Stopping the "fake offer"

Reply

killmak replied on 11-16-2008 9:31 AM

rated by 0 users

I had a new user match with me for fable 2 as well.  After it timed out I got a real match a couple of days later so I guess I got lucky.  I think goozex needs to get to the root of the problem and investigate all the new users that are only listing the newest games to see if they can get to the heart of the problem and ban the users creating these multiple fake accounts.

If this has been going on since december there could be a large number of fake accounts like this.  A scam like this is just as bad if not worse than those people that make multiple accounts to get more free games.  I hope that Goozex can get to the bottom of this quickly and hand out swift punishment to those involved.

Reply

dtp11 replied on 11-18-2008 10:17 PM

rated by 0 users

Renaissance 2K:

The lengths to which some people try to beat this system - or any system - really astounds me.

Reply

jercurpac replied on 11-19-2008 10:02 AM

rated by 0 users

Okay, I guess that there's no way to confirm if this is actually happening as an intential means of cheating the system, but this is the third user that I've been matched up with in a row that's signed up on the day we've been matched, only puts up the game I'm looking for, and just lets the offer time out. I know GoW2 hasn't been out long, I'm at the front of the line and should theorectically get the game soon, and that, by using Goozex, I admit that I'm cool with waiting to get new games, but when I do happen to get an early place in line I'd like to get the game when I'm supposed to and at this point three legitimate trades have passed me by, probably more once this latest match times out. I don't want to end up waiting a month for a game I should have gotten within two weeks because some little crap couldn't wait.

Reply

CoffinDancer replied on 11-19-2008 12:38 PM

rated by 0 users

This just happened to me with Fallout 3 (paired with a new user that just signed up).  It's the first time it's happened, but also the first time I've requested a new game.  

Reply

naytk replied on 11-19-2008 12:49 PM

rated by 0 users

Let's assume for a moment that this new exploit is actually going on at least somewhat often enough to warrant a policy/system change by the G-Team:

What possible solutions can we offer as a community to mitigate the frequency of this or eliminate it altogether?  (e.g.  Going back to both the seller and buyer must agree to any cancel, regardless of who initiates it.) 

I'm hoping to spur some creative or practical solutions that the team may pick from if they choose to address this.  Any takers?

[edit 11.19.08, 11:44 a.m. pst:  Ideas offered so far (brainstorm style, all ideas listed):

• Allow buyer to cancel trade without consent of seller
• Make all cancellations require both parties' consent
• New users not allowed to trade 1000 point games
• Users or IPs with many timeouts (over a short period) disabled

/edit]

Reply

mdennis replied on 11-19-2008 12:58 PM

rated by 0 users

There are likely to be several problems with any offered solution that Goozex could implement which might make the "fix" at least as odious as the problem.  As I see it:

1) Goozex does not want to get into the business of assuming bad faith on the part of it's customers.  Assuming a scam without solid proof is a good way to discourage new users from continuing to use the system.

2) It's way too easy to get around the IP checking, as users often have access to multiple computers at different locations (schools, libraries, friends houses, etc.) not to mention the ease of IP spoofing and IP shared pools on various ISP connections.

Sorry, those aren't solutions, but they do have to be considered when trying to find a fix.

Reply

RedEyedFacade replied on 11-19-2008 1:15 PM

rated by 0 users

ive been first in line for fallout 3 (ps3) for a week now, and ive had 4 straight requests time out. all 4 times, it was from a user who had just joined the site. 2 out of 4 user5s i was matched to also only had fallout 3 on offer, with no other offers or requests.

anyway, by this last time, i knew it wasnt going to be accepted, and i waited 26 hours for this request to time out. from the time i was first matched, till this last time out, the game has been traded twice.

im not at all bitter about this, i realize theres always going to be greedy people cheating their way up. heres what id like though. make it so that i can cancel a request once ive been matched. this could cause issues with people using it to cancel trades from people with less than desireable feedback histories, but if you make it so that only people at a certain level could use this feature, you may be able to curb abuse by ensuring that only experienced members would be using it. the ideas not perfect, but its something

Reply

naytk replied on 11-19-2008 1:41 PM

rated by 0 users

mdennis:

There are likely to be several problems with any offered solution that Goozex could implement which might make the "fix" at least as odious as the problem.  As I see it:

1) Goozex does not want to get into the business of assuming bad faith on the part of it's customers.  Assuming a scam without solid proof is a good way to discourage new users from continuing to use the system.

2) It's way too easy to get around the IP checking, as users often have access to multiple computers at different locations (schools, libraries, friends houses, etc.) not to mention the ease of IP spoofing and IP shared pools on various ISP connections.

Both are great points.  (Additionally, point 2 shows that it is not just a possible exploit, but a relatively easy one.)  I am mostly hoping to help get all ideas on the table so that we can weigh them out as a community.  Perhaps there is an idea out there that doesn't assume guilt, doesn't rely on IP checking, but provides a proper check for this type of exploit. 

I know that the G-Team cares about what we have to offer.  They are one of the few dev teams that is very active in their community, and I know that we all appreciate it.

mdennis:

Sorry, those aren't solutions, but they do have to be considered when trying to find a fix.

Don't be sorry... those were great points!

Reply

animallyson replied on 11-19-2008 1:43 PM

rated by 0 users

Can they track the IP addresses of the new users who are timing out the match requests? It's a lot of work to do that though. Maybe they need to put together a crack team to break this ring of fire, no?

I assume suspending users who are abusing the system this way would stop the problem for awhile, but it's a huge amount of work for them to figure out who broke the system first.

They can't really prevent new users from making trades-some of them are good people, after all, and shouldn't really be punished just because of some jerks...

Reply

mdennis replied on 11-19-2008 2:00 PM

rated by 0 users

naytk:

Don't be sorry... those were great points!

Thanks.  One thing that could be considered is that when a "crime" such as this has been commited, someone benefits.  The goozex team could take a look at any connection between the possible fake accounts and those that benefited from it.  It's possible that if someone is gaming the system that they were sloppy about it.  At the very least, they might be able to tell if one of the fake accounts resolves to a location within x miles of someone who got moved up the list and matched.

Reply

sahmed3 replied on 11-19-2008 2:32 PM

rated by 0 users

My idea in starting this thread was definitely NOT for picking on/ screwing over new users. There's probably lots of new users coming into the system every week that are legitimate users, and who will end up with great feedback. And I also didn't want to say that this is a system-breaking loophole that is ruining everything; I just wanted to point out a potentially irritating and frustrating event that is taking place here.

My idea about an IP check has pretty much been shot down, because even a free proxy can be used to change it. I guess my only other suggestion is a mix of 2 that have already been proposed:

Instead of being able to cancel any offer when you are the recipient, and instead of a new user not being able to trade a 1000 point game (those are still valid arguments, but I wouldn't want to make just THAT big of a statement), I would suggest that a buyer (receiving the game) at any time can cancel a trade that is, let's say, 800 points or more from a new user (sending the game) who has NO positive feedback. If he has negative, then it should be the same. If he has one positive at least, then you have to allow he/she to trade their game.

Anyway, a lot of these ideas are worth looking into, and I'm glad to see that some good ideas are being presented for the goozex guys.

Reply

Bloodsho replied on 11-19-2008 2:38 PM

rated by 0 users

Alphateam:

This is a good idea. Thanks.

I'm 2nd for a couple games right now. Maybe I'll sign up an account and tie up the #1 spot till I get mine.

lol is he serious? this thread is against people making fake accounts and he says thats a good idea. thanks. maybe he read it wrong

Reply

naytk replied on 11-19-2008 2:42 PM

rated by 0 users

A potential problem with letting a buyer cancel without the consent of the seller is: what happens if the game has already shipped?  This could open the system up to another exploit.  (I'm not shooting anything down, but rather offering discussion)

Reply

CoffinDancer replied on 11-19-2008 3:13 PM

rated by 0 users

naytk:

A potential problem with letting a buyer cancel without the consent of the seller is: what happens if the game has already shipped?  This could open the system up to another exploit.  (I'm not shooting anything down, but rather offering discussion)

Don't they have to accept the trade before they ship?  

Reply

naytk replied on 11-19-2008 3:25 PM

rated by 0 users

CoffinDancer:

naytk:

A potential problem with letting a buyer cancel without the consent of the seller is: what happens if the game has already shipped?  This could open the system up to another exploit.  (I'm not shooting anything down, but rather offering discussion)

Don't they have to accept the trade before they ship?  

I was assuming post-accepting