I dont particularly like that i would have a cap placed on the upper limit of what i can trade. I have done multiple trades of over $250, some with individual cards in that price range, and have done upwards of $1,500 in trades in a week.

This limit means that i cant trade for blue dual lands, some of the better judge promos, alpha and beta stuff or power.

:(

What if you never do anything but small trades ? Some people regardless of how many trades they do might never reach that amount cap to go up a level .
This sort of system would make it unfair to those who do smaller trades .
Most of the people I trade with have high trade scores now with the system that's being talked about it might not be able to find theverything things I need on this website anymore.

Isn't this idea a bit unfair to honest people with no rating or low rating ?

Perhaps instead of having a dollar amount you have to reach before going up a level making it a trade count instead and not quite as high either.
I have been on this site a few years now and only done 32 trades and the Grand total of said trades most likely isn't up to 200 dollars so if I read right I would most likely still be stuck in level one and limited to who I could trade with.

sebi wrote:

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)

Sorry, my tone got somewhat severe because no one else was criticizing what I saw as some very deep flaws with this proposal. But now other people are echoing these concerns.

It seems like there are mainly two goals here. The first one is to protect users from scammers. As others have said, the main scamming risk comes from simulsending. I'm pretty okay with preventing simulsends on low-feedback traders by restricting their ability to deal with eachother. I'm not okay with restricting their ability to trade with more-experiences users though and I think it would really damage the attractiveness of the site to new users if it became infeasible to use it to get valuable cards immediately. The second one is to push premium memberships again. Obviously a lot of people are going to be annoyed by that and I think that just needs to be handled carefully.

9700377 wrote:

sebi wrote:

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)

Sorry, my tone got somewhat severe because no one else was criticizing what I saw as some very deep flaws with this proposal. But now other people are echoing these concerns.

It seems like there are mainly two goals here. The first one is to protect users from scammers. As others have said, the main scamming risk comes from simulsending. I'm pretty okay with preventing simulsends on low-feedback traders by restricting their ability to deal with eachother. I'm not okay with restricting their ability to trade with more-experiences users though and I think it would really damage the attractiveness of the site to new users if it became infeasible to use it to get valuable cards immediately. The second one is to push premium memberships again. Obviously a lot of people are going to be annoyed by that and I think that just needs to be handled carefully.

I still think it comes down mainly to common sense and the general feel of the trade. If i have 50 feedback, and someone else has 15 i would feel that I am more than within my right to ask that you send first. I think you should still be able to deal with people who are just starting out, so long as they are willing to send first. If not, then pass on the deal.
In terms of the premium membership, you could make it so people who want to sell have to get premium, although im not sure how that will go over with everyone. It would also pretty much completely eliminate scams from selling, as it would be tied to a paypal account or cc.

Not knowing what goes on outside of my trading experiences leave me at a bit of a loss towards the bigger picture of any scam problems. You alluded to new traders with new traders was the most problematic so address that first and foremost. "Send first" has established itself in the culture here so maybe spelling it out for new users would be sufficient enough rather than creating an enforcement mechanism. As for buying online, I do get nervous every time I do a purchase and usually only deal with people I have swapped cardboard with previously or have an established brick and mortar storefront and then I call them on their publicly listed number to make sure they are not impersonating a real legit storefront.

I'd just have to recommend that it is very clear and easy to understand for users new and old. 4 levels might be overkill. Simplify as much as possible however this is implemented.

Just force new users to send first... I've been doing this since the start and have had zero problems with scamming / fraud in over 200 successfully completed trades with 100% positive feedback.

The value cap / inter-level trading restriction seems convoluted and problematic to me.

Also, implying that people who don't want to be premium members don't support Deckbox is ridiculous. Perhaps if the additional features were more appealing, people would sign up.

I think one issue with this request for comment is also that users who have been scammed or are the ones that the feature would target are not reading or replying to this post :)

Why not limit this to a warning? Instead of prohibiting trades as detailed in the first post just have a highly visible warning every time a trade would violate the propositioned rules. E.g.: "Yes, I've read and understood that this trade with $50+ worth of cards is with a user with 0 feedback and I'm at risk here if I don't get him/her to send first. Click checkbox." That would kind of get the best of both worlds, you'd grant an extra level of security, since, let's face it, most scams come down to social engineering anyways, so a simple warning is actually a real security asset. (There's a reason why banks repeat over and over "don't give your PIN to anyone".) But at the same time, you'll allow people who are willing to take risks the freedom of trading what they want with who they want.

Some comments about the specifics of the rules, rather than their general nature:
Is it really intentional that level 1s are unable to trade with level 4s? Why would I ever want to be a level 4 (instead of level 3) trader if that meant that the vast majority of traders wouldn't be able to trade with me? Apart from lifting the $250 ceiling, that seems like a downgrade.

I understand that the value limits are arbitrary and, no matter where you put them you'll end up with some awkward results. But with current values you can get Marsh Flats for just under $50 and Verdant Catacombs for over $50. Similarly there's Jace, the Mind Sculptor for just under $100 and Liliana of the Veil for just over. This ends up feeling very strange, where, if you want to get rid of your BW tokens deck for a Jund deck in modern you can trade off your marsh flats, but can't get Verdant Catacombs. It just feels weird, and would ultimately make deckbox a much weaker tool Since the "trading opportunities" is one of the strongest features here and I really don't think it'd be good to limit trades along such arbitrary lines.

Finally the good stuff: Limiting the highest level to users with an active and verified credit card or paypal account seems like a good idea. There's a ton of safety in connecting the accounts to actual, real world, IDs. Espescially because this limits the swapping and borrowing of accounts. Even though I'm not a premium user I support this part of the idea.

hailing_frequency wrote:Why not limit this to a warning? Instead of prohibiting trades as detailed in the first post just have a highly visible warning every time a trade would violate the propositioned rules. E.g.: "Yes, I've read and understood that this trade with $50+ worth of cards is with a user with 0 feedback and I'm at risk here if I don't get him/her to send first. Click checkbox." That would kind of get the best of both worlds, you'd grant an extra level of security, since, let's face it, most scams come down to social engineering anyways, so a simple warning is actually a real security asset. (There's a reason why banks repeat over and over "don't give your PIN to anyone".) But at the same time, you'll allow people who are willing to take risks the freedom of trading what they want with who they want.

Interesting idea, I like this a lot at first glance.

Some comments about the specifics of the rules, rather than their general nature:
Is it really intentional that level 1s are unable to trade with level 4s? Why would I ever want to be a level 4 (instead of level 3) trader if that meant that the vast majority of traders wouldn't be able to trade with me? Apart from lifting the $250 ceiling, that seems like a downgrade.

Unintentional, I rephrased now to clarify. Level 4 also has absolute freedom.

I understand that the value limits are arbitrary and, no matter where you put them you'll end up with some awkward results. But with current values you can get Marsh Flats for just under $50 and Verdant Catacombs for over $50. Similarly there's Jace, the Mind Sculptor for just under $100 and Liliana of the Veil for just over. This ends up feeling very strange, where, if you want to get rid of your BW tokens deck for a Jund deck in modern you can trade off your marsh flats, but can't get Verdant Catacombs. It just feels weird, and would ultimately make deckbox a much weaker tool Since the "trading opportunities" is one of the strongest features here and I really don't think it'd be good to limit trades along such arbitrary lines.

Agreed. This would however not be an issue anymore if the limits are simply warnings as you suggested, and users can just click "I understand".

Finally the good stuff: Limiting the highest level to users with an active and verified credit card or paypal account seems like a good idea. There's a ton of safety in connecting the accounts to actual, real world, IDs. Espescially because this limits the swapping and borrowing of accounts.

I think so too.

BOOM wrote: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.

Sorry if I offended, did not mean to.

I'm at work so I skimmed through the posts in this thread, but I assume the change would be retro active?

A couple other things...

Magic is a game that has a, sometimes large, entry barrier depending on the format. Making it difficult for new users to get into the game is problematic. If someone with no rep wants to come on here and trade $100s worth of cards they inherited or pulled from boxes and ship first; they should be able to. Restricting trades and users won't do anything to bring fresh people to the site.

I use deckbox regularly and recommend it to anyone that talks about trading. A friend of mine wants to sell his collection and I'm trying to persuade him to sell it on deckbox. I"m not opposed to activating a paypal account to level up or buying premium to support the site. However, I think most people are like me. I'm primarily a trader. I don't purchase many singles online at all, never really have, I don't sell my cards, and the market place and premium don't offer anything that feels "worth" it to me.

sebi wrote:I think one issue with this request for comment is also that users who have been scammed or are the ones that the feature would target are not reading or replying to this post :)

I have been scammed before but not on here. My practices for trading are now as follows and as I briefly mentioned in my post before.

1) anyone with 10 feedback or less they send first no questions asked.
2) any trade over $40 must be sent with delivery confirmation in a bubble mailer. Generally speaking I only do two types of trades. Small trades for about $5-$20 and bigger trades from 75+. This way I know when theirs will get to me. If they want to send in a pwe they must send first regardless of feedback.
3) any international trade they send first as long as my feedback is higher.
4) always ask for pictures of higher end cards like jtms, lotv, etc. I usually ask for something random in there as well so I know they have physical possession of the card.
5) try to stick with people I know or have traded with before.
6) if something doesn't feel right, or if there is a severe lack of communication then I'll pass on the trade.
7) generally I try to keep initial purchases and trades with new users limited to smaller values. This way if I do get ripped off at least it won't cost me too much overall. Then once we have done a couple trades then I will start going into the higher end of trades with them.
8) if any problems do arise, attempt to work it out with the individual and If that doesn't work seek out staff of the website.

Basically a lot of this is common sense to me at least. There are rules and regulations for trading on sites for reasons, and a lot of the time people don't always read them all the way though. It's feels crappy getting ripped off or scammed but it does happen, and usually it ends up being my fault because I didn't protect myself enough on my end.

For reference, I got scammed purchasing from a seller with 0 feedback, and one other time when I decided to simul with a user with 0 feedback when mine was around 25.

New user here. First post on the forums, in fact. Figured this was a good reason to actually make a post. :)

A bit of background: I bought a large collection on CraigsList which included some higher value cards I don't want for myself, so I am trading for cards to finish a couple decks. So far, two of my first four trades have been >$50, with the most recent ~$150. On both of these (as well as a ~$20 trade), I traded with users who had good reputations and clear, pleasant communication, and had no major concerns about shipping first. If Deckbox had limited my ability to make these trades until I had a feedback score of [X], I am not sure I would have bothered with trying to trade on the site at all.

On the proposal: I would have to agree with 9700377, hailing_frequency, Amurphcs, etc. I think the 'common sense' suggestions make the most sense -- ask newer users to send first, add clear warnings about trades that are outside of proposed guidelines. Adding too much structure is overly limiting, and forces users to make trades they might not really want to make just to 'gain levels'.

I do think adding a 'verified account' mark (really, this should be the checkmark, and the premium account designation should be a blue ribbon or something -- but that's beside the point) for people who verify using a credit card / PayPal is a good step. I am not a premium user yet (I still haven't even played in a constructed event, even FNM, so first things first...), and I'm not sure I would want to buy from sellers on this site rather than TCGplayer, but I would definitely be willing to link a credit card to the site to verify my authenticity/good intentions/etc.

In short, I like the idea of:
* Clear warnings & guidelines on trade page
* Verified account mark
* Leave the rest up to common sense

My $0.02, for whatever they're worth.[/X]

Brendan wrote: I do think adding a 'verified account' mark (really, this should be the checkmark, and the premium account designation should be a blue ribbon or something --

+1

elpablo wrote:

Brendan wrote: I do think adding a 'verified account' mark (really, this should be the checkmark, and the premium account designation should be a blue ribbon or something --

+1

+1 as well

I'm a bit on both halves regarding this, as I can see where sebi is coming from with this, and I think the intention is right, but the execution needs to be polished.

One suggestion I didn't see was having the same custom preferences as sellers have with minimum purchase amount, but for ordinary users;
Let users decide if others can initiate a trade if some parameters are not met, like the amount of trades ("You cannot initiate a trade with this user as they require you to have completed at least 5 trades"). And then leave these parameters optional - does it make sense?

On magic card market you need to wire money to your account in order to get verified (paypal does the same thing) - and I figure as some of the other guys mentioned, this will be another implementation that we could all benefit from (combined with the suggestion above 'You cannot initiate a trade with this user as they require you to be verified or premium')

swordfischer wrote:I'm a bit on both halves regarding this, as I can see where sebi is coming from with this, and I think the intention is right, but the execution needs to be polished.

One suggestion I didn't see was having the same custom preferences as sellers have with minimum purchase amount, but for ordinary users;
Let users decide if others can initiate a trade if some parameters are not met, like the amount of trades ("You cannot initiate a trade with this user as they require you to have completed at least 5 trades"). And then leave these parameters optional - does it make sense?

On magic card market you need to wire money to your account in order to get verified (paypal does the same thing) - and I figure as some of the other guys mentioned, this will be another implementation that we could all benefit from (combined with the suggestion above 'You cannot initiate a trade with this user as they require you to be verified or premium')

You can also just decline the trade as well and choose to only trade with verified accounts. I dont believe adding an option will really make a difference. They can outline their trade preferences in their profile page.
Is there any adjudication here? Im not 100% sure if there is but having an active mod that handles disputes and has the power to suspend ban or implement a way to make them pay if a scam or rip occurs that might be helpful.

I dislike this whole idea. Trading restrictions (value and levels), levels, how levels are advanced, all of it.

Levels: L1s can't trade with other L1s. Wanna trade your Drana, Liberator of Malakir for 2x Cinder Glade? Tough. As a user with low feedback who loves janky rares, I'm mostly interested in low-value (which carry an inherently lower risk) trades. This rule would seriously limit my ability to trade random little junks for other random little junks.

Advancing: Having advancement be tied to the value of cards traded seems bad. I'm far more likely to be comfortable trading with a dude who has made a dozen $10-15 trades than one who traded away a playset of Aether Vials and a pair of shocks. A "number of trades or $xx, whichever comes first" threshold makes far more sense.

Value Limits: This feels downright hostile to new users. I would be disinclined to trade a Magus of the Moon to a Canadian L4 since his $30 price tag would eat up the majority of my L1 limit for a full month. Did I get lucky and pull an Expedition at draft? Looks like I can't trade it locally or here. Sure, I could pay money to get the restriction lifted, but that feels an awful lot like bullying.

Foreign Users: I don't live in the US. I have no problem trading worldwide since postage is 0.90€, but all trades to North America take about a month to complete (send first, 2 weeks until receipt, 2 weeks until my cards arrive). It took a while to cross the 5-Trade threshold, and that was without additional limits being set on my ability to trade. While I heartily recommend Deckbox to my buddies, my recommendation would change to "It's nice for inventory management, but you really have to work to get anything out of the trading system" under the suggested changes.

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

A person with feedback under a set threshold must send first seems like it would solve this.

I do like the idea of 'verified users'. Users who have done something to confirm their information.

edit: +1 to this:

Amurphcs wrote:

elpablo wrote:

Brendan wrote: I do think adding a 'verified account' mark (really, this should be the checkmark, and the premium account designation should be a blue ribbon or something --

+1

+1 as well

Also, implying that people who don't want to be premium members don't support Deckbox is ridiculous. Perhaps if the additional features were more appealing, people would sign up.

I also don't want to pay montly for premium features. But I do sometimes sell cards here, and have paid Deckbox for that privilege. So even though I don't have 'premium' you are making money from me (even if it's only a little). I love this site, but I have no interest in the current premium features.

gumgodMTG wrote:

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

A person with feedback under a set threshold must send first seems like it would solve this.

I do like the idea of 'verified users'. Users who have done something to confirm their information.

edit: +1 to this:

Amurphcs wrote:

elpablo wrote:
+1

+1 as well

I think a threshold is better served as a benchmark. Something to the extent of:
"Traders who have 25 feedback or more should use their discretion for simulsending with people who have 24 feedback or less unless they have traded with them prior. Members who have 24 feedback or below should be prepared to send first in any trade."
25 seems like the trader would be "well established" enough on here, as Im finding it difficult to even get past the 5 mark, though I have not updated my entire invantory yet :p.

I would not recommend a scale solely on card value. Some may have dozens of successful trades that don't add up to $250, for example, but I'd trade with them anyway. Follow through is follow through.

if I saw someone with two dozen $5 trades who wanted to trade for $50 of my cards, I would consider asking them to send first, or to complete some higher value trades (in the $10s and $20s) first.

gumgodMTG wrote:

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

A person with feedback under a set threshold must send first seems like it would solve this.

I do like the idea of 'verified users'. Users who have done something to confirm their information.

edit: +1 to this:

Amurphcs wrote:

elpablo wrote:
+1

+1 as well

Also, implying that people who don't want to be premium members don't support Deckbox is ridiculous. Perhaps if the additional features were more appealing, people would sign up.

I also don't want to pay montly for premium features. But I do sometimes sell cards here, and have paid Deckbox for that privilege. So even though I don't have 'premium' you are making money from me (even if it's only a little). I love this site, but I have no interest in the current premium features.

I am at work, so this will be quick.

First, Sebi, thank you for all your hard work and for entertaining this idea. I think it is high time for this type of feature.

Some folks want restrictions, other just want warnings. I like the idea of both, reduce the restrictions as stated in your original post, but still add some (such as users under some threshold must send first, users under a certain threshold can only trade below a certain value, etc). Also include the warnings and verified users.

Finally, I am all for 2-step authentication on this site!

Wouldn't requiring a verified address for trades over a certain amount provide some of the safeguards needed? It's easier (at least in the USA) to file a mail fraud claim if the other party's address is confirmed.

While not sure I'd support the idea, a credit card or bank account (alternate payment method) could be required for trades over a certain amount. If the trade goes south, the alternate payment information could be used to make it good. This would, of course, require a revision to site rules and trade policies, and all parties of a trade would have to agree to all terms.

HikingStick wrote:Wouldn't requiring a verified address for trades over a certain amount provide some of the safeguards needed? It's easier (at least in the USA) to file a mail fraud claim if the other party's address is confirmed.

While not sure I'd support the idea, a credit card or bank account (alternate payment method) could be required for trades over a certain amount. If the trade goes south, the alternate payment information could be used to make it good. This would, of course, require a revision to site rules and trade policies, and all parties of a trade would have to agree to all terms.

I would be more inclined to use a mediator. Basically both parties send to a site admin/mod and once all cards are checked and deemed accurate in terms of condition set etc then the mediator sends to respective parties

On a separate note, it may be good for sellers to have the ability to leave feedback for a buyer. I have done around 6 purchases on here thus far, but have no feedback to show for it which is kind of disheartening

at this point I think people should have to have a paypal or credit card registered. I am probably going to be out $100+ cause I got ripped from an established user. If he had a card or paypal linked to the site it would make it so we have more information to report to the police or make the site have an agreement if you refuse to work through trade disputes money can be charged to that person and transferred to the effected party.

IMO, no thanks. A restrictive tier system is a bad idea. I want greater access to a larger card pool, and I want the same for everyone, regardless of their trading experience. Level 4s should be able to trade with level 1s, and the same goes for level 1s looking to trade with all other user levels. This site needs to be as open as possible and a small degree of risk is to be expected.

I am, however, open to a verified/non-verified distinction (either by credit card, PayPal, or address), but not to the extent that it limits someone who does not have a credit card or PayPal account.

Full disclosure: I have been trading a mix of high value and lower value cards on the site for some time now with nothing but positive feedback, and as a result I would likely fall into the 4th all-access level.

I really don't care for the initial proposal. I am very picky about the trades that I do (and I am a collector so I keep a lot of stuff) so I have been on the site for 2 years and only have 13 trades.

3 of those trades were purchases before the marketplace existed so I have a 0 value trade for them. My most recent trade was a Portuguese box of Rise of the Eldrazi for some duals and other cards. That was a $250 trade, but it shows zero on my side. Plus I have a number of trades where the value has significantly decreased from what I sent them as (standard stuff mostly). If you were to add everything as it happened it should be well over $800 in trades/purchases for those 13 positive reviews I have.

The value shows as ~$280. I feel that I would be negatively impacted by this.

Also with the proposal, a level 1 user wouldn't have been able to trade their prerelease foil Narset for a bunch of standard cards.

And finally I can remember a lot of users with high rep scamming (or at least providing poor trading experience) people back when the disputes were in an open forum. I give the benefit of the doubt to larger users and I always offer to send first, but I am just as concerned with being ripped by a high rep (>20) vs a lower rep (5-20).

Just thought I'd weigh in. First of all, Sebi, this is of course an amazing site and you're a marvelous administrator. Keep up the great work, as I sincerely appreciate all the features you continue to add making this site better.

All in all, I'm in favor of checkbox style warnings rather than any kind of hard limits on anyone, ever. If anything, I think this kind of feature is less important than finding a way to leave less than positive [see: honest] feedback for someone without risking retaliatory feedback in return. The reason why some people have been scammed by high-rep users is because once you understand the system, anyone can easily manipulate it to avoid ever getting negative feedback by putting the threat of retaliatory feedback upon their trading partners.

This encourages (or at least allows) poor trading experiences. I have never had a trade not arrive (other than one I sent that got lost in the mail about a year ago) but I have had multiple bad experiences with cards not arriving in the condition described. Of course, I can't realistically hold my trading partners accountable for this without attempting to reverse the entire trade, and even then I risk negative feedback for doing so. Instead, because I value the positive reputation I have built, I just suck it up and accept the fact I was scammed by someone giving me terrible condition cards.

Do you have any implementable ideas for features that would allow people to actually leave honest feedback for other users to help mitigate situations like this and in turn hold the community to a higher standard?[/see: honest]

AuspSqueeky wrote:Just thought I'd weigh in. First of all, Sebi, this is of course an amazing site and you're a marvelous administrator. Keep up the great work, as I sincerely appreciate all the features you continue to add making this site better.

All in all, I'm in favor of checkbox style warnings rather than any kind of hard limits on anyone, ever. If anything, I think this kind of feature is less important than finding a way to leave less than positive [see: honest] feedback for someone without risking retaliatory feedback in return. The reason why some people have been scammed by high-rep users is because once you understand the system, anyone can easily manipulate it to avoid ever getting negative feedback by putting the threat of retaliatory feedback upon their trading partners.

This encourages (or at least allows) poor trading experiences. I have never had a trade not arrive (other than one I sent that got lost in the mail about a year ago) but I have had multiple bad experiences with cards not arriving in the condition described. Of course, I can't realistically hold my trading partners accountable for this without attempting to reverse the entire trade, and even then I risk negative feedback for doing so. Instead, because I value the positive reputation I have built, I just suck it up and accept the fact I was scammed by someone giving me terrible condition cards.

Do you have any implementable ideas for features that would allow people to actually leave honest feedback for other users to help mitigate situations like this and in turn hold the community to a higher standard?[/see: honest]

Negative feedback should only be allowed to be left if approved by an admin. They would be able to review the situation and make a decision from there. Any neg feedback given without approval should be able to be deleted