The tier system is a bad idea. It's not what stops scammers. Stopping scammers starts with IP logging/checking and being dedicated to banning without remorse any returning rippers on a daily basis. It means having trustworthy moderators who won't allow friends to practice shady trading practices. It means immediate sanctions against users if even the slightest hint of treachery should pop up. If your system on DB can't do this, you will always be open to returning rip off artists. I'm not saying it's foolproof, but these are all proven tactics that reduce ripping. The rest is common sense, something we all have lapses on from time to time. Internet trading is a scary proposition, you can't hold each traders hand through every possible scenario.

However, it's not all doom and gloom. I would be in favor of a more detailed feedback system.

For example

You rate your experience out of 5 stars for each of the following:

Communication
Shipping speed
Packing
Card Condition
"insert something I have missed here"

These would allow for a continually evolving/updating feedback system. Someone could have 100+ positive refs but when you dig deeper you see that Trader X "card condition" is 3.8/5 thus indicating that card condition may not be as described. Being armed with info like I get a better idea of what my potential trader partners habits are like.

I really can't stress enough the logging of IP addresses and the daily requirement of staff to check them against banned IP's. At MTG Salvation when I was the head honcho over the Market Street we were dedicated to checking all new user IP to see if they cross referenced with anyone else on the site. Doing a thorough background check (even if you have to suspend the user for a day or two) makes it more difficult for thieves to get a foothold.

None of what I say will eliminate all theft, it's simply not possible. Realistically were looking for deterrence, not complete elimination.

Verification systems (credit card, paypal, "insert whatever you think is legitimate" is fine as a SECONDARY step, but these types of things can alienate your user base, especially those who are afraid to put their info on the internet.

Just my .02 from a guy who was ripped on this website along with many others by somoene with over 200 positive refs and as a former Moderator on a large site dedicated to trading.

TechnicolorMage wrote:The tier system is a bad idea. It's not what stops scammers. Stopping scammers starts with IP logging/checking and being dedicated to banning without remorse any returning rippers on a daily basis. It means having trustworthy moderators who won't allow friends to practice shady trading practices. It means immediate sanctions against users if even the slightest hint of treachery should pop up. If your system on DB can't do this, you will always be open to returning rip off artists. I'm not saying it's foolproof, but these are all proven tactics that reduce ripping. The rest is common sense, something we all have lapses on from time to time. Internet trading is a scary proposition, you can't hold each traders hand through every possible scenario.

However, it's not all doom and gloom. I would be in favor of a more detailed feedback system.

For example

You rate your experience out of 5 stars for each of the following:

Communication
Shipping speed
Packing
Card Condition
"insert something I have missed here"

These would allow for a continually evolving/updating feedback system. Someone could have 100+ positive refs but when you dig deeper you see that Trader X "card condition" is 3.8/5 thus indicating that card condition may not be as described. Being armed with info like I get a better idea of what my potential trader partners habits are like.

I really can't stress enough the logging of IP addresses and the daily requirement of staff to check them against banned IP's. At MTG Salvation when I was the head honcho over the Market Street we were dedicated to checking all new user IP to see if they cross referenced with anyone else on the site. Doing a thorough background check (even if you have to suspend the user for a day or two) makes it more difficult for thieves to get a foothold.

None of what I say will eliminate all theft, it's simply not possible. Realistically were looking for deterrence, not complete elimination.

Verification systems (credit card, paypal, "insert whatever you think is legitimate" is fine as a SECONDARY step, but these types of things can alienate your user base, especially those who are afraid to put their info on the internet.

Just my .02 from a guy who was ripped on this website along with many others by somoene with over 200 positive refs and as a former Moderator on a large site dedicated to trading.

+1 on the whole thing really. A multi-facet rating system would be great.
I also think that it should be suggested that if that system is in place, people should leave the exact reason for leaving anything less than 5 stars for a particular rating. That way it would be a more detailed account so it takes some of the subjectivity out of the equation.

Amurphcs wrote: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

Im not sure y a buyer would be deserving of feedback.

"He didnt chargeback me hes a good buyer"

would probably be the extent of feedback

Sidewayzracer wrote:

Amurphcs wrote: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

Im not sure y a buyer would be deserving of feedback.

"He didnt chargeback me hes a good buyer"

would probably be the extent of feedback

Because it currently looks like ive only done 2 trades on here, while i have made numerous purchases on here as well. The point is the seller receives feedback, why not the buyer as well? It would allow people to see who is a good buyer and who is shady, especially when it comes to receiving the cards. Think about that, and then tell me that a buyer who has good practices isnt deserving of feedback. Doesnt have to be a long thing, "prompt payment, great buyer" or whatever, but it would go a long way to identifying those who have bad practices as buyers.

Amurphcs wrote:

Sidewayzracer wrote:

Amurphcs wrote: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

Im not sure y a buyer would be deserving of feedback.

"He didnt chargeback me hes a good buyer"

would probably be the extent of feedback

Because it currently looks like ive only done 2 trades on here, while i have made numerous purchases on here as well. The point is the seller receives feedback, why not the buyer as well? It would allow people to see who is a good buyer and who is shady, especially when it comes to receiving the cards. Think about that, and then tell me that a buyer who has good practices isnt deserving of feedback. Doesnt have to be a long thing, "prompt payment, great buyer" or whatever, but it would go a long way to identifying those who have bad practices as buyers.

Buyer feedback is un-needed, prompt payment doesnt mean anything when everything is paid for before shipping. It would allow for the feedback system to be gamed to inflate ratings.

As a trader with 700+ trades here, and someone that has narrowly avoided being scammed 3 or so times out of high value cards, I'd like to add my 2 cents.

I think doing something to encourage more verification is good.
I think doing something to more forcefully encourage or require low-feedback traders to always send first to higher feedback traders is also good.

I personally am not too concerned about trading myself -- I've done well to protect myself so far. The scenario that most worries me is a scammer that works up a moderate number of trades (10-20) and then tries to scam large numbers of new traders with less feedback than themselves. I saw this happen at least twice in the last few years. They tried to scam me but I insisted they send first, and they either never did, or sent fake cards. I'm not sure what the right threshold is here, but I DEFINITELY think that once a trader has an OPEN issue/complaint to resolve, that they should not be able to initiate new trades, and an admin should probably review that immediately and also (probably) prevent any already-open trades from sending cards to that person until the issue is resolved.

One person getting scammed is bad. A whole bunch of people getting scammed because they can't share information quickly amongst themselves is a bigger tragedy, imho.
-Sherlock

For a long time and reliable deckbox user with well over 100 trades with %100 feedback. My highest trade was between $250-$500, and have had lots of sucess. I would be very displeased to be put down to a level 3 with restrictions just because i dont want to donate $10 for a seller account i wouldnt use or purchase premium that i cant currently afford. I have spent a lot of hours building my rep on a person to person basis and would consider it considerable time wasted over the last 3+ years using this site.

That being said i see no issue in putting restrictions on new users that have not proved themselves as of yet.

1. Agree with everything rfioren said. Preventing established traders from scamming is very difficult and awareness of disputes is one of the best ways to combat this. In the end the threat of mail fraud charges should deter an intelligent person from scamming, but history has proven that this isn't enough so I believe Trader Levels and "verified" status would help. It's also just a neat idea for traders to "level up".

2. I think everyone complaining about potential trade restrictions is being dramatic and it's not likely to affect you that much. Yes there is an opportunity cost to not having unlimited trading bandwidth, but if you're worried about it so much you can get "verified" to level 4 to be unlimited. And if you can't get "verified" because you can't use PayPal then don't blame Deckbox. A "no cost" ($0.01 transaction?) option to link your PayPal to your DB account would be great since people seem to think it will cost them a lot ($5 for premium or just buy/sell a cheap card?) to get "verified".

3. Improve visibility: wherever you see a user name and feedback score you could also see icons showing

• if they're on vacation (clicking on this could give a popup showing return date, if specified),
• if they're premium,
• if they're "Verified",
• and if they're currently involved in any disputes (clicking on this could give a popup showing who initiated the dispute and which type it is).

4. Buyer feedback is as valuable as any other feedback: sure, in most cases the feedback will only show that nothing went wrong (same with most trades and purchases), but there is valuable feedback when anything goes wrong, e.g. "Buyer claims cards never arrived while tracking showed it arrived", "Buyer complained about card condition and was unwilling to resolve the issue", "Buyer takes advantage of the pricing system by buying only cards that are price-spiking". This allows sellers to be proactive and block unwanted buyers. This also rewards users for buying on Deckbox.

5. Expanding feedback as TechnicolorMage describes would be great and has been discussed in the past (couldn't find the thread though).

Sidewayzracer wrote:

Amurphcs wrote:

Sidewayzracer wrote:

Im not sure y a buyer would be deserving of feedback.

"He didnt chargeback me hes a good buyer"

would probably be the extent of feedback

Because it currently looks like ive only done 2 trades on here, while i have made numerous purchases on here as well. The point is the seller receives feedback, why not the buyer as well? It would allow people to see who is a good buyer and who is shady, especially when it comes to receiving the cards. Think about that, and then tell me that a buyer who has good practices isnt deserving of feedback. Doesnt have to be a long thing, "prompt payment, great buyer" or whatever, but it would go a long way to identifying those who have bad practices as buyers.

Buyer feedback is un-needed, prompt payment doesnt mean anything when everything is paid for before shipping. It would allow for the feedback system to be gamed to inflate ratings.

So are you saying that someone like me who participates on this site to primarily buy cards and do a few trades is less valuable to the trading community than someone who strictly trades? I dont think it should be an inflated singular rating, but sellers have both a trade and sell rating, why cant others have a buyer/trader rating?

rfioren wrote:I DEFINITELY think that once a trader has an OPEN issue/complaint to resolve, that they should not be able to initiate new trades,

I'm singling this out as a really really good idea that should probably be independent of all the discussions here.

I think a new system for discouraging scammers is great, but I'm skeptical that a tiered system would accomplish anything. Someone who wants to steal cards could simply do enough low-value trades to climb the ladder, then initiate a bunch of high-value trades, take the cards and run. The barrier would still be too low, and in the meantime you'd prevent new users from using the site for its intended purpose.

Here are a few things that I think would discourage scammers:

- verifying accounts through the use of established addresses, credit cards, however.
- formalizing an escrow system (that'd be a LOT of work though)
- preventing users from having too many trades in progress at once?
- establishing that users with a low or different enough trade record should send first

I disagree with the star-rating idea, the nature of Internet reviews means that most reviews will be either 5-star or 1-star, so it'd be no different from the +1/-1 that already exists.

PhyrexianLibrarian wrote: - preventing users from having too many trades in progress at once?

This was my intention with the limits, to prevent too much value being traded at once, so as to limit someone who wants to make 20 trades worth 2000$ and run away.

sebi wrote:

PhyrexianLibrarian wrote: - preventing users from having too many trades in progress at once?

This was my intention with the limits, to prevent too much value being traded at once, so as to limit someone who wants to make 20 trades worth 2000$ and run away.

Would it also limit people doing many low value trades at once ? Like 10 or so 2-15 dollar trades ?

I also see a lot of users complaining a 3.99$ monthly membership is too much, but wanting to trade more than 250$ worth of cards AT THE SAME TIME on deckbox, while also receiving the benefit of administrator moderation, support, and everything else.

rfioren wrote:I DEFINITELY think that once a trader has an OPEN issue/complaint to resolve, that they should not be able to initiate new trades,

I am generally suspending users as soon as I see problems occur, and they become unresponsive...

It is hard to draw the line of when you want someone blocked. If just opening a dispute blocks someone, users will use that in annoying ways. If it would block both the disputer and the disputee, people would not open them because they would be blocked, and they will open a support ticket instead...

I agree with the idea of course, I was just not sure how to best put it in practice.

TheWorldHatesPaul wrote: 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.

How low should I reduce the restrictions though? I felt 250$ traded at the same time is plenty, but it seems people do not agree...

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

Yep, on my list of things to look into.

sebi wrote:

TheWorldHatesPaul wrote: 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.

How low should I reduce the restrictions though? I felt 250$ traded at the same time is plenty, but it seems people do not agree...

What if the following was used:

New traders have a maximum value cap of $400 (i.e playset of tarns or lotv, or a couple gaea's cradles), and may have no more than 3 trades open?
I think this would allow enough room to trade high value cards for new users, and limit the downside of doing multiple small trades to just build up rep too quickly. If we are talking about building up to a range of 20-30 rep, then it would take a decent amount of time to actually get there.

kathirene89 wrote: Would it also limit people doing many low value trades at once ? Like 10 or so 2-15 dollar trades ?

Well, the thing is, if you only do low value trades, and you have less than 250$ in many months, do you really want to at once start doing 250$ worth of trades at the same time suddenly?

The restriction would just be for all the trades that you have open at the same time where the other person did not yet receive the cards. So for the cards you promised and are "in transit".

I mean it would not prevent you from trading, a new user would simply need to wait for his cards to get to destination before opening new trades for other cards. For national trades this would be 2-3 workdays usually, no?

sebi wrote:

rfioren wrote:I DEFINITELY think that once a trader has an OPEN issue/complaint to resolve, that they should not be able to initiate new trades,

I am generally suspending users as soon as I see problems occur, and they become unresponsive...

It is hard to draw the line of when you want someone blocked. If just opening a dispute blocks someone, users will use that in annoying ways. If it would block both the disputer and the disputee, people would not open them because they would be blocked, and they will open a support ticket instead...

I agree with the idea of course, I was just not sure how to best put it in practice.

I think if someone is abusing this, that they should be suspended or banned. I see this as a pretty serious "red button" (like the button on trains for example). Pushing this stops the train (stops trades / summons an admin). If what they're complaining about seems frivolous, they should get a warning/suspension. All I can say is that as a trader making a potentially large trade, knowing that someone has an open complaint against them for fake cards or not shipping would make a big difference to me. As it is, I actually snoop around and look at past trades and open trades with my trade partners if the value is more than $50, but that's a time consuming, onerous, incomplete, and frankly a little creepy thing to do.

Alongside verification, I think the best way to prevent scamming is to leverage and surface the traders'/victims' experience as soon as they suspect something is wrong, to slow down the scam and prevent the next victim.

Amurphcs wrote:New traders have a maximum value cap of $400 (i.e playset of tarns or lotv, or a couple gaea's cradles), and may have no more than 3 trades open?

The idea that Deckbox must support a new user to trade high value cards in their first trades is ridiculous.

kathirene89 wrote:
Would it also limit people doing many low value trades at once ? Like 10 or so 2-15 dollar trades ?

Sebi wrote:
Well, the thing is, if you only do low value trades, and you have less than 250$ in many months, do you really want to at once start doing 250$ worth of trades at the same time suddenly?
The restriction would just be for all the trades that you have open at the same time where the other person did not yet receive the cards. So for the cards you promised and are "in transit

Me -
OK so t wouldn't really be a limit on how many trades if there all small then ?

sebi wrote:I mean it would not prevent you from trading, a new user would simply need to wait for his cards to get to destination before opening new trades for other cards. For national trades this would be 2-3 workdays usually, no?

Majority of my trades take 4-5 days both ways unless I trade within my state or bordering states

d72B wrote:

Amurphcs wrote:New traders have a maximum value cap of $400 (i.e playset of tarns or lotv, or a couple gaea's cradles), and may have no more than 3 trades open?

The idea that Deckbox must support a new user to trade high value cards in their first trades is ridiculous.

Its not a must support is a willingness to support. The site already does this by not having a cap if you actually think about it. Is that ridiculous too?

Amurphcs wrote:

d72B wrote:

Amurphcs wrote:New traders have a maximum value cap of $400 (i.e playset of tarns or lotv, or a couple gaea's cradles), and may have no more than 3 trades open?

The idea that Deckbox must support a new user to trade high value cards in their first trades is ridiculous.

Its not a must support is a willingness to support. The site already does this by not having a cap if you actually think about it. Is that ridiculous too?

If restrictions are implemented and they're as high as suggestions like this then they're useless. Currently there's a risk of abuse. That's why we're having this conversation.

Bottom line: if a user doesn't want to be "verified" then their trades should be restricted for everyone's safety. The restrictions shouldn't be based on what a user thinks they should be able to do; restrictions should be data driven. Only Sebi has the data and so he should determine what is reasonable for a new user (not to discount this great discussion).

P.S. Warnings will simply be ignored..

d72B wrote:

Amurphcs wrote:

d72B wrote:
The idea that Deckbox must support a new user to trade high value cards in their first trades is ridiculous.

Its not a must support is a willingness to support. The site already does this by not having a cap if you actually think about it. Is that ridiculous too?

If restrictions are implemented and they're as high as suggestions like this then they're useless. Currently there's a risk of abuse. That's why we're having this conversation.

Bottom line: if a user doesn't want to be "verified" then their trades should be restricted for everyone's safety. The restrictions shouldn't be based on what a user thinks they should be able to do; restrictions should be data driven. Only Sebi has the data and so he should determine what is reasonable for a new user (not to discount this great discussion).

P.S. Warnings will simply be ignored..

I just feel that the initial quote of the limit of $100 was too low to be honest.
I also feel that not being able to trade good value cards for higher value cards would be a turn off in my opinion. It would also increase the amount of shipping I would need to spend in order to get to a point where I would have the ability to trade for the values that I would be interested in, primarily trades in that 100-400 mark.
I agree that some kind of verification should be necessary in order to trade with less restrictions, and for those who dont have a verified account should be limited in the amount of trades and value of trades they are able to do.
What if it were unverified max value 100, verified 400 until established?
Then maybe established unverified 200, established verified no restriction?

What would be the difference between verified and established?

Frankly any limit on "new users can only trade X dollars at once" will be too high for some people and too low for others. So it's already arbitrary, it's just a question of what arbitrary amount annoys the fewest people. :P What's the threshold for mail fraud in the US? That's probably a reasonable cut-off point (at least at first), that way you have to be verified to trade at a level where not following through might have non-MTG consequences.

rfioren makes a good point; if someone is actively trying to work around whatever trade protections have been put into place, that's already a sign that they aren't trading in good faith, so that doesn't have to be a factor in designing those protections.

Amurphcs wrote:
What if the following was used:

New traders have a maximum value cap of $400 (i.e playset of tarns or lotv, or a couple gaea's cradles), and may have no more than 3 trades open?

sebi wrote:I mean it would not prevent you from trading, a new user would simply need to wait for his cards to get to destination before opening new trades for other cards. For national trades this would be 2-3 workdays usually, no?

Capping the number of open trades seems bad for trans-Atlantic traders. Yes, it does only take 2-3 days for national trades, but I don't think very many people outside of the US are trading primarily with their countrymen. Much like the proposed $50 limit, I would end up spending a lot of time just sitting on my hands waiting for my cards to reach Florida. Capping the number of open trades also feels like it would lead to a drop in courtesy. For example, Easter is coming up. I'm not sure how it is in other countries, but things shut down for four days here in Germany. It's a good excuse to travel abroad, or maybe just visit your grandma out in the country. Currently, if a trading partner was like "Hey man, I'm going to be away for five days, is it okay if we pick our trade back up then?" I would have absolutely no problem with letting it sit. With a 3-trades cap, I would be encouraged to cancel the trade in order to keep my slots open. Sure, canceling a trade isn't a hostile action, but it still feels unpleasant when both parties are keen on said trade and will likely lead to fewer trades overall.

sebi wrote:I also see a lot of users complaining a 3.99$ monthly membership is too much, but wanting to trade more than 250$ worth of cards AT THE SAME TIME on deckbox, while also receiving the benefit of administrator moderation, support, and everything else.

There is a difference between spending $50 a year for features people may not want or use and trading cards you no longer want or need. There are many other sites that do trading and the experience is the same for trading. You can open a box of Standard right now and pull a card worth more than $250 that you may not want or need.

sebi wrote:

kathirene89 wrote: Would it also limit people doing many low value trades at once ? Like 10 or so 2-15 dollar trades ?

Well, the thing is, if you only do low value trades, and you have less than 250$ in many months, do you really want to at once start doing 250$ worth of trades at the same time suddenly?

The restriction would just be for all the trades that you have open at the same time where the other person did not yet receive the cards. So for the cards you promised and are "in transit".

Again, many people use your site to trade cards that they just opened that they don't want. Many casual players decide to start playing in FNMs or GPs everyday and they learn that their collection can be organized and traded easily with this site. I can definitely see someone randomly trading a high value card or cards because they are going to a GP and need to make a deck or they just opened something they don't want and want to get the most value out of it.

Well at this point, I think a majority of people are against potential rule as is stands. I am perfectly wiling to go with the will of the people.

mobung wrote:Capping the number of open trades also feels like it would lead to a drop in courtesy. For example, Easter is coming up. I'm not sure how it is in other countries, but things shut down for four days here in Germany. It's a good excuse to travel abroad, or maybe just visit your grandma out in the country. Currently, if a trading partner was like "Hey man, I'm going to be away for five days, is it okay if we pick our trade back up then?" I would have absolutely no problem with letting it sit. With a 3-trades cap, I would be encouraged to cancel the trade in order to keep my slots open. Sure, canceling a trade isn't a hostile action, but it still feels unpleasant when both parties are keen on said trade and will likely lead to fewer trades overall.

sebi wrote:The restriction would just be for all the trades that you have open at the same time where the other person did not yet receive the cards. So for the cards you promised and are "in transit".

AFAICT the restriction would only be on number of trades in transit, which means only trades marked as shipped. You could presumably open and negotiate and confirm and sit on as many other trades as you want, waiting for bandwidth to ship. BUT I imagine people will work around this by shipping without marking trades as shipped (even if they have to exchange addresses manually).

Sebi can you clarify how this would be enforced such that traders won't simply work around it?