Im the second party in this unfortunate situation.

It's neither my fault, or Helios's fault that the cards never arrived. The post office lost the package, (Tracking conforms it).

I stand on my offer to provide $15 in value to help the pain of lost cards.

In my opinion, if the sender refuses to compensate for the full value of the lost cards, he should send the received cards back. The idea behind this is that because no agreement was reached in compensation, the sender is still responsible for the delivery of the cards. (Fault, blame and wrongdoing is not being stated, just that the sender has the responsibility of delivering the cards.) Therefore, even with the case of lost mail, the sender has agreed to such risks by not purchasing insurance and/or trading online so that the other party is still due the $30 worth of cards regardless of circumstance.

Helios52 wrote:Just so I understand correctly, the general consensus is that the policy is that the sender is responsible even for the lost mail of the trade even if DC and tracking was used?

If delivery confirmation is used, and the post office reports that the package has been delivered, the sender has clean hands. As I understand it, having that confirmation of delivery (the actual notes listing the date and time of delivery, not just a delivery confirmation number) is enough to prove that the sender did what was required--get the package to the target address. It requires, however, that the package be delivered to the listed address. If it never arrives, the sender has reason for a claim against the post office (if insurance was purchased). Simply purchasing delivery confirmation does not guarantee delivery. For guaranteed delivery, one would need to use premium shipping services, like those available from FedEx, UPS, or some premium USPS offerings.

I feel like everyone is constantly trying to pay the cheapest shipping they can get away with. The USPS loses shit, they know this and that's why they offer INSURANCE... you know, that stuff that should really be called, "in case shit happens." When I do trades on here, I pay for insurance. I typically do it for about 125-150% of the value of the cards I'm sending so, if shit happens, I'll come out ahead.

It would have cost about $1.50 for insurance on those $30 in cards. Maybe think about it next time.

As I see it, this situation is no different than had the OP ordered an item from an online store which was lost in the mail. The course of action which should be taken next were that to happen would not be debated by anyone, as we all would agree that the OP should be refunded by the online merchant. Look at it this way: Would you give an ebay seller or Amazon 50% of the value of your order because it was lost in the mail? No, and in fact it would be preposterous for anyone to suggest you should. I don't know why that same argument is somehow considered reasonable in this forum.

grossoggodeckbox wrote:As I see it, this situation is no different than had the OP ordered an item from an online store which was lost in the mail. The course of action which should be taken next were that to happen would not be debated by anyone, as we all would agree that the OP should be refunded by the online merchant. Look at it this way: Would you give an ebay seller or Amazon 50% of the value of your order because it was lost in the mail? No, and in fact it would be preposterous for anyone to suggest you should. I don't know why that same argument is somehow considered reasonable in this forum.

Cheers to that!

grossoggodeckbox wrote:As I see it, this situation is no different than had the OP ordered an item from an online store which was lost in the mail. The course of action which should be taken next were that to happen would not be debated by anyone, as we all would agree that the OP should be refunded by the online merchant. Look at it this way: Would you give an ebay seller or Amazon 50% of the value of your order because it was lost in the mail? No, and in fact it would be preposterous for anyone to suggest you should. I don't know why that same argument is somehow considered reasonable in this forum.

The problem with this argument is that the OP did not order an item from an online store. The OP ordered an item from an individual, and they discussed and agreed upon the conditions for each of them sending their cards. Presumably both of them were aware of the risks when sending cards online, and chose to accept the risk that there would be issues with delivery. Unfortunately for the OP, their cards did not arrive. I've been in their position before and it's horrible. That being said, it's unreasonable to go back to the sender and say that, despite the fact that they agreed upon the manner of sending, and that each would accept the risks involved with their agreed upon method, it is now the sender's responsibility to compensate the OP for 100% of the value. If they wanted to saddle one party or the other with the whole of the risk before sending, they should have done so at the outset. Unless there is a clear rule indicating that 100% of the loss shall reside with the sender in cases of non-delivery then I think the 50/50 split of the losses is more than reasonable on the part of the sender, it's generous.

foldingcouch wrote:

grossoggodeckbox wrote:As I see it, this situation is no different than had the OP ordered an item from an online store which was lost in the mail. The course of action which should be taken next were that to happen would not be debated by anyone, as we all would agree that the OP should be refunded by the online merchant. Look at it this way: Would you give an ebay seller or Amazon 50% of the value of your order because it was lost in the mail? No, and in fact it would be preposterous for anyone to suggest you should. I don't know why that same argument is somehow considered reasonable in this forum.

The problem with this argument is that the OP did not order an item from an online store. The OP ordered an item from an individual, and they discussed and agreed upon the conditions for each of them sending their cards. Presumably both of them were aware of the risks when sending cards online, and chose to accept the risk that there would be issues with delivery. Unfortunately for the OP, their cards did not arrive. I've been in their position before and it's horrible. That being said, it's unreasonable to go back to the sender and say that, despite the fact that they agreed upon the manner of sending, and that each would accept the risks involved with their agreed upon method, it is now the sender's responsibility to compensate the OP for 100% of the value. If they wanted to saddle one party or the other with the whole of the risk before sending, they should have done so at the outset. Unless there is a clear rule indicating that 100% of the loss shall reside with the sender in cases of non-delivery then I think the 50/50 split of the losses is more than reasonable on the part of the sender, it's generous.

Please explain to me how they share a 50% loss? All I see is OP lost 30$ in trade value, and the other half got they're cards. I'd either get the guy to send the cards back or give him cash/paypal.

The way I see it is that each sender is responsible for the cards to get to their destination. If the cards didn't arrive then the sender has two options, either send back the cards they received or send an equal value of cards or cash, whichever both parties agree on.

nowa90 wrote:

foldingcouch wrote:

grossoggodeckbox wrote:As I see it, this situation is no different than had the OP ordered an item from an online store which was lost in the mail. The course of action which should be taken next were that to happen would not be debated by anyone, as we all would agree that the OP should be refunded by the online merchant. Look at it this way: Would you give an ebay seller or Amazon 50% of the value of your order because it was lost in the mail? No, and in fact it would be preposterous for anyone to suggest you should. I don't know why that same argument is somehow considered reasonable in this forum.

The problem with this argument is that the OP did not order an item from an online store. The OP ordered an item from an individual, and they discussed and agreed upon the conditions for each of them sending their cards. Presumably both of them were aware of the risks when sending cards online, and chose to accept the risk that there would be issues with delivery. Unfortunately for the OP, their cards did not arrive. I've been in their position before and it's horrible. That being said, it's unreasonable to go back to the sender and say that, despite the fact that they agreed upon the manner of sending, and that each would accept the risks involved with their agreed upon method, it is now the sender's responsibility to compensate the OP for 100% of the value. If they wanted to saddle one party or the other with the whole of the risk before sending, they should have done so at the outset. Unless there is a clear rule indicating that 100% of the loss shall reside with the sender in cases of non-delivery then I think the 50/50 split of the losses is more than reasonable on the part of the sender, it's generous.

Please explain to me how they share a 50% loss? All I see is OP lost 30$ in trade value, and the other half got they're cards. I'd either get the guy to send the cards back or give him cash/paypal.

The problem with just returning the cards or paying for them outright is that the sender is then the one out 100% of their value when they have (at least from the sounds of it) fulfilled their end of the bargain to the letter. They packaged and shipped the cards exactly as they agreed, and are then being expected to carry 100% of the loss for what was in no way his or her fault. Like I said in my original post, this is the way that the parties decided to handle the risk in the original agreement, unless there is a clear rule on the deckbox rules that says otherwise. Both parties upheld their ends of the bargain, one got screwed due to circumstances neither of them could control. A 50/50 split seems fair.

Looks like you didn't read Thrun's comment. Thrun very plainly states that the sender is responsible for ensuring the cards are delivered. That did not happen in this case.

A 50/50 split is in no way fair. Lets pretend for a minute that we are not trading via the mail, but rather use this site to organize a face to face trade. OP arrives at the meeting place with cards in hand. Other trader arrives at the site and says that they lost their bag on the way there, but that if you give them the cards and they give you $15 everything is even. Does the trade happen? The definition of 'trade' is to transfer ownership of goods between people. If we accept that what I just described is a trade, then we should also accept that the trade discussed in this trade was not completed. The two parties agreed to transfer ownership of cards... which is a bit more than just sticking something in the mail. It means ensuring that the exchanged property arrives at the intended destination.
The issue here is not the value of the cards, of that the cards were lost in the mail, but rather that the trade was not completed. The cards should be returned, as simply as that.

Even though the vast majority of posters in this thread would choose to do the right thing when confronted with an unfortunate situation such as this, the official rules should be updated in a manner which makes it clear to every Doubting Thomas what the community expects of them should they find themselves in this situation.

grossoggodeckbox wrote:Looks like you didn't read Thrun's comment. Thrun very plainly states that the sender is responsible for ensuring the cards are delivered. That did not happen in this case.

A 50/50 split is in no way fair. Lets pretend for a minute that we are not trading via the mail, but rather use this site to organize a face to face trade. OP arrives at the meeting place with cards in hand. Other trader arrives at the site and says that they lost their bag on the way there, but that if you give them the cards and they give you $15 everything is even. Does the trade happen? The definition of 'trade' is to transfer ownership of goods between people. If we accept that what I just described is a trade, then we should also accept that the trade discussed in this trade was not completed. The two parties agreed to transfer ownership of cards... which is a bit more than just sticking something in the mail. It means ensuring that the exchanged property arrives at the intended destination.
The issue here is not the value of the cards, of that the cards were lost in the mail, but rather that the trade was not completed. The cards should be returned, as simply as that.

Even though the vast majority of posters in this thread would choose to do the right thing when confronted with an unfortunate situation such as this, the official rules should be updated in a manner which makes it clear to every Doubting Thomas what the community expects of them should they find themselves in this situation.

If Thrun's comment is the official ruling on the deckbox rules, then I would be inclined to agree with you that what the traders in this case agreed to was 100% liability on the part of the sender for lost mail. The entire debate hinges on what constitutes proof of sending as per the deckbox rules, and if Thrun is an authoritative source on the subject due to his position as moderator then I'd happily defer to his judgement.

That being said, your analogy does not make any sense. The difference between a mail trade and a face to face trade is at what point each of the parties fulfill their end of the agreement. In a face-to-face trade, the agreement is done when the cards physically change hands. In the mail trade, however, the agreement is done when either the cards are in the mail, or the cards are received. This is up to the parties to either determine between themselves or determined by the standard rules, in this case the deckbox rules. If the parties agree that they have fulfilled their end of the bargain when the cards are in the mail, and it is proven they are in the mail, then they have upheld their end when the cards are in the hands of the USPS. If they agree that they have upheld their end of the bargain when the cards arrive, then the risk stays with the sender until the USPS does their job. Either way, it is up to the people involved in the mail trade to determine who holds the risk for cards that are lost in transit. Prior to Thrun's ruling, if he is the deciding authority (and no disrespect to Thrun, I just have no idea who the official arbiters of the deckbox rules are, if they've ever officially declared any), then a person reading the deckbox rules could fairly presume that if they post the cards and they have a tracking number proving the cards are in the mail, then they have upheld their end of the bargain and whatever happens next is not their responsibility. It is on that basis that I said the sender has no responsibility to the OP.

Unless both parties agreed to split the risk of using only delivery confirmation beforehand, the shipping decision was only made by one party. The sender took the risk, and therefore should take the fall. I believe this is a widely used explanation when it comes to trading cards online.

The first problem with delivery confirmation is that it is often not scanned (various testimonies on Google and even from our own users can confirm this). Without signature confirmation, we cannot know for sure whether or not the package was delivered or even delivered to the right place.

The second problem with delivery confirmation is that it only tracks to the final ZIP code. While unlikely, it is still very possible to commit fraud by sending your package somewhere else in the same ZIP code (not relevant to this particular case). Signature confirmation also covers this.

And of course, the final problem is that delivery confirmation doesn't protect your mail from getting lost. If your trade value is fairly high, I'd recommend spending $1.50 for every $30 that you want to insure.

All senders should acknowledge these risks before sending out their packages.

Edit: These aren't the official deckbox.org or /r/magictcg rules. There aren't actually any rules about who takes the fall for a missing package, so it's really up to the two parties to figure it out. I'm just repeating time-tested rules from other trading sites.

Let me know if there needs to be hard rules on missing packages though. The /r/magictcg threads have gone on for so long without official dispute cases, so I figured we'd just tackle these issues in private.

Bumping this to say we've read the discussion intently.

It is very true the deckbox official rules are a bit lax, and unclear on this specific situation, and we are updating them in the near future, along with various other changes which we will describe and discuss in an upcoming post in the announcements forum.

On topic, we tend to agree with Thrun's point of view. As far as we know, other reputable trading platforms use this rule as well (e.g. http://www.magictraders.com/policies/sending).

Although I can understand why for some people it sounds a bit harsh, and the 50/50 option sounds friendly and fair, there is one important distinction that makes this option the right one:

As a sender, you have the option of insuring your shipment, and requesting signed confirmation. So if you want to make sure you don't lose money, you can. It is unfair to make the receiver lose money / value when he has no choice about it.

sebi wrote:Bumping this to say we've read the discussion intently.

It is very true the deckbox official rules are a bit lax, and unclear on this specific situation, and we are updating them in the near future, along with various other changes which we will describe and discuss in an upcoming post in the announcements forum.

On topic, we tend to agree with Thrun's point of view. As far as we know, other reputable trading platforms use this rule as well (e.g. http://www.magictraders.com/policies/sending).

Although I can understand why for some people it sounds a bit harsh, and the 50/50 option sounds friendly and fair, there is one important distinction that makes this option the right one:

As a sender, you have the option of insuring your shipment, and requesting signed confirmation. So if you want to make sure you don't lose money, you can. It is unfair to make the receiver lose money / value when he has no choice about it.

Thank you very much for the for the clarification and "official" final word

Sorry to necro the thread, But I thought Id give an update on the situation. I ended up having to settle for an RTR overgrown Tomb in compensation because the person traded away the Scalding Tarn and Verdant Catacombs I traded him so he couldnt even send them back. He basically gave me the ultimatum of take the 15 or get nothing because "I dont really use deckbox anymore" so I dont care what punishment I recieve attitude. He left a 0 feedback for me when I left a him a 0 as well. So I basically got screwed twice on 1 trade.

Anyways thanks to all that voiced their thoughts and opinions on what should be done. I hope this event enlightens everyone to what the proper etiquette is when resolving issues with mailed trades...

Sorry to hear this.

We were a bit delayed but in the coming days we'll post a considerable update to our trading policies and rules. It will - we hope - protect the users more against these cases.

Sebi - is there anything that can be done about the 0 in feedback? I mean its not the end of the world if it has to remain as such but it kinda of sucks that I have this 1 bad reputation point for doing nothing wrong in trying to get the trade completed...

Helios52 wrote:Sebi - is there anything that can be done about the 0 in feedback? I mean its not the end of the world if it has to remain as such but it kinda of sucks that I have this 1 bad reputation point for doing nothing wrong in trying to get the trade completed...

Yep, we've changed it to +1.

sebi wrote:

Helios52 wrote:Sebi - is there anything that can be done about the 0 in feedback? I mean its not the end of the world if it has to remain as such but it kinda of sucks that I have this 1 bad reputation point for doing nothing wrong in trying to get the trade completed...

Yep, we've changed it to +1.

Thank you very much! I really appreciate it :)

sebi wrote:Yep, we've changed it to +1.

I'll +1 that!