I agree that there is a problem, but I also think that the poll should have had an option for building a wall around SteamTrades and making the alt accounts pay for it.

Users with less than 5-10 +Rep can't rep other users.

While it may help, I don't agree with that. It kind of defeats the purpose of the rep system. +Rep is given when you had a successfull trade. If this gets implemented, a lot of users can't give rep anymore, which may actually hurt legit traders. And while I agree that something should be done about scammers, legit traders shouldn't suffer for it.

Instant ban for multiple accounts [IP Check].

What if there are multiple people using the same pc? It's not that rare to have just one pc in a household. I agree that multiple accounts should be banned, but this is not the way to check for it.

Scammers will find their way through and legit traders will suffer.

Biggest problem is free open registration (witthout $100 limit, i said $100 is low and instead of it its totally off xD), many alt, many "friends" registred just to give -rep, spam, hijacks... today i meet Steam with lvl 1, 1 game and 3 friends whois registed into trades, seems legit.
Bro, nobody from mods care about ST and following rules. And here you go.
Lot of problems since limit was removed. I know lot of +xxx/-0rep guys and all saying same. Its big problem.
Btw instaban same ip isnt good, lot of pipoz have shared IPs, using some public /wifi) places etc. Biggest problem is not open registration >90% problems coz this.

To be fair your suggestion can be easily bypassed ...

You do few legit trades for some shit on couple no rep profiles , and then use those to +rep the other ones .

Its an issue , but tbh there is no way to be sure that even someone with a lot of rep isnt just going to scam you .

The Instaban for IP Check wont work either ... many ppl use dynamic IPs , while other live in dorms etc with shared internet ...

Sadly there is no way to know that even someone with pages and pages of +Rep , over 3k games on steam and close to 400 reps here wont just block you and revoke that GTA V Gift ... >.>

IP Check is something that should never be used for something like this, lot of schools, college campuses, internet cafes and basically everything that gives people access to internet trough its network will give to everyone the same external IP address so all those people would get instant ban

If you do this, then anyone can scam any user who is not an active trader here, because they cannot report the scammer.

Yes, the system can be played easily. So does the community voting one. We know it and hopefully the site admin realised these loopholes as well, but this is something where you cannot really devise a system that protects everyone. That would need a metric fuckton of support people dedicated just to the trading section. But, based on the feedbacks I vote on, it would be easier to herd one million brain-dead cattle than explain how a goods barter system is supposed to work in reality for an overwhelmingly major percentage of the user base.

So if i see someone with +10 rep and someone with +5 i will choose first cause he can give me +rep?
:О

i think more important would be just to get some support and moderation over there.. we finally got some additional ones here, but there still isn't a single soul doing anything over there.

1. What's the point of giving a new trader (<10 rep) +rep then, he won't be able to +rep back. Soon there will be no more new user and the site is dead.
2. Without rule number 1 this rule alone is useless as +rep means nothing.
3. IP check is not as reliable as you think. As IPv4 address is running out, NAT is sometimes used on a ISP level. This leads to the website believing all the requests come from the same machine (but they aren't). The same applies to corporate/school/home router.

well maybe could be a good thing dunno as for me i started not long ago trading there and have 7 +rep 0 negative and i plan on keep the negative like that xD have some decent (or so i think) games to trade think i still havent traded more cause of low rep and that the latest replies to my thread didnt had anything that interests me

one f*g which stole my cs go keys there just - rep me, when i uploaded a proof with his scam
its bullshit, he scammed me and just posted negative review for nothing. what the hell?
i wonder why he still not banned, so ridiculous

Users with less than 5-10 +Rep can't rep other users.

Then the other trader will also not +rep them, so they will never get enough +rep. I call bullshit. :P

Users with less than 25 +Rep can't vote on reviews.

Because you think that the people voting on reviews, usually have a lot of +rep? I don't think that many people vote on reviews and that most of them even have sufficient +rep. I also call bullshit. :P

Instant ban for multiple accounts [IP Check]

That's actually cool, although what if they are brothers or sisters? :P

Why are you trumpifying me?

Users with less than 5-10 +Rep can't rep other users.

That's free authorization to scam new users, which won't be able to downrep users here and will be ignored both by steamrep and valve.

I hope they change the system but I would not hold my breath - Steamtrades always sucks when it comes to trading.

I have better idea, what about making a database with IP and MAC of scamers ? That would be much more efective than hurting both scamers and legit traders with your rep idea.

There's nothing wrong with having less than 25 rep. Few trades don't actually mean that you're evil, but -rep do. Also, they should bring that $100 acc requirement back. There's a lot of scammers and people who don't give a shit around because of that open window.

Since ST is "new", how people with no rep yet can give feedback to each others after a valid trade ?

• scammers can just setup private groups of accounts that can +rep scamming accounts

Actually, I think suggested solution may paradoxally encourage trading fake rep.

Maybe ask support if they acknowledge the problem, maybe they already have planned/implemented solutions, just imho :

• like limited number of review per user / per period ? (something like that already exists)
• dynamical hidden weighting of user votes if previous votes was not concordant enough with deletion results