251

(6 replies, posted in Site Discussion)

Publicly bashing the owner of a site isn't a great way to convince him to unsuspend you.

HOWEVER, according to the details you have provided it sounds like Sebi did make, in my opinion, a bad decision. The relevant Deckbox rule here is:

2.2. Sending cards. The sender is responsible for getting the cards to the destination. He will be held accountable for items lost in the mail if a form of tracking was not used; proof of sending is not sufficient.
If you as a sender do not have proof of delivery, resend your part of the deal, make monetary restitution or return the cards you received. Resending cards should always use a form of tracking, to avoid further disputes.

I believe the underlined sentence is the most important here. The other trader has no proof of delivery, whereas you do.

Now, for Sebi's viewpoint. He probably looked at your tracking info and saw that your cards were delivered. Then he looked at the other guy's tracking info and saw that nothing was delivered. My guess is that he's thinking that the USPS lost the package (at no fault to either trader ofc) so instead of 1 guy eating the entire loss, the loss will be split between the two traders. However, this is not the way that this should be handled according to the rule cited above.

Facts (According to what you've told us):

  • You sent your cards and have proof of delivery.

  • The other trader has no proof of either sending or delivery.

  • The rule states that if you have proof of delivery that you are protected.

  • The rule also states that if you DON'T have proof of delivery that you have to make restitution (by returning the cards or w/e)

Now, having spoken directly with Sebi myself numerous times and I payed close attention back when the Bad Trading Report forum was a public thing I can say with confidence that I've never seen him ban or suspend someone for no reason. I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that the language you used during this dispute was less than friendly at times. Directly threatening your trade partner with a mail fraud claim certainly didn't help the situation (even though it seems like you would actually be justified in doing so).

Also, Sebi has nothing to gain monetarily by suspending someone and he doesn't care about the cards themselves. He doesn't gain anything by you two trading. He also doesn't know either of you personally so he's not going to choose to screw one of you over for no reason.

252

(1 replies, posted in Site Discussion)

DGM Prerelease Plains

253

(20 replies, posted in Announcements)

Fyi, images for the new cards are not being displayed in decks. (Ex, Meren here)

254

(20 replies, posted in Announcements)

I like it smile

255

(389 replies, posted in Site Discussion)

1531991368 wrote:

The price for Foil Full Art Swamp 262 from Battle For Zendikar is showing up as N/A.

This is true for almost all of the foil full art bfz basics. The ones that don't have any copies for sale show a value of NA.

256

(2 replies, posted in Site Discussion)

There isn't a way to separate out the commander, but you can (this pay be a premium feature, idk) set a note on the commander so it stands out. Example

257

(1 replies, posted in General Discussion)

I'm sorry nobody responded to this sooner! If someone sends you a card that doesn't match the exact condition specified in the trade (condition, language, printing etc) you are 100% within your rights to reverse the trade. In all cases where a trade isn't 100% satisfactory to both traders, there needs to be a discussion about both parties would like the outcome to be. The vast majority of the time this will go in favor of the trader who received the "mislabeled" card. In most cases the solution is simply some cash sent through Paypal. In cases like this where you don't want the card at all the trade is usually reversed. If an agreement cannot be reached a Dispute should be opened in which case a Deckbox admin will step in to help resolve the issue.

postal wrote:
d72B wrote:

After looking at what "sealed" product is available now on Deckbox I'm wondering: what is the intent of this feature? Is it literally for only FACTORY SEALED products or can sellers list parts like this:

  • list an Intro Pack with a note that says the boosters have been removed

  • list an Fat Pack with a note that says it's just the box, booklet, and spindown

  • list a Booster with a note that says it's a repack...

I thought it was obvious that sealed means factory sealed and not tampered with.

That's why he's bringing it up, because someone has stuff listed that isn't factory sealed.

Glorious!

Rainar wrote:

non-full art basics do not exist as foils

Just for BFZ, just to clarify for other people reading this.

Rainar wrote:

Also, adding full art foil basics is a bit annoying with selecting arts, because there is no naming difference between full art and non-full arts.

What exactly would you want? Are you saying you want the name of the card to include the card number or something?

261

(2 replies, posted in Site Discussion)

Noticed this new feature listed in the left-hand menu today. I love the idea! It looks like it might not be done yet? Any word on this, Sebi?

262

(1 replies, posted in Site Discussion)

juzer wrote:

Count (the sum of tradelist+inventory)

You may be misunderstanding something here. Inventory is the total of all copies of every card you own. The tradelist consists of cards you own (that are in your inventory) that you are willing to trade. So Count = Inventory.
For example: I own 4 Lightning Bolt. I'm willing to trade 0. Count = 4, Tradelist Count = 0.
Ex2: I own 5 Lightning Bolts. I'm willing to trade 1. Count = 5. Tradelist Count = 1.

That being said, I agree that the Count (inventory) column certainly could be made optional as one probably only cares about the number on their tradelist when exporting it.

Also, Count should probably be renamed to Inventory as that's actually what it is.

rmuis wrote:

Emblem: Nixilis Only shows the Commander edition, not the Battle for Zendikar one.

Emblem: Ob Nixilis Reignited

264

(4 replies, posted in Site Discussion)

I believe if you go to your tradelist page then Tools > Remove Everything will do what you want.

265

(389 replies, posted in Site Discussion)

Steve_Guillerm wrote:

FOIL Tsabo's Web is $108? It's like a $4 card.

Either it was bought out or the supply dried up. Only 1 copy on TCGPlayer (for $137), 0 on ebay, 0 on SCG. $100+ certainly isn't right, but until some come back on the market we won't know the real, new value.

266

(10 replies, posted in Site Discussion)

I would rather not receive bitcoins as payment for an order. Echoing Kiz above, I'd rather just have the cash. That being said, some sellers might be ok with it so if it were added as a payment option it would have to be an opt-in.

I don't disagree with that. Maybe some filter settings on the trading opportunities would solve these problems. Idk.

beacon wrote:

and a language option as well, please

Language works just fine. Just select English for the cards in your wishlist and the trading opportunities will filter em out.

I think this should be an option for both the wishlist and the Shopping Assistant. Obviously this doesn't apply to inventory or tradelist. So right now you have 2 of the options beacon mentioned:
- Regular + Foil (don't select the foil criteria)
- Foil Only (if you select the foil criteria)

Just need to add a regular only option.

270

(5 replies, posted in Site Discussion)

Yeah, there definitely should be an easier way to remove all of your cards for sale.

To OP, this is as good as place as any to report stuff like this. Sebi will see your post and investigate when he gets a chance. Just know that he lives in EU so he keeps different hours than us smile

271

(5 replies, posted in Site Discussion)

valdor wrote:

there is no way to take yourself or your cards off the seller list

There is a way, it's just not intuitive. You can use the Mass Price tool to set the price on all of your cards to 0c. This removes the price.

272

(2 replies, posted in Site Discussion)

Archon wrote:

A key change for me would be the ability to designate that a card is for sale only (i.e. not for trade).

This x1000. Other suggestions are good as well.

sebi wrote:
Kammikaze wrote:

Also #2, it would be a very good idea for conditions in wishlist and shopping assistant to be "or better."

It already behaves like that.

Ah, yes it does. smile

This looks awesome and appears to be working quite well! One suggestion I have would be to reject any orders that total less than $1 before shipping is considered. I just did a quick shopping assistant and got 2 options: First had 2 sellers, 1 for ~$8, 1 for ~$12. Second had 3 sellers, 1 for ~$8, 1 for ~$12, and 1 for 7c. Obviously that last seller isn't going to appreciate an order for a single card worth 7c.

Also, an add (or mass add) from wishlist would be a good feature.

Also #2, it would be a very good idea for conditions in wishlist and shopping assistant to be "or better." So I could mark the minimum condition I'm willing to buy/trade for and I could get hits for copies that are in better condition. Make sense? Another option would be to make card options multiselectable. So I could select LP and NM, but no other conditions or M10 and M11, but no other printings. This would be especially useful when looking for a black bordered card that has multiple printings in both white and black border. I could just multiselect all of the black bordered printings.

#3: A strictly non-foil option would be very nice for both wishlist and shopping assistant.

Those being said it looks really good! It's amazingly fast (even with 100+ cards) and the multiple order options is a very nice feature.

275

(2 replies, posted in Site Discussion)

Have you looked at the Edition Checklist view?