Various sections will need to be changed also to reflect the fact we won't have BTRs but private Trade Dispute Cases, Ill be posting a new suggested version when I'm closer to finishing the new dispute system.

sebi wrote:Various sections will need to be changed also to reflect the fact we won't have BTRs but private Trade Dispute Cases, Ill be posting a new suggested version when I'm closer to finishing the new dispute system.

i think this is a fine change to keep some of the BTR private (we don't really need to see the bickering or vulgarity that comes out of these sometimes.) However, I think visibility on the issues serves as both an educator and warning.

I would strongly recommend posting some kind of summary of what happened after the BTR is completed, especially if a user was overtly rude, racist or threatening (which I've seen happen before). People have a right to know who they're dealing with in trades.

If you're making it into a ticketed system almost like for help-desk issues then this could also help you categorize BTR disputes. You could develop searchable key words to get a matrix on what the big BTR issues are. Some are obvious, but as a reporting analyst, i can tell you that sometimes comprehensive data can tell you things you don't expect.

Example summary could look something like:

User A, did not receive cards. Cards sent without tracking.

User B, accused User A of not reporting "received" correctly, proceeded to call User A racists names and use derogatory terms.

Resolution: User B, re-sent user A cards with tracking. User A received cards and was allowed to leave negative feedback.

From the proposed new section 1.3 "However, it is unacceptable to use one's knowledge of major Deckbox pricing issues to propose trades that rely on users' being mislead by these issues. This undermines the ability of users to rely on Deckbox prices and may result in a trade suspension or banning. "

I certainly understand where this is coming from, but I completely disagree. I think it should be the responsibility of every trader to make sure they are comfortable with the trade before agreeing. I think it's a bad idea to go too much against human nature. Say card X has a tcg mid of $3, but it's $1.50 on deckbox. I think a lot of savvy traders who aren't necessarily evil people would start up some trades for that card. Honestly, I wouldn't blame them. Personally, I don't bother to check other prices before I trade, but I understand the risks of that.

This is not entirely different than people trading for a card because it's featured in a new deck. I wanted to get a playset of fatestitcher before it spiked recently - I had seen the new decklists using it, and I figured it would go up (I didn't actually trade for any). There will always be one side with more knowledge. People trade cards that are sure to go down for cards that are sure to go up. I traded a mana crypt for 2 scavenging ooze when that was an "even" trade. I wasn't scammed. But, it was pretty stupid of me in retrospect. If people are concerned about value in their trades, they should take upon themselves to ensure it.

Encouraging people to wait a day before accepting trades would probably eliminate the problem, too, since price issues should be caught by then. Anyway, even though all I did was pick apart one suggestion, I appreciate the thought that went into all of them. Only posting this because I care about the deckbox trading environment. Smart traders are better than sheltered traders, I think.

sebi wrote:

9700377 wrote: Okay. To start, I made some suggested edits to the Trading Rules document and uploaded it here.

This is great, thank you! All points are great.

One thing I would do, in order to keep the size of the document small so that people read it, is move the 4.5 and 4.6 in the general website Terms & Conditions, and reduce them to just a mention with a link, such as:

4.5. In the case that a novel type of dispute arises that cannot be clearly resolved by these rules, it is possible that a new rule will be formulated and made binding. <link to terms and conditions>

4.6. Dispute resolution depends on the user's prior history of trades and disputes. Repeat offenders will have an increasingly higher chance of negative resolution. <link here to extended clarification>

(or something similar)

I'd avoid as much guilt-determining language as possible ("offenders") in the rules personally. For example, there might be a person who genuinely has a shitty local post office that keeps losing their packages or whatever. We should be able to make a determination against that person ("this sucks, but it's on you now") without needing to fulfill the added burden that they be shown to be a scammer. Anyways, yeah, I'll work on breaking apart some of the language tomorrow and seeing what should maybe go in some of the other documents of interest.

I probably won't touch on the stuff that mentions the revised BTR process or feedback changes, though, since I don't know what's going to happen with that, exactly.

From the proposed new section 1.3 "However, it is unacceptable to use one's knowledge of major Deckbox pricing issues to propose trades that rely on users' being mislead by these issues. This undermines the ability of users to rely on Deckbox prices and may result in a trade suspension or banning. "

I certainly understand where this is coming from, but I completely disagree.

You're not the only one. This came up during the Polukranos case a while back (and if we really want to discuss it I'd suggest making a new thread for it.) The rule isn't meant to punish people who take advantage of small discrepancies or just have some sort of asymmetric information in their favor. It's meant to punish people who notice clear bugs and who, instead of reporting the bugs, choose to capitalize on them in a way that undermines the ability of users to trust in the pricing system. I didn't offer much guidance on this rule because I didn't want to get too wordy on that page, but it's possible that I could outline more-specific guidelines as a tooltip or something. I don't envisage people getting pulled into BTRs because they moved more-quickly than Deckbox on a price spike, or because TCGMid says a card is $8 when Deckbox says it's $7, etc.

"Caveat vendor", taken in its extremes, could be used to dismiss the utility of the entire BTR process. The rules exist so that people can trust in both the site and one another. Behaviors that seriously undermine this trust need to be addressed. This has only arisen one time, and that's why I do recognize that overly-broad language could end up putting-off more users than it ends up protecting, but otoh if we're going to punish people for breaking this rule (which we should) we should take some effort to actually define it.

Thanks for the response! Another thread would be a good idea. Perhaps a little later - maybe Sebi will start a thread for the community to help determine trading rules once he is ready to revisit them.

How hard would it be to implement something that searched the addresses of publicly known scammers on new accounts? This would prevent people from making a new account to get around a BTR. Or is this not an issue?

How about premium access for the month if we go over a certain dollar amount in deckbox fees? Pretty please? :D

We don't have to pay for the premium version to add the promo version of Sultai Charm, do we? ;)

That said, I do think the notion of paying for privacy is reasonable. That mirrors what github.com does. Every repo is public by default, unless you want to pay, at which point, the repo can be private.

Does premium effect selling? I.E. if you sell some cards and you have premium, do you still have to pay a portion to the site monthly based on what you sell? Or does the monthly premium account get rid of the monthly invoices of sales? I quite dislike the portion the site takes out of our pockets. I've only made total sales of around $41 so far, and out of that I already owe the site $10.85. That's worse than eBay.

Orlendis wrote:Does premium effect selling? I.E. if you sell some cards and you have premium, do you still have to pay a portion to the site monthly based on what you sell? Or does the monthly premium account get rid of the monthly invoices of sales? I quite dislike the portion the site takes out of our pockets. I've only made total sales of around $41 so far, and out of that I already owe the site $10.85. That's worse than eBay.

I'd suggest contacting the deckbox admin if your first bill for $41.00 in sales is $10.85. 6.9% of $41.00 is $2.83 which is what your bill should be. That is lower than ebay + paypal fees which are around 10% combined.

Orlendis wrote:Does premium effect selling? I.E. if you sell some cards and you have premium, do you still have to pay a portion to the site monthly based on what you sell? Or does the monthly premium account get rid of the monthly invoices of sales? I quite dislike the portion the site takes out of our pockets. I've only made total sales of around $41 so far, and out of that I already owe the site $10.85. That's worse than eBay.

Hello. You owe the site $0.85, not $10.85, as per your "deckbox bill" page. Where did you see 10.85? It might be a display bug.

Make sure to check with deckbox admins, because 10.85 out of 41 is incorrect according to their fees table. 6.9% + paypal is very reasonable compared to ebay and tcgplayer. The site has to be able to sustain itself, it can't just be one person putting in all the effort and money (sebi) and everyone else just taking. Sebi is very nice and won't bite if you contact him about issues with bills and so forth, just let him know of the issues and I am sure he will correct it. If the 10 dollars you are referring to is from the initial set up of the account, those ten dollars are credited back to your sellers account so that the first 10 dollars in fees that are incurred are taken care of.

It seems gnp17, sebi, and the OP are consistent...if he owes the site $0.85, then he has incurred a total of $10.85 in fees (since the first $10 is covered by the initial charge)....He must have sold more than $41 or fees were incorrectly calc'd; if he had only sold 41, he'd have a credit balance, not owe $0.85.

bactgudz wrote:It seems gnp17, sebi, and the OP are consistent...if he owes the site $0.85, then he has incurred a total of $10.85 in fees (since the first $10 is covered by the initial charge)....He must have sold more than $41 or fees were incorrectly calc'd; if he had only sold 41, he'd have a credit balance, not owe $0.85.

Sure except that if he paid his intial $10, and has incured .85 in fee's, he has $9.15 in credit and owes nothing, which is not what he said at all. The OP makes it sound as if deckbox's transaction fee is 25% or something crazy (he says its higher than Ebay which he's just flat wrong about).

Sebi knows I will criticize deckbox if I feel something isn't correct but at least get the facts correct if you want to discuss things. I like this site and want to see it grow and evolve and prosper.

jassi007 wrote:

bactgudz wrote:It seems gnp17, sebi, and the OP are consistent...if he owes the site $0.85, then he has incurred a total of $10.85 in fees (since the first $10 is covered by the initial charge)....He must have sold more than $41 or fees were incorrectly calc'd; if he had only sold 41, he'd have a credit balance, not owe $0.85.

Sure except that if he paid his intial $10, and has incured .85 in fee's, he has $9.15 in credit and owes nothing, which is not what he said at all. The OP makes it sound as if deckbox's transaction fee is 25% or something crazy (he says its higher than Ebay which he's just flat wrong about).

Sebi knows I will criticize deckbox if I feel something isn't correct but at least get the facts correct if you want to discuss things. I like this site and want to see it grow and evolve and prosper.

Sebi said he "owes the site 0.85"... if he's only incurred .85 he wouldn't owe anything...and if he sold $41 he wouldn't owe either 0.85 or have 9.15 in credit...he'd have 7.17 in credit. So something is off either with the seller not realizing how much he sold or the fees being wrong. It's likely the former, but the point I was making was that sebi nor the previous poster had addressed it.

I have separates question for you sebi related to premium accounts.

I realize you are still in a state of transition/figuring things out and have 2 questions if I sign up for a 1 year premium account today:

a) If you decide to add additional service levels (ie premium, premium plus,etc) within the next year, am I locked in to the highest service level for a year?
b) If you decide to lower price levels again within the year, will you credit current premium subscribers as you just did with this price change.?

I think it would be a great idea to have like a "seller premium account." Something like $3.99 for normal members, and $5.99 for those that sell regularly (or want to), and that "premium seller account" monthly fee would waive any sales fees. Thoughts?

bactgudz wrote:if he's only incurred .85 he wouldn't owe anything...and if he sold $41 he wouldn't owe either 0.85 or have 9.15 in credit...he'd have 7.17 in credit. So something is off either with the seller not realizing how much he sold or the fees being wrong. It's likely the former, but the point I was making was that sebi nor the previous poster had addressed it.

He sold for about 20$, but we do not bill the shipping costs, we only take 6.9% of the actual card value. So the end value he has incurred in fees so far is 85 cents.

bactgudz wrote: a) If you decide to add additional service levels (ie premium, premium plus,etc) within the next year, am I locked in to the highest service level for a year?

We will not have extra levels except free and premium.

b) If you decide to lower price levels again within the year, will you credit current premium subscribers as you just did with this price change.?

Definitely.

Orlendis wrote:I think it would be a great idea to have like a "seller premium account." Something like $3.99 for normal members, and $5.99 for those that sell regularly (or want to), and that "premium seller account" monthly fee would waive any sales fees. Thoughts?

$2 a month for people who use the site more seems...backwards. I mean, it would be the cheapest selling portal on the internet by an insanely large margin (I'd imagine most decent sized online stores pay $1000's per month to tcgplayer/ebay etc.) A flat $6 a month would attract a large volume of sellers to the platform, but it would have the opposite effect. The amount of work to support those users would greatly surpass the $6 a month they paid. The site would probably not even be able to pay for the bandwidth it used at those rates. It is a bad idea, for a lot of reasons. You could make an argument that premium members get a reduced percentage? like 6.5% or something. A large volume seller could easily pay for the small premium fee in savings per month.

I'm currently having a bug where when I go to the trading opportunity's, the can gives/can receives aren't matching up when I go to the trader's profile.

Hey sebi, you've got a typo on the premium page! The mouseover text for 'Auto-Trade cards not in built decks' refers to built decks as 'built dekcs'.

Still can't afford Premium, but I thought people who might, might possibly be turned off by things like that :)

Just noticed a bug with the whole scratchpad thing. I successfully added a card to it, but it didn't show up since I don't have premium. However, it still counts the card as being in the scratchpad and I can never remove it since it doesn't show up there. I'm assuming that I shouldn't be able to add cards to the scratchpad at all if I don't have premium, and it's really annoying not being able to remove things after I've added them. Just thought I should let you know in case no one else has brought it up yet.

Since the last update, I can move cards from main deck and sideboard to scratchpad using the context menu (arrow in front of the card name). When I do, I can see the scratchpad contains a card, but I can't see which one since I don't have premium. I also cannot remove the card from the scratchpad. It would be better if I couldn't move cards to the scratchpad altogether.
Perhaps you should also think about what happens to cards in scratchpad when someone's premium expires, can he then only see those cards if he re-enables premium?