I am revisiting an issue that was previously proposed and discussed: having a system where newer users are limited in some way in trading, to avoid fraud. This would encourage people to build up their reputation with the site and with other users on the website as a way to prove themselves trustworthy. It would also get rid of many users trying to scam and cheat users and members of the community.

This is not a new concept, ebay has a stars system, and Tcgplayer has seller level system, etc. I am opening this topic as an avenue for discussion and collecting feedback. The following is my current draft idea, and it is subject to change before being implemented.


Users have a Trader Level, that ranges from 1 to 4 which indicates trustworthyness.

Level 1 users are brand new. They can only trade with users with Level 2 and higher, and they must send first in a trade. They can also only have 50$ worth of cards in open trades at one time.

They reach level 2 after trading 200$ worth of cards and have been trading for at least a month on deckbox.

Level 2 traders can trade with anyone, but must send first when trading with Level 3 and higher. They can have 100$ worth of cards in trades at one time.

They reach level 3 after trading 500$ worth of cards and have been trading for at least 3 months on deckbox.

Level 3 traders can have 250$ worth of cards in trades at one time.

Level 4 traders have no restrictions.

All traders receive an extra level if we have an active credit card on file from them, from an active premium subscription (functionality for this is upcoming hopefully this week), or if they have sent or received a payment on deckbox in the last month via an active and verified paypal account. This can be either for premium membership, bought or sold cards.


This also means that you can only be level 4 if you have used a valid and active payment mechanism, that we know of. This would prevent account transfers and sales, and provide us with avenues for action in case of scamming.


I think this system would promote a more fair and friendly trading environment, would reward longevity on the website, and clean and friendly trade histories.

As always, I look forward to reading your feedback, and thank you in advance for your help in shaping this feature.


Later Edit A lot of feedback seems to indicate that restricting the value that new users trade is not a good idea, and I agree. I will try to re-formulate the proposal to allow for that.

Sounds great! Maybe I missed it, but how do you go from level 3 to level 4? Is the same kind of system under consideration for selling/buying?

d72B wrote:Sounds great! Maybe I missed it, but how do you go from level 3 to level 4? Is the same kind of system under consideration for selling/buying?

Not 100% sure yet, still thinking if there should be some additional account age requirement. It might also be possible to just have it Automatically become level 4 if you got to level 3 AND you have a payment mechanism on file, as explained.

For selling & buying no, at least not to begin with. There fraud is not so much of an issue since Paypal is also always involved.

This all sounds really fair. My question in can I still ask a user with say only 15 trades (this should make them Level 3 if all trades were bigger and they met the time requirement) to still send first even though we are both level 3 but I have 85 more trades? Or since we are both level 3 we are required to simul-send?

I think this is a good idea.
Once achieved a higher level, there should not be a rule on 'sending first', since in some countries its more affordable to use registered mail / tracking. This should be negotiable between the traders, in my opinion. When choosing this option traders may ship 'second' hence providing tracking. It might be a good thing to provide a text box to add a tracking number for both traders + admin to review?

As detailed in the OP, this is a terrible idea, at least for me. If I want to trade with a new user, I'm *unable* to do something worth more than $50 with them? Or if they trade with someone else, they can't trade with me? Allegedly for my own protection??? Under this rule, this would ban probably 25% of the trades I do.

I could see these restrictions making sense for newer users trading with eachother. But for experienced users trading with newer users who will be sending first, this would be unacceptably restrictive.

I hope this is an "obvious" error. I think most messy situations arise when new users trade with eachother, not when new users trade with more-experienced users. The latter circumstance does not need any additional protections, especially those that make viable trades impossible.

If I were doing this, I would just implement a 2-level system. You get 2 level 2 when you have 20 feedback. Level 1 users can't have more than $100 in active trades with eachother. That's it. Don't tell me I can't make a trade with a $100 trade with a user with 0 feedback where he sends first, please.

Also, I'll offer one additional perspective on why this is a horrible proposal, trying to represent a view that will probably not be very vocal in this discussion: That of the new user. Let's say I'm a casual player trying to build modern Jund. I want LotVs and I can't get them on PucaTrade, so I come to Deckbox. Under the new system, it would be *impossible* to get these cards until I've signed up for a month and trade $200? Why bother?

9700377 wrote:As detailed in the OP, this is a terrible idea, at least for me. If I want to trade with a new user, I'm *unable* to do something worth more than $50 with them? Allegedly for my own protection??? Under this rule, this would ban probably 25% of the trades I do.

I could see these restrictions making sense for newer users trading with each other. But for experienced users trading with newer users who will be sending first, this would be unacceptably restrictive.

I hope this is an "obvious" error. I think most messy situations arise when new users trade with each other, not when new users trade with more-experienced users. The latter circumstance does not need any additional protections, especially those that make viable trades impossible.

The proposed rule is to cut down on a potential scammers. Messy situations happen all the time and are not limited to new users. Hell I have had only one issue myself with trading and it was with a user that had more trades then I did. Are there suggestions to improve on the rule? Increase the limits? Or are you opposed to the whole thing in general?

Though the amount of times I see profiles that are potential scammers is kinda high. I am willing to sacrifice some trades to make sure I am protected from a scammer.

valdor wrote:The proposed rule is to cut down on a potential scammers. Messy situations happen all the time and are not limited to new users. Hell I have had only one issue myself with trading and it was with a user that had more trades then I did.

Though the amount of times I see profiles that are potential scammers is kinda high. I am willing to sacrifice some trades to make sure I am protected from a scammer.

I am absolutely unwilling to sacrifice 25% of my trades for the "benefit" of being subjected to paternalistic restrictions. Your point that messy situations arise regardless of experience only motivates against this system. When I ask a new trader to send first, the risk of my being scammed is very low. I have never been scammed under this situation, and if I felt like the risk was high enough than I would just not trade with newer users.

That is, I already have incentives to protect myself here. I've chosen what risks to take. Telling me that I'm incorrect and need additional protections at the cost of 25% of my trades? I'm sorry, but fuck that. Restrictions on the abilities of new users to trade with me are in fact restrictions on me as well. And I don't want these restrictions. I don't gain anything by having them. I mean, maybe we can have a Rank 5 for people who are adults who feel like they know what they're doing or something, at least?

i like this

dawsonjay wrote:i like this

Do you? You have an active trade worth over $50 with a user with one feedback. Do you regret agreeing to it? Do you feel like you should not be able to make these trades in the future?

Maybe you have a point. As long as the new person sends first, I could care less. I don't really see the need to limit the $ amount though.

How about a simple 'The person with less feedback always sends first' rule?

I have had problems on about a dozen deckbox trades. Out of 750. However the only three trades that I lost cards in were to three established users (with 50+ feedback, that I'd traded with several times in the past) that disappeared shortly after making multiple big trades. The other trades were with newer traders where I simply requested that they sent first. They never did, so I canceled those trades and moved on.

So yeah. I guess I don't see how this would really help much.

[goes back to work][/goes back to work]

Good points all around, thanks for the discussion. I can see why established users would want new users to not be restricted as long as they send first.

I'd like to incorporate that in the rules, while keeping restrictions for "new user" to "new user" interactions (which are the most problematic), while keeping the whole thing understandable.

Thinking about this, and will post updates. Keep the conversation going though, lots of good points.

9700377 wrote: I am absolutely unwilling to sacrifice 25% of my trades for the "benefit" of being subjected to paternalistic restrictions. Your point that messy situations arise regardless of experience only motivates against this system. When I ask a new trader to send first, the risk of my being scammed is very low. I have never been scammed under this situation, and if I felt like the risk was high enough than I would just not trade with newer users.

Agree to the sentiment, let's keep the tone friendly though :). I appreciate the fact that established users are able to care for their interests, but many newer users give up on online trading because of bad experiences with people who get to 15 positive score and then scam 10 people.

I want to get rid of them and provide as safe an environment as possible to all newcomers :) (while also providing proper tools to non-newcomers too)

The biggest issue I have is that people like myself who only trade on deckbox, not buy or sell, will never be able to get to level 4. I bought a card using the site one time, but for the most part if I'm spending money then I'm just going to do it using tcgplayer. However, I have hundreds of completed trades over a couple of years with 100% positive feedback - why should that exclude me from this "level 4" just because I don't have a credit card on file? Maybe I just don't want to put in my card info. That doesn't mean I'm a less reliable trader. Either change the criteria or scrap the idea, please.

El_Panda_Rojo wrote:The biggest issue I have is that people like myself who only trade on deckbox, not buy or sell, will never be able to get to level 4. I bought a card using the site one time, but for the most part if I'm spending money then I'm just going to do it using tcgplayer. However, I have hundreds of completed trades over a couple of years with 100% positive feedback - why should that exclude me from this "level 4" just because I don't have a credit card on file? Maybe I just don't want to put in my card info. That doesn't mean I'm a less reliable trader. Either change the criteria or scrap the idea, please.

So you consider the community a useful tool for you but you would not even consider supporting it by becoming a premium member, thus you wish that the idea be scrapped :)

sebi wrote:So you consider the community a useful tool for you but you would not even consider supporting it by becoming a premium member, thus you wish that the idea be scrapped :)

I've chosen not to become a premium member because I don't feel the need to utilize the premium features, not because I don't support the site or feel it isn't a useful tool. I do my part in other ways, like getting my friends to sign up and start trading here. And I suggested scrapping the idea entirely only if you were opposed to the notion of changing the criteria of the "level scale." What, am I not allowed to give input just because I don't put money towards the site?

sebi wrote:

El_Panda_Rojo wrote:The biggest issue I have is that people like myself who only trade on deckbox, not buy or sell, will never be able to get to level 4. I bought a card using the site one time, but for the most part if I'm spending money then I'm just going to do it using tcgplayer. However, I have hundreds of completed trades over a couple of years with 100% positive feedback - why should that exclude me from this "level 4" just because I don't have a credit card on file? Maybe I just don't want to put in my card info. That doesn't mean I'm a less reliable trader. Either change the criteria or scrap the idea, please.

So you consider the community a useful tool for you but you would not even consider supporting it by becoming a premium member, thus you wish that the idea be scrapped :)

Ill be honest sebi, that is kinda unfair to say. I love deckbox but I dont pay for premium. Instead I support deckbox by telling everyone I know about it and convincing people to try and join. I promote the site where I can. So saying that you can only support by paying money seems unfair to those that dont have credit/debit cards or are extremely tight on money that even $5/months is too much.

El_Panda_Rojo wrote:I've chosen not to become a premium member because I don't feel the need to utilize the premium features, not because I don't support the site or feel it isn't a useful tool. I do my part in other ways, like getting my friends to sign up and start trading here. And I suggested scrapping the idea entirely only if you were opposed to the notion of changing the criteria of the "level scale." What, am I not allowed to give input just because I don't put money towards the site?

Nope, feedback is always appreciated. Just pointing out how "Either change the criteria or scrap the idea, please." sounds.

valdor wrote: Ill be honest sebi, that is kinda unfair to say. I love deckbox but I dont pay for premium. Instead I support deckbox by telling everyone I know about it and convincing people to try and join. I promote the site where I can. So saying that you can only support by paying money seems unfair to those that dont have credit/debit cards or are extremely tight on money that even $5/months is too much.

Sure, this is why ANY kind of payment information is accepted, you do not have to be premium. Which means you can buy or sell, or whichever way you prefer.

Having zero verification on our users is a very bad position to be in, because there is nothing we can do against scammers when they do not even have to show a credit card or paypal account to trade cards worth thousands of dollars.

sebi wrote:Nope, feedback is always appreciated. Just pointing out how "Either change the criteria or scrap the idea, please." sounds.

Fair enough. All I meant by that is that I don't have any particular feelings about implementing trading restrictions/levels as long as the criteria are adjusted so a credit card isn't required. However if those changes aren't made to the level criteria, then I would feel actively opposed to implementing trading restrictions rather than not having any feelings for either side.

sebi wrote:

valdor wrote: Ill be honest sebi, that is kinda unfair to say. I love deckbox but I dont pay for premium. Instead I support deckbox by telling everyone I know about it and convincing people to try and join. I promote the site where I can. So saying that you can only support by paying money seems unfair to those that dont have credit/debit cards or are extremely tight on money that even $5/months is too much.

Sure, this is why ANY kind of payment information is accepted, you do not have to be premium. Which means you can buy or sell, or whichever way you prefer.

Having zero verification on our users is a very bad position to be in, because there is nothing we can do against scammers when they do not even have to show a credit card or paypal account to trade cards worth thousands of dollars.

That is fair. I did not consider the buying/selling bit so I can concede to that.

At first I was a bit concerned that this might affect me as I'm brand new. But the restrictions don't seem overly restricting to begin with. I only have 2 trades proposed right now, and I plan on sending first, and they are all under the $ limit that is being suggested. So it basically is following how I intend to use the site as a new user. Seems like a perfectly reasonable set of restrictions on the lower end. :D

The only part of this that seems off is the restriction that level 4 people wont be able to trade with level 1. Why does that even make a difference when it's just that they have account information on file? Seems odd/off.

Are you going to allow people to link paypal/CC information even though they have not purchased something to increase their trade limit right away? At the moment I don't really see any options for this, other that purchasing premium.

One thing I would suggest, and I have no idea how often the issue arises based on this, but I would recommend implementing Multi-Factor Authentication. On a site where hundreds/thousands of dollars of transactions are being made by individuals I'd imagine there are a decent amount of people attempting to hack into long-term accounts to send out bait trades and then just turn off the account after.

Also, this doesn't address the issue of someone creating multiple accounts, "trading" with themselves to reach the aforementioned goals, then doing the same thing. Without some sort of account verification there is no good way to implement this. Also, with one-time CC's they could just set up a verified account, cancel the pseudo-card and then you have no way to trace them, which is why Paypal is so important on other sites because the buyer is verified.

What about people like me, who can't use PayPal for one reason or another?

I think this is a good concept overall.

I am not a fan of restricting the level 4 traders from trading with a level 1. If anything a level 4 is more experienced on how to deal with a new trader and to make them ship first etc. I just don't see how a new trader potentially scamming a level 4 trader is a more serious offence than scamming a level 2 trader.

I like the level scale for restricting dollar values. As scammers are less likely to target deckbox in the first place with rules like that. Then if they do try to scam other traders they scam 1 trader for $40 not 10 traders for $400. To me it adds a level of protection.

I don't think a system can be created that will prevent all issues, but this will clean up some issues in my opinion. Thankfully, so far I have not had any unresolved issues with my trades.

El_Panda_Rojo wrote:

sebi wrote:So you consider the community a useful tool for you but you would not even consider supporting it by becoming a premium member, thus you wish that the idea be scrapped :)

I've chosen not to become a premium member because I don't feel the need to utilize the premium features, not because I don't support the site or feel it isn't a useful tool. I do my part in other ways, like getting my friends to sign up and start trading here. And I suggested scrapping the idea entirely only if you were opposed to the notion of changing the criteria of the "level scale." What, am I not allowed to give input just because I don't put money towards the site?

I think you are a bit out of line Sebi, I am a budget player and most of us are just here for good fun. My friends and family all know to buy me magic cards as gifts when the occasion calls for it. Then I need to trade down to finish the decks I am building. I am unable to fit a monthly fee into my budget but have recommended this site to other traders who purchase through deckbox and others who have become premium members. Plus they can sell the add space for when I am logged on. So just because I am not putting physical dollars into deckbox does not mean I am not helping to support this site.

If you choose to put a higher value on the opinions of those who pay for Premium that is your business but maybe should not be targeting that in a public post.

I would not appreciate a system that restricted my trades to under $50. I currently have 2 trades and several purchases. My trades were both large and of course, I sent first to someone with significant feedback. This seems more than enough protection without placing some arbitrary cap on trade value. I won't be trading that often and will take some time to build up a high score - but with caps in place, I am likely to never trade nor maintain my Premium Status.

As a new user, I think that the financial restrictions are a bit harsh. Many people that I know of are looking to trade individual cards worth anywhere from $20-$50, i.e Dark Confidants, Blood moons, Fetches, etc etc. I would have to make numerous separate trades in order to actually trade up into lets say a Tarmogoyf or Liliana of the Veil.
I get that rep doesnt transfer from say MTGSalvation or Ebay or TCGPlayer etc as a trader/seller, but by putting such stringent boundaries on what I can or cannot trade is more likely to turn me off to this site, and stick with the aforementioned ones where I have enough rep to do whatever I want.
Basically, If you really want to set up some parameters to protect users on your site, I would personally suggest the following:

1) New users should not be allowed to sell any cards on here whatsoever. If they really want to circumvent e-bay fees/tcgplayer fees, then they should just try craigslist or somewhere else.
2) Users who have at least [x] feedback can start selling cards. At the lower end, if you would like to set it up where they have to use some sort of mediation, i.e they send cards to the mediator, payment is sent, mediator sends to buyer, that's fine, but seems extreme.
3) Lower feedback should always send first unless another arrangement is made. People who have higher feedback should assume *some* responsibility if a trade goes south because they decided to simulsend with someone with less than 10 feedback. Sorry, but people should always be wary. New users should understand that they should be sending first, and in turn should try to trade with people who have lets say 25 feedback or more. This way they are trading with people who are established, and can build rep that way, instead of getting ripped off new user to new user. The person who is active on here has more to lose overall with bad rep, so they are more likely not to try to scam a new user.

I always know that I am likely to be sending first. That has never been an issue for me. I usually try to trade with people who have a good amount of feedback, and like to go back to those same people should I want to trade again to build rep that way.
I am not understanding how limiting the financial risk will mitigate the frequency of scams, and I am not understanding how adding things like "must be a member trading for x months" will really help too much. Someone could just make an account, make a few trades, sit on their account, and then start scamming.
It all really comes down to the individual. If I'm not comfortable with how a trade looks, or if there hasn't been a good amount of communication or pictures exchanged etc., then I usually just pass on the trade. A good tool that I use is I tell them to take a picture of the cards, along with a household object or basic lands (since who doesn't have a ton of basics floating around). This way, i can say something along the lines of, "Hey, shoot me a picture of your Gaea's Cradle, with a plains and a mountain in the picture". It's really hard to pull something like that off the internet, and this way I know they have the card in hand.
Overall, there is no good way to stop scamming and ripping, and the best you can hope for is to trust established users to make good trades, new users to understand the rules and regulations, and for everyone to use their common sense. There will always be some amount of scams or rips, as no medium will ever be perfect. It's a fact of life, and if you really want to make a trade that's worth $1000, use a mediator so that there is no question of who has what card, what condition it is in, and if they actually have it in hand.[/x]