can't just "trust" a user as there are many competitors out there which try to get each other banned with fake screenshots.

Anyway, false advertising is sooner or later called out by the community, there might be edge cases where this doesn't happen, but those are usually handled through the complaint area.

[lort1234]

Originally Posted by Luke

Unfortunately we can't introduce rules which require investigative matters from the moderation as it is too time-consuming (it's basically not doable, even if we double/triple our manpower).

For example:

User A sells a slotted cheat, now User B claims the cheat isn't slotted, most of the time users don't provide evidence for their claim(s) or just post "I have evidence, PM for screenshots", and if they provide screenshots there is often context missing because they crop the images down to the pure messages (no servername, no channels, no userlist visible, basically a random name and message). Now, if we have such a rule as suggested, the moderator is required to go down the rabbit hole, he needs to

1. pm the user for evidence
2. wait until the user provides the evidence (this adds backlog risk)
3. verify the evidence*
4. doing an audit with the seller to allow him to post a statement/provide counter-evidence (another backlog risk, as we have to wait for user reply)
5. close the ticket/audit
6. punish the user or escalate the issue (if guilty) to the global mods.

*most of the time this isn't possible, and we can't just "trust" a user as there are many competitors out there which try to get each other banned with fake screenshots.

Anyway, false advertising is sooner or later called out by the community, there might be edge cases where this doesn't happen, but those are usually handled through the complaint area.

I understand the defficulity related to such a rule being added, however i believe something at least have to be done, as it is right now, multiple providers advertising false claims and in theory/relatively scamming user's as it is right now.

Would it instead be possible to ban words like "private" or "closed community" etc as a selling point, in thread titles and thread context? I think everyone could agree on, if it's actually a "private" or "closed community" product/service, there is no reason to promote it and there also isn't any reason it should be a selling point, otherwise it by definition isn't "private" or "closed community" etc.

Providers could in theory be held responsible with the already existing scam rules there is, if user's where to actually do this through the complaint area correct?

[DeprimereShop]

I do not have any immediate ideas to implement this proposal without heartburn somewhere in the process, but I will state that I agree with Lort. It's frustrating seeing new sellers misleading epvp users.

[Luke]

Would it instead be possible to ban words like "private" or "closed community" etc as a selling point, in thread titles and thread context?

Imo that would be too drastic, and I (personally) see it as a kind of requirement for buyers to use common sense or at least verify some of the claims the seller made before the purchase.

Providers could in theory be held responsible with the already existing scam rules there is, if user's where to actually do this through the complaint area correct?

Yes, almost all cases are lost by sellers if parts of the trade/offer were not fulfilled. If 10 slots were advertised, but the sellers customer chat group has >10 the buyer will have the right for a refund and the seller will get punished by us, but we need screenshots (or videos) from the relevant parts.

[lort1234]

Imo that would be too drastic, and I (personally) see it as a kind of requirement for buyers to use common sense or at least verify some of the claims the seller made before the purchase.

Yes it would indeed be drastic, but i also think the problem as it is right now it very big, the biggest issue isn't providers claiming to be slotted, but claiming to be private, which makes no sense if they are openly selling it for anyone to buy.

I would agree that any buyer should use common sense when dealing with a provider, but still allowing openly misleading at best words and phases to catch customers, is still something i think shouldn't be allowed in the end to be happening, as for the solution to stop or limit it, i think a few people with some creativity can do, if a solution really is a priority.

Yes, almost all cases are lost by sellers if parts of the trade/offer were not fulfilled. If 10 slots were advertised, but the sellers customer chat group has >10 the buyer will have the right for a refund and the seller will get punished by us, but we need screenshots (or videos) from the relevant parts.

And that's another big issue, if i where to buy any product labeled as "private" but i without any requirements/application/invite can buy it, i can open a dispute and say it's indeed not private, as the word it self can be defined and have requirements to be used or at least have actual meaning. (Same goes for slotted, but that's harder to actually prove)

[Luke]

That's more a language issue then, I don't think there is a definition what exactly defines a cheat as "private cheat", maybe that it's limited to a small pool of members, or that customers need to provide some sort of identification, I wouldn't define it how it's being sold, that wouldn't make much sense.

To be honest, I can't remember a single case where a buyer complained about a cheat not being private (as advertised). It's surprising that you mention it as big issue, especially because it's not existent in our support cases. Do you mind sharing me some examples? (you can also PM me on this)

[lort1234]

Well i would say what defines a cheat as "private" is being exclusive and have some kind of requirements to be a part of, otherwise the word it self is meaningless and that's often when talking about an actual "private" cheat one of the main "requirements" so to say.

A limited user base would be defined as "slotted", that's what everyone i believe would define having a limited amount of users using one particular cheat at any given time.

It being something that people take their time to actually complain about in the complaint area, i would have no idea of knowing, all i know is that i see resellers, providers & services making misleading advertisement and also "scamming" since they are lying about their products, those kind of sales threads aren't hard to find at all.

When that is said, it have been a big issue lately, there have been so much discussion/debate about it in the Valorant section the last week, it have also been a topic in the COD section multiple times before.

I'm not gonna go through whole section and pages of he and she said, but the fact is there is multiple sales threads right now, falsely/misleading advertising their products. (Dep one of the Forum guardians also agree with it being a problem)

Sent you an example.

[Luke]

Thank you. Yes, it is quite difficult to solve, as there is room for interpretation, but what I'm trying to say is that flagging a cheat as private is not the holy grail to increase sales, and that might be the reason why we don't receive any tickets for it - it's no key argument, thus censoring it will probably have no effect.

Most tickets are about not working aimbots (or other features), detections, etc.

Independent how we could implement this, we can't introduce a new rule as long as we can't see it as a factual pain-point on the buyer-side. Generally this sounds more like a seller/seller thing.

[lort1234]

Well it was a suggestion, if you and the staff team don’t think it’s something that should changed, so be it.

I however feel like it’s allowing sellers to falsely/mislead user/customers, no matter how you look at it, since everyone in cheating scene know the actual meaning of these words.

But again it was a suggestion with a potential solution for a problem, I believe is present atm.