I am all for adding in this feature. Someone on a previous thread stated something like this: sales shouldn’t be done like an actual storefront shop. I should be able to trade you my cards for your cards or “trade” you my money for them.

I don’t think Deckbox is for business’ to use as another platform to sell like with TCG, EBay ect. Deckbox is used for individuals to help manage their personal collections, to get cards they want/need and to offload the ones they don’t. Sales should be done like trades not like a business. I agree with what Meldon said:

meldon44 wrote: UI will be key, yes, but I don't think the concept itself is confusing. "Here's my 5 cards worth $100 based on xyz pricing, plus a $20 bill, for your 6 cards worth $120 based on that same pricing." Makes complete sense to me. Just need a very clear UI.

I trade you my 5 cards and $20 for your 6 cards.

I mainly use deckbox as an inventory management site. I like to know that when someone is looking for something wether I for sure have it or not. When I sit down at a table to trade with someone, we both pick a pricing site (usually TCG but as long as you use the same site for both sides it usually doesn’t matter) and then go from there to make a deal. Deckbox should be used the same way. It’s the “table” we can both sit at to make a deal. It also functions as the venue like a local game store, GP, competitive event, ect where you can meet multiple people to interact with to find what you want/need. If I want to just buy a card for its market price I will go to a retail store (tcg, card kingdom, coolstuff, LGS, ect) and buy it straight up. I come to deckbox to work with individuals on a personal level to make deals that we’re both happy with, not to just buy from a store. A store is only gonna be in it for the profit, people will have different motivations. I know if I really need a card I’m ok with losing a few dollars in a trade to get it. Sometimes if I like the attitude of the person I’m trading with, I am much more inclined to give them a better deal then if they are being rude or being a stickler for the cents of a card in a trade. If I try to trade a card in to an LGS I’m lucky to get 50% of it’s value. When I trade an individual I usually get almost full value for it. I don’t want to have to sell 2 $100 cards to a store to buy 1 $100 card I need. I’m all for adding in a feature to trades where you can trade cash as part of the deal if you need to even out a trade or if one person doesn’t have anything the other wants. Deckbox should of course still get their cut for providing the venue/“table” for our transaction and that feature could be included into the transaction.

Amazing idea!

I support the removal of "auto-accept" as well.

While I have not yet bought, sold, or traded on Deckbox, I might choose to someday, and I think both sides of any exchange agreement deserve protection.

To all the people saying "sellers need to be more responsible" - some of us who sell/look to sell are just ordinary people with a huge inventory and very little time. It's why I would consider selling/trading here - the time efficiency in being able to *find* deals is strictly superior, especially given the current global pandemic issues, and I have a lot of cards I can move. However, I feel as if I, as a seller, don't deserve to get screwed because a price spiked and I didn't have a chance to reset my prices because I was at work or otherwise occupied at the instant of the spike. Please remember that there are tens of thousands of unique cards and probably over one hundred thousand unique printings of cards, and that's a lot for someone for whom selling is at most a side gig to keep up with on an instantaneous basis.

Would there be a way (and maybe there is and I haven't seen it yet) for sellers to set prices as some sort of percentage of an established price (like when we have TCGPlayer prices up here)? If I agree to sell all my cards at, say, 95% of TCG Mid, then my prices would just update automatically as prices spike... would it not? I feel like that could solve a lot of problems. Of course, I have no idea how feasible this kind of idea is, as I haven't done coding in so long that I can safely say I don't code at all. LOL

I think that it does seem reasonable to remove negative feedbacks left for sellers who got them because of price spikes. It doesn't reflect on the card condition, their service, shipping or anything else.

AlmightySenator wrote:I think that it does seem reasonable to remove negative feedbacks left for sellers who got them because of price spikes. It doesn't reflect on the card condition, their service, shipping or anything else.

That is a big NO.

A buyer has the right to know when a seller experience would lead to negative feedback. That includes when a seller is cancelled by the seller for any reason.

Again I’d like to point out: No one has to come here to buy since there are other options. Anything that you do to make the buying experience worse for the consumer means they will not come here to buy. Less traffic means less sales, less sales mean less money. Less money for you, less money for others, less money for deckbox.

ic0n67 wrote:

AlmightySenator wrote:I think that it does seem reasonable to remove negative feedbacks left for sellers who got them because of price spikes. It doesn't reflect on the card condition, their service, shipping or anything else.

That is a big NO.

A buyer has the right to know when a seller experience would lead to negative feedback. That includes when a seller is cancelled by the seller for any reason.

Again I’d like to point out: No one has to come here to buy since there are other options. Anything that you do to make the buying experience worse for the consumer means they will not come here to buy. Less traffic means less sales, less sales mean less money. Less money for you, less money for others, less money for deckbox.

There's a major flaw in your line of thinking, and that is that there are some people who only buy spiked cards from the site. I'm at a point where my negative seller feedbacks from spiked orders has me rethinking whether or not I want to sell on the site, since it makes trading a lot harder.

There should honestly be an option for a seller profile to say that they aren't going to sell spiked cards. This wouldn't be a problem if another issue (quicker updates to Deckbox pricing, as well as options to tie prices to that number).

The fact that me not selling spiked cards impacts my ability to trade is a huge problem, and illustrates a flaw in the system. I think having a trade score and a seller score would make sense.

redwildrider wrote:Would there be a way (and maybe there is and I haven't seen it yet) for sellers to set prices as some sort of percentage of an established price (like when we have TCGPlayer prices up here)? If I agree to sell all my cards at, say, 95% of TCG Mid, then my prices would just update automatically as prices spike... would it not?

Not really. It'll still be limited by 1) how often the source data updates and 2) how often Deckbox updates based on the source data. Many sites only update once a day, so a card can still spike in that 24 hour period and you can still lose money.

It's still not a bad feature request, because at worst it allows you to be hands free and not worry about it if you don't want to.

redwildrider wrote:I support the removal of "auto-accept" as well.

Sebi was never suggesting the removal of "auto-accept". It'll still be the default.

redwildrider wrote:... I think both sides of any exchange agreement deserve protection.

Except the proposed "delayed accept" option doesn't offer buyers any protection they didn't already have (they can still submit a dispute with Deckbox / PayPal / credit card company). At most it ensures their money isn't tied up if there IS a lengthy dispute. But that's not a common occurrence anyways. In 99% of cases, they'll just be refunded, so they have their money back right away. The protection it removes is price protection. Anywhere else, I know that the price I click "Submit Order" for is the price I'll get. So this option is pro-seller and pro-profits, not pro-buyer and pro-price guarantee.

To be clear, I still support the addition of this seller option, because more options are better for everyone. What I'd strongly stand against is this becoming the global default for selling.

redwildrider wrote:To all the people saying "sellers need to be more responsible" - some of us who sell/look to sell are just ordinary people with a huge inventory and very little time.

And to all the sellers saying the above.... The amount of money you make at ANY job or side gig is directly proportional to the amount of time and effort you put in. I respect that not everyone can devote large amounts of time to selling their personal collections; I'd be in the same boat. But they should be satisfied with the consequently smaller profits they make. I like [color=blue]@MagicallyAddicted[/color]'s analogy above: You're not a retail store and can't spend the manpower on it. You're a garage sale. So garage sale prices is what you get. Want to make better profits? Operate your selling gig like a retail store.

redwildrider wrote:I feel as if I, as a seller, don't deserve to get screwed because a price spiked and I didn't have a chance to reset my prices ...

Buyers don't deserve to get screwed because they bought your card for $5 when other sources had already spiked to $10, but by the time they find out you're canceling on them, the other sources have spiked even higher to $15. If they hadn't waited on you, they could have gotten the card for $10 and saved $5.

redwildrider wrote:Please remember that there are tens of thousands of unique cards and probably over one hundred thousand unique printings of cards, and that's a lot for someone for whom selling is at most a side gig to keep up with on an instantaneous basis.

1. You (most likely) don't own one of every single card and variation, or likely even 90% of them, so total cards in existence is irrelevant.

2) The quantity of cards you actually have to consider are only the ones you list at any given time. If I decided to start selling, I'd only list a small subset of my cards at a time so I could keep a close eye on them. But if you decide you want to list 30k unique cards, then consequently you won't be able to watch them as closely and you'll miss spikes. *shrug* Them's the breaks.

3) Not every card is worth monitoring. Don't get upset if a 50 cent card spikes to $3 and you miss it. Sure, if 10 copies sell out, you've missed out on $25. What's more important is watching the vintage and rare/mythic cards that would actually lead to bigger money if they spike. Even if you list your entire collection despite #2 above, you don't have to monitor and update your entire collection.

AlmightySenator wrote:I think that it does seem reasonable to remove negative feedbacks left for sellers who got them because of price spikes. It doesn't reflect on the card condition, their service, shipping or anything else.

It does reflect on their service. As a buyer, I consider cancelling orders poor service. A couple times, I've had sellers on TCG Player issue me partial refunds because they had the wrong quantity listed and couldn't fulfill my order. They received a lower rating from me than the other sellers, because that's an objectively worse experience.

AlmightySenator wrote:... there are some people who only buy spiked cards from the site.

The buyer's intent is irrelevant. It resulted in an unwanted cancellation, which is a negative experience. Yes, there's some people who target spiking cards to flip them. So what? Then there's people like me who just buy cards for decks when I find out about the card, and I don't worry too much about price history. If I want it, I buy it. What if I learn about the card through YouTube channels like the Prof's Tolarian Community College or the CommandZone Podcast? What if those same videos cause a card spike (which has totally happened)? I'm not out to buy a card to flip. I'm out to buy a cool card for my deck. I'm not a "bad guy". But you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, and you'd cancel on me..... so I'd give you negative feedback.

AlmightySenator wrote:There should honestly be an option for a seller profile to say that they aren't going to sell spiked cards.

I mean, there's the "option" to say anything you want on your profile. Sellers say they won't sell spiked cards all the time. But it doesn't matter what they say on their profile, because if the card's for sale, then it's for sale.

I'm guessing you mean you want profile "terms & conditions" to be enforceable, to the extent that Deckbox, in review of a submitted dispute, will remove your negative feedback if the only reason it was left is because a buyer violated your T&Cs? I would be against that. I as a buyer still want to know which sellers do this on a regular basis. If negative feedback were removed, then another publicly-visible metric would need to be introduced, such as the percentage of a seller's transactions that were cancelled (for any reason).

But I think the best solution is the one(s) proposed: to introduce a "delayed accept" option, either through the normal seller interface or as part of trades.

AlmightySenator wrote:The fact that me not selling spiked cards impacts my ability to trade is a huge problem, and illustrates a flaw in the system. I think having a trade score and a seller score would make sense.

This I agree with. Just as an eBay's buyer rating has no bearing on whether they're a good seller (which is why these ratings should also be more separated on that platform), you as a trader and you as a seller are two different things. Sounds like you'd be a great trade partner! Also sounds like you'd be a negative seller for buyers like me. I want both ratings to be accurate.

AlmightySenator wrote:I think that it does seem reasonable to remove negative feedbacks left for sellers who got them because of price spikes. It doesn't reflect on the card condition, their service, shipping or anything else.

I didnt plan to comment again but Ive been following this thread and saw this, the idea of having feedback tampared with scares me. DO NOT DO TIHS!

ps. thanks Morgoth666 and meldon44 for standing by me. I know I was being pretty harsh in that first post and honestly thought a lot of people would be offended and comment mean things back so I apreciate you dudes.

Yeah, as I was thinking through the problem, I did eventually get to the idea of separating trade and selling scores. That would address the issue.

I like the idea, I often want to discuss conditions and verify quantities before purchasing, so it makes sense to have a way to communicate with the seller before paying. My only suggestion is that it should be the default for everyone, not opt-in

koda wrote:My only suggestion is that it should be the default for everyone, not opt-in

Would you be willing to elaborate on why you think it should be the only method, instead of an additional opt-in method?

meldon44 wrote:

koda wrote:My only suggestion is that it should be the default for everyone, not opt-in

Would you be willing to elaborate on why you think it should be the only method, instead of an additional opt-in method?

Not the *only* method, the *default* method: by default, sellers and buyers should have a chance to talk before finalizing orders, which is exactly the same of how trades are handled. In this way sellers can decided if they feel the need to edit the prices or if they are just happy with they prices they set. If a seller is sure of their prices and dont want to interact with the buyer then they would need to explicitly set the option. In that case, the buyer should be more protected from cancellations "because a card spiked", and a negative feedback for cancellation would make sense there, since the seller had the option from the start, but preferred not to set it.

AlmightySenator wrote: There's a major flaw in your line of thinking, and that is that there are some people who only buy spiked cards from the site. I'm at a point where my negative seller feedbacks from spiked orders has me rethinking whether or not I want to sell on the site, since it makes trading a lot harder.

There should honestly be an option for a seller profile to say that they aren't going to sell spiked cards. This wouldn't be a problem if another issue (quicker updates to Deckbox pricing, as well as options to tie prices to that number).

The fact that me not selling spiked cards impacts my ability to trade is a huge problem, and illustrates a flaw in the system. I think having a trade score and a seller score would make sense.

There isn't a major flaw in my thinking though. I'm in the camp of if you put a card up for a price you should honor your price. It is the risk you accept by choosing to be a seller. If you decide to cancel a sale because you feel the price has spiked too much then you accept the risk of negative feedback. It sucks I get it, but it is the business you are choosing to be in.

And again by advertising a price and choosing to renege on the price looks bad on you, looks bad on the community, and looks bad on the system. It would make people not want to buy from here ever.

koda wrote:I like the idea, I often want to discuss conditions and verify quantities before purchasing, so it makes sense to have a way to communicate with the seller before paying. My only suggestion is that it should be the default for everyone, not opt-in

Communicating is already possible, there is a "discuss with seller" button that makes the order visible to the seller before it's completed and paid for, and can be discussed :)

Question [color=blue]@Sebi[/color] — If this feature becomes an alternate selling option (rather than being rolled into trades, as you suggested), would a proposed sale remove the appropriate quantity of the card(s) from the seller's inventory during negotiations? Or would that only occur upon a finalized sale, meaning multiple buyers would be able to request to buy a given card simultaneously?

In other words, this...

Bob requests 2 out of 5 copies of card X, so 2 copies are removed and inventory only shows 3. Ann would only be able to request 3 copies now. Seller either a) declines Bob's order at which point inventory goes back to 5 available, or b) accepts it and inventory stays as is.

...or this?

Bob requests 2 out of 5 copies of card X, but inventory still shows 5 available. Ann requests 4 copies. Seller accepts Bob's order because it was placed first, then informs Ann her order will be reduced by 1 copy due to available inventory. Ann can accept or decline the revised order.

sebi wrote:

koda wrote:I like the idea, I often want to discuss conditions and verify quantities before purchasing, so it makes sense to have a way to communicate with the seller before paying. My only suggestion is that it should be the default for everyone, not opt-in

Communicating is already possible, there is a "discuss with seller" button that makes the order visible to the seller before it's completed and paid for, and can be discussed :)

yes but it often happens that a card is sniped while a order is discussed, so not many people end up using.
if this new mode is made default it should happen less frequently, hopefully

I think it would behave like the trades behave now, which is that it only "applies" changes to inventories/wishlists when accepted, not when proposed.

Reading from other users, this is probably not a popular opinion. I think people who listed their card to sell have a weird mindset. If you are nickel and dime your consumer, you will not get that consumer back. that's just not good business. Anyone knows that "regular" is often more important to nurture and maintain.

In regard to price spike. My question is, so what? when you listed the price doesn't that means you were willing to let it go at that price when you listed? even if the card became "demanded" and it spike 15-20% ... but your mindset was okay to let it go at that listed price already, where is the lose? If you think the card is undervalue, then increase them above market price, or don't list them at all. it's not that hard to judge cards. Looking at it in another way, let's say if the price tank, are you going to lower the price to match? i know most seller won't. Why does it only work one way? I also feel like these loses from not price correcting on time is not a big deal. How many card do you list of each copy?
how many spike card are there within a day, or even a week? so what are you losing at the most? $10? $20? You do realize that most spiked card eventually come down if you don't sell them off, right? Isn't it better to just get rid of them to have capital? even if it was underprice a little bit?

the only type of card that does not go down, or go down very slowly are Commander cards, and those rarely spike. you can just read the card and hold on to those till it spike. no one is forcing you to list them. List 4 card of each copy maximum, and you will regulate the opportunity cost of spike card and vulture. You do price correction when you have to relist them. it's not that hard.

We totally need to do it like a trade acceptance thing. In the end, this is a lot of other people's backup marketplace and we all like to get fair value for our stock.

Is this going to happen?