You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Deckbox Forum » Posts by jassi007
jassi007 wrote:Sebi has ruled on other BTR's in the past the same way, she is being consistent
"He"
. Sebi is short for Sebastian
Heh. Woops! Corrected.
Deckbox has been consistent with their judgements that if the sender uses tracking, and the post office fails to deliver, the sender has proved he sent the item.
It is clear to me by reading the rules that if the sender is responsible if they didn't use tracking, then the other side of that is obviously the sender isn't responsible if they did use tracking. If the package was in the post office's hands and they said they put it in your mailbox but didn't, it is not the senders fault. It is the post offices. The fact that they scanned your package and you can see a package was sent to you is the proof the sender can provide.
Wally, I read all the BTR's. Partially to know who to avoid trading with, partially for entertainment value (I rubber neck, sue me) You have had other BTR's where you were aggressive.
I think the rules are clear. The sender isn't responsible when the post office loses the package if they can prove that is what happened. They can prove that, by providing tracking, and the tracking shows the post office was moving the package. A person could buy a shipping label with tracking and not mail it, but it shows that. Once the post office takes the package and starts the process of delivering it, the sender has (assuming they wrote the correct address and packaged it well) done 100% of what they should to get you your package. If it doesn't get to you, it isn't their fault. It is the post office's.
You are looking for some "legal" loophole in the wording of the rules vs. the wording in the guidelines. It isn't going to work because Sebi has ruled on other BTR's in the past the same way, he is being consistent and ruling the same way each time. He intends for senders to not be held responsible when they use tracking and it shows the post office delivered. The obvious reason is because you generally can't prove you didn't get it. In your case you can get the post master to say you didn't, which is great. It still isn't the senders fault.
I've had 4 trades with lost mail. Two where my package did not arrive, two where their package did not arrive. I also purchased a card from another site that didn't arrive for 3 months. I got a package on November 8th that was post marked August 2nd. The post office screws up sometimes.
You deserve a negative because whenever something goes wrong in your trade you never let it go. You have been involved in two other BTR's and you always argue with the mods about the outcome. I'm fairly sure that is why your getting a negative, because it is clear that if anything should go wrong with the trade you are going to demand the other party be 100% responsible whether or not they actually are. You are unreasonable. I have had you on my do not trade with list for a while.
It is my understanding that Planeswalkers are unique in that you maintain Priority throughout the resolution of the ability.
Example - You cast Sarkhan, The Dragonspeaker which resolves and priority is passed back to you from your opponent. You than maintain that priority (so long as you dont do anything inbetween) and activate his +1 which would make him 4/4 Indestructable, Haste, Flying Dragon. Your opponent would than gain priority to respond and cast Hero's Downfall and put it on the stack. Sarkhan's ability would then resolve making him indestructable and then cause Hero' Downfall to fail as Sarkhan cannot be destroyed.
Planeswalkers were created such that their abilities would resolve within the stack. Yes you can only activate the abilites at sorcery speed (ie so really only the main phase of your own turn) but upon resolution and activating a walkers ability maintains the priority to iits controller so that there is chance to actually use it. Another example is that upon announcing your going to activate a planeswalker ability, your opponent cant Lightning bolt a PW to a lower loyality to prevent it being used.
It is not a special rule for planeswalkers. Comp rules section 116 is the main area for this.
Basically, the active player has priority at the beginning of each phase/step on his or her turn. So on your main phase, you have priority. Your opponent can't cast an instant without you having the opportunity to cast something first. Say you are thinking about what to do, your opponent for some reason snaps out "bolt you" You can tell them you haven't passed priority yet, and you can cast your creature, enchantment, or planeswalker before they can cast their lightning bolt.
So when you cast your Sarkhan on the stack, stack resolves, now you have priority again. That is because you are the active player and it is your turn. Your opponent may desperately want to downfall your Sarkhan, but he can't because you haven't passed priority. When both players pass priority with an empty stack, you move to the next step/phase of the turn. So as long as you are thinking during a phase/step, you are in game rules holding priority. This is not different with planeswalkers than say if you cast Griselbrand. Your opponent is in a hurry to downfall her, but you get to use her pay 7 life draw 7 ability before he can cast his instant removal at her. When you activate the ability of Sarkhan or Griselbrand, then your opponent will get priority. if he downfalls in response to Sarkhan's +1 Sarkhan will die, because PW abilities use the stack just like other activated abilities. There are only 7 things in the game that don't use the stack, and they're all outlined under special actions in the comp rulles under 115.
The truth is most of the time this doesn't matter. If I play a Griselbrand and you snap out that you path it or whatever, I don't have to be explicit about activating the ability before path because I didn't pass priority, I can activate the ability in response to your path. However if someone is in a hurry to get rid of Sarkhan before you announce you are using +1, you can stop them, explain you had priority, and your going to use his -3 to kill their Courser. They played to quickly and revealed information they should have, they can't hurry you out of your turn, and that is more or less what priority is. It is my turn, i get to make my decisions about using spells and abilities first and you respond to me.
http://deckbox.org/help/selling_cards
What you need to become a seller
Buyers will use paypal to puchase cards, so you need to have a Verified PayPal account to be able to receive payments.
You also will need to provide a description of your store policies, your shipping fees and a billing address.
To finish the process, we require a verification payment of 10$, made from the Verified PayPal business account where you wish to receive buyer payments. This is not a signup fee, you will receive a 10$ discount on your first Deckbox Bill. We require this payment in order to:
Verify the existence of your seller account, and that it is in good standing and can receive buyer payments.
Verify that you are the owner of the account. Requiring only a paypal email address from sellers would create problems when wrong addresses are introduced and buyers send money to wrong accounts.
We also want to make sure sellers are serious about providing a quality service. Buyers should know that even sellers with no feedback have committed in some way to the market, not just clicked a 'I am selling cards' checkbox.
The verification payment can be refunded should you change your mind about becoming a seller, provided your account is in good standing and you have shipped all sold orders.
Well, honestly I assume you choose to get involved with issues like that because you are trying to monetize the site and provide your own pricing data. I have not seen another online trading site/forum that steps into trades to enforce pricing errors, the general understanding of online trading is both parties are responsible for valuing the trade and deciding if it is fair. What you have done is unusual. And when i say this, it isn't me agreeing or disagreeing with the action you took, just that taking action like this is not the norm in my experience.
jassi007 wrote:renoan wrote:I'd like to point out also that just because somebody proposes a trade using Deckbox values without consulting TCGmid first doesn't mean the person is trying to scam the trading partner. We're all responsible for determining our own perception of value on our cards, and while one might feel this card is worth $2 more or that card is worth $4 less, others might not. A Black Lotus may be worth thousands, but to me it would only be worth hundreds (I'd rather spend the money elsewhere), so it's a matter of worth to any given individual.
Card prices fluctuate, and TCGmid is not the alpha and omega of card pricing — it simply happens to be the one many use as their pricing standard. I suggest being more empathetic of other traders and not assuming people are trying to scam unless they're doing something that shouldn't be able/are not allowed (which, proposing trades, regardless of the values involved on either side, is not equivalent to scamming).
Sure, and if I trade for a playset of a card, I doubt anyone will really notice. When a player suddenly trades for say 20 copies of a card, and only the promo version whose price happens to be under market value, tcg/ebay/any market, and doesn't trade for any of the non-promo copies etc. it is more clear what is going on.
I don't know, jassi007, I'm not sure I see anything wrong with that (I'm guessing that's what you're trying to imply with that comment). Buying when there's a good deal (e.g., store sales, stocks during recession, house flipping, etc.) is what we all try to do in various markets. Cards have no centralized pricing database (and rightfully so, otherwise that would be a form of price fixing), and each market is allowed to determine a cards worth on it's own terms. Just because a card is valued lower (even much lower) here than on other markets (TCGmid, for example), doesn't mean it's any more or less valid. I'm positive if you take a quick spin through eBay's latest sold listing for any given card, you'd find plenty examples of people winning bids (or even Buy it Nows) for values much lower than what TCGmid shows. However, that's not considered scamming. Instead, it's praised by other buyers as having "found a good deal." The difference here is that suddenly we all take on the hat of the seller (by way of valuing our cards when trading) and some people aren't emotionally equipped for that. They don't want to be responsible for making valuation decisions and instead want somebody else to protect them.
This can evolve into a greater discussion on how much protection does a person deserve from his or herself, and I think that may be outside of this discussion's scope. However, I'll say that IMO sellers/traders are responsible for determining their own card values and shouldn't look to Deckbox to protect them from people looking for good deals. $100 for Underground Sea is a no-no for one person, and a rent-saver for another. There's no need to be insulted just because someone low-balls them. If they don't like it, they can counter, IMO.
While you can debate the merits of doing that or not, the deckbox admins have banned someone for the exact scenario I have outlined, so on this site it is not cool. You have to understand, they're under pressure to make deckbox generate revenue to be worth their time, which I understand and support. However in the process of doing that, they lost their price data from tcgplayer. Basically TCGP saw them as competition, and no longer allowed them to import price data. So they had to on the fly come up with pricing. The deckbox team said they had been working on this, but they weren't ready. So for a period of time deckbox prices went to hell to be frank. It is my impression that a lot of people took a vacation from deckbox. Deckbox prices got better, but a lot of people just don't have faith in them, and still look up card prices on TCGP.
All that being said is to make this point. When there is a price error on deckbox compared to other sites, it reinforces the "don't rely on deckbox prices" mindset. It is obviously in the deckbox teams best interest to squash this behavior ASAP so people have as much faith as possible in their prices. It isn't exactly the same as an issue where "a card spiked and the vendor hasn't updated pricing" It sort of is, but the vendor is deckbox, and users want to be able to trust their pricing data is up to date and accurate, so they sort of have to take this stance.
I am not saying whether I agree or disagree, just making the point that I don't see what alternative the deckbox staff has. I do agree that you should be aware of the value of what you have, and not to sell for a price less than you are comfortable with, but if you don't think people essentially pick a market that they trust to price their cards for them, well I'm not sure what to tell you. That is exactly what happens in almost every trade/sale that I am aware of.
I'd like to point out also that just because somebody proposes a trade using Deckbox values without consulting TCGmid first doesn't mean the person is trying to scam the trading partner. We're all responsible for determining our own perception of value on our cards, and while one might feel this card is worth $2 more or that card is worth $4 less, others might not. A Black Lotus may be worth thousands, but to me it would only be worth hundreds (I'd rather spend the money elsewhere), so it's a matter of worth to any given individual.
Card prices fluctuate, and TCGmid is not the alpha and omega of card pricing — it simply happens to be the one many use as their pricing standard. I suggest being more empathetic of other traders and not assuming people are trying to scam unless they're doing something that shouldn't be able/are not allowed (which, proposing trades, regardless of the values involved on either side, is not equivalent to scamming).
Sure, and if I trade for a playset of a card, I doubt anyone will really notice. When a player suddenly trades for say 20 copies of a card, and only the promo version whose price happens to be under market value, tcg/ebay/any market, and doesn't trade for any of the non-promo copies etc. it is more clear what is going on.
Anecdote, this happened to a friend and I. I sent him a tracked package, said it arrived, he didn't have it. He talked to the local post office, local postal carrier, magically a week later it arrived. No one ever offered any explanation of how it was scanned and marked as delivered, then showed up. Don't lose hope, the post office is shitty and sometimes things go wrong then magically fix themselves!
looking to trade my set non-foil (plus value) for a textless foil.
I'll do this.
sebi wrote:I'll post my older idea for implementation for this, but this is still in flux. I'd like to ask you guys how you would like to use such a tool to organize your cards, and what features you'd like from it.
I am currently importing(manually) a decently sized collection. roughly 1500 of these are mine. The other 6000 or so are mine to use, technically on loan indefinitely. The whole purpose for this inventory, for me, is to be able to USE these cards after they are imported, knowing with confidence that, if the actual owner of these cards decides he wants them back, I will have access to a list of 'his' vs. 'mine' and return them. At the same time, the whole point of this loan was that he had all these cards just sitting in a closet and I am an active player. I want to be able to have a physical deck put together with the confidence that I won't have to play "what box does this go into" every time I switch things out. As time goes by, my own collection will be growing because I can't stop buying cards, so the whole process will become more unwieldy over time. This is what I would be using a flag/label system for. As of right now, I am using the mint designation to keep things separate. As I am not a seller or trader at this time, it is working. When I decide it's time to start trading, I have no idea what I'm going to do. So there is my answer for that.
(If anyone has a better solution for my issues here, please let me know. I keep cataloging cards in the hopes that labels or flags are actually on the way, and I know that twisting the mint column is a less than ideal situation. Keeping everything physically separate all the time is simply not a viable option, and I would really like to be able to keep ONE digital inventory instead of two, for geeky reasons)
**Edited to add: I will also have two sons, a son-in-law, and possibly a daughter looking through these things and building temporary decks, as goofy little tournaments have become a thing when the kids come to visit, which adds a whole new layer of "Who does this card belong to" to the whole mess.
On a different topic raised in this thread, I would also like to say that one of the reasons I chose this site to keep my inventory in, is that it is possible to add cards to decks. This way I can log in on my lunch break and brew decks from my phone. That being said, the ability to add a card I only have one physical copy of to several decks is appealing to me, because not all decks I would be putting here will be manual. Some are just in my head.
It is probably a big deal, but a make your own flag sort of like Outlook would be ideal. We could just have a set of colors and define a flag, then flag cards as Red - Tim's or Purple - My most favorite cards or Blue - Ravinica Holiday Box
Kammikaze wrote:The promo flag doesn't do anything. It's just a visual cue. Sebi said at some point that it was going to get removed. Not going to bother finding the post, but he did say that.
Removing it would certainly put a damper on the possibility of ever having a simple "Is promo: True" setting in the card search filter. As of now, if I want to see all of someone's promos in one place I have to select "Edition Owned - Is one of - media inserts, judge gift program, happy holidays, super series, friday night magic, magic player rewards, arena league, champs, wpn/gateway, launch parties, release events, prerelease events, dragon con, worlds, magic game day cards, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera", and since there is no "saved searches" feature, I have to do this every single time.
Lucky for me, I'm not particularly interested in other people's promo cards and I have all of mine in one box for easy access, but I imagine this might be more of a big deal for some other folks.
The flag probably isn't reliable for searches as more people figure out how to list promo's they're unlikely to use it anyway.
It has come to my attention that after multiple attempts from the same user to try to scam me out of my KTK Bloodsoaked Champion Foil Promo, that the pricing disparities between here and TCGPlayer is giving people a route to try to rip others off.
The problem as you can see when you check the price of a Promo KTK card on here it shows the same as a normal set card....which is massively incorrect in most cases. I've had multiple attempts by the same person to try to trade for this card at the value as stated on here, which is at least $2 short of what the card actually trades for. Then after informing this individual about this the first time, he opted out of the trade due to being called on this. Then yesterday I again receive a trade from the same person for the same card attempting to trade for it at it's *still* incorrect value on here. I then change the card to a normal version of the champion that is actually valued at what would make the trade fair, then the user doesn't accept the proposed trade that isn't ripping the other person off...this should be corrected.
Thank you,
Nick
OP what you are missing is that you have it listed wrong. See the image you have to select from the set icon, which set it is from. Promo's are a different set than pack editions of cards. The deckbox site looks up the price based on what set you have selected. At any rate, the prices of both cards are within 50 cents of each other, the pack foil being higher than the pre-relese promo. Not sure if the price was fixed since your post but I don't see how someone could rip you off, deckbox lists your card at $8.25, other popular sites list it at $8 and the pack foil at $8.50. Trading for 8.25 is close enough that nobody is ripping you off (again assuming it wasn't a different price when you posted)
Your listing should like this, for comparison.
For smaller trades, it often doesn't make sense to purchase tracking given the cost (1.93$ for a 5$ trade). If you send a package without tracking, what defense do you have if someone claims non-receipt? Can you at least leave neutral feedback telling what happened?
What about if you do use tracking, but the person claimed to have opened the package and seen nothing, or claimed that you sent them basic lands?
In all mail trades/sales unfortunately the sender assumes more risk. I can buy something off ebay claim it was empty whether or not it is tracked. I can do the same on a trade. The only thing that prevents this from happening is reputation. Thats why ebay has a feedback score, deckbox does etc. if you are the boy who cried wolf you'll get caught eventually. But sure, nothing really stops you from trading for a Mox claim they sent you a token card etc. Well, the seller may depending on value take precautions. I think if I was going to mail power I'd probably video record myself packaging it.
It is basically the honor system with the understanding you can get away with it once or twice but thats probably it.
I've had two packages I sent not arrive, both were low value that I accepted the risk, one I paid for replacements from TCG player and had them shipped. the other I offered replacement, the guy never took me up on it and left me a neutral it was weird. I've also had 2 packages sent to me not arrive, one turned up at the senders house after like a month, the other I never heard more about it. Both traders made up for it without complaint.
jassi007 wrote:simeo97 wrote:As the title states, I need a playset of young pyro, as well as 3 swiftspears. Shoot me a trade if you see anything you're interested in on my list. Also looking to swap a couple of ZEN lands, specifically looking to trade some forests to get a couple of swamps.
Which swamp do you need? I need some forest #248
Don't really have any preference on the swamps, but I only have 1 #248 forest. I actually did find a couple of islands that I'd be willing to trade too, as well as a bunch of the other forests.
Ok, not really worth the stamp for 1 land heh. If you had 5+ I'd be happy to swap.
As the title states, I need a playset of young pyro, as well as 3 swiftspears. Shoot me a trade if you see anything you're interested in on my list. Also looking to swap a couple of ZEN lands, specifically looking to trade some forests to get a couple of swamps.
Which swamp do you need? I need some forest #248
I have the slayer, the philosopher, the explorer, spear of the general, axe of the warmonger (without stickers on them). I'd be intersted in trading for Zen full arts?
Brian, talk to t.miller, he has a 1000 white dragon sleeves NIB. he might be willing to trade some for cards.
+ or - value. anything but polluted delta which i have a few of.
Have wooded foothills, would do this.
jassi007 wrote:So another user has opened a BTR to early. https://deckbox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=22802 Curious if he'll be receiving a negative or if fairpointmagic got one because basically he annoyed the deckbox mods. Or if in fact he got a negative on one trade because of his dissatisfaction with the outcome of a different trade.
Fairportmagic didn't get the negative simply because he started the BTR too early. There were a number of things that contributed.
I know that. He got a negative because of a prior trade, which is not right. You don't get a negative on trade B because of your actions on trade A. That isn't at all how anyone expects feedback to work.
jassi007 wrote:So another user has opened a BTR to early. https://deckbox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=22802 Curious if he'll be receiving a negative or if fairpointmagic got one because basically he annoyed the deckbox mods. Or if in fact he got a negative on one trade because of his dissatisfaction with the outcome of a different trade.
What are you suggesting jassi? That we just let fairportmagic go with 100% feedback after we cannot reason with him? Don't YOU want to know when visiting his profile that he has behaved the way he did in 2 consecutive BTRs?
Looking forward to your answer.
Thank you for responding. I will be happy to address your questions.
I think you overstepped giving fairpoint a negative. That may be obvious but I’ll just put that up front. I think if you maintain giving him a negative, give it to him for the trade that you actually have issue with, and don’t have a case where you have some weird situation where you gave someone a negative on a trade that you normally would not give a negative for. This just confuses the users to what the rules actually are.
To address the sale of the JMTS between fairpoint and Micah since that is what the neg is really about. You again ran into a situation with no clear outcome, and without any way to make a decision you ate the cost again. I understand why, but you clearly can’t keep doing business this way. It has only come up twice, but your just banking on hope that it doesn’t happen often.
Back to the main point. So fairpoint see’s Micah doesn’t pay anything. He gets a couple bucks and a scuffed/scratched JMTS when he really wanted a minty one. He isn’t happy. So he vents on the internet. Should he have kept his words to himself and not posted again? Probably. Was his anger understandable? To me it was. He sees the situation as someone just got away with a bad trade and will suffer no consequences. You got upset in return because you tried to resolve this to the best of your ability by still taking the loss, and to your POV he is ungrateful. So your annoyed with this guy, then a couple days later he posts a BTR because he is nervous and impatient with a new user about a trade. You think “what is it with this guy he’s a pain in the ass he needs a lesson to knock it off” or something like that. Fairpoint is thinking “god I’m going to get ripped off again why do I keep having problems with traders on this site!” so he posts a BTR early.
Put yourself in fairpoints shoes. He had a bad trade, his trading partner didn’t get anything more than a slap on the wrist, here is a new trader who is not as communicative as he’d like, he’s just sort of down on mail trading, and now he has a neg to.
I don’t think fairpoint is a bad guy. I think he didn’t need anything more than a warning. I think your doing the best you can and are looking for a way out of a shitty situation with the condition issue when it comes to sales.
Since you asked for my 2 cents here is what I would do.
1. Restore fairpoints feedback. His trading partner didn’t have a problem with him and that isn’t the issue that caused you to neg him anway. It sets a bad example for what is worth a negative and what isn’t.
2. Give him a clear warning, that what he said and did was not acceptable. He was made whole, and that is the most he should expect the outcome of a trade to be.
3. Reconsider fairpoints negative. I do think, to bluntly answer your question that as a trader I don’t see his reaction to the outcome of the first trade as anything other than understandable. If he did file a chargeback with paypal then neg him and suspend him. Make it clear to him that this is the resolution, and other solutions won’t be tolerated. If he does business or trades on deckbox he abides by the rules and decisions period. You say he can't be reasoned with, but that isn't exactly true. He didn't take any further action. He was still mad, and made a post he probably shouldn't have, but he didn't do anything. As things stand, he abided by your decision. Except he was later punished further.
4. Resolve your issue with how to deal with sales/trades quickly. I think you know what the answer is, but don’t want to do it because it scares sellers. Every other online system, be it Amazon, Ebay, TCGplayer etc. hold the seller 100% responsible. They then monitor for buyers that abuse the fact. The truth is I can go buy a card off tcgplayer, state condition not as described and the seller can either take it back, give me a partial refund, or risk his seller status with TCGP. Same goes for ebay etc. The buyer is right, even if he is dishonest. It is the only policy that truly works because you can almost never actually get to the truth. If you’d have had this policy, Fairpoint probably would not have had an outburst if he felt the seller suffered some consequence of sending him a card in poorer condition than described.
5. I personally would rather know Micah may have sent a card in worse condition than described than to know fairpoint gets mad when someone rips him off (from his point of view) I would be mad too if it happened to me! I may be a little better able to keep myself from having an outburst on the internet, but I would be just as upset. Your feedback system doesn’t adequately warn buyers about the fact that this person may have sent a card in poorer condition than he described it. As a buyer of magic cards, reading this outcome, I’m more hesitant to buy from deckbox. TCGP has a guarantee to their buyers, deckbox doesn’t. I know you hate being compared to TCGP but you are a marketplace where many sellers are aggregated like TCGP. When I had a condition problem with a seller on TCGP I leave them a 1/5 or 0/5 and other buyers are warned. On deckbox, he did get a neutral. I’m not sure if that is sufficient, because the idea of a neutral on deckbox is it doesn’t affect your overall feedback score.
So another user has opened a BTR to early. https://deckbox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=22802 Curious if he'll be receiving a negative or if fairpointmagic got one because basically he annoyed the deckbox mods. Or if in fact he got a negative on one trade because of his dissatisfaction with the outcome of a different trade.
jassi007 wrote:Sebi, any chance an option to display or print a decklist as just text can be added back? the new print thing is really cool, no doubt, but I did like the old display just to quickly copy/paste a decklist.
The old one is still there.
thanks, missed it somehow this morning. Monday!
Sebi, any chance an option to display or print a decklist as just text can be added back? the new print thing is really cool, no doubt, but I did like the old display just to quickly copy/paste a decklist.
I had a user leave neutral feedback for me after I cancelled a card order because it was under the dollar limit I had specified. It was annoying, but I think the solution is to make it understood that neutral feedback shouldn't necessarily represent a knock against a trader, especially if it's not accompanied by an explanation.
User left me a neutral for a trade that he didn't get the cards I sent. The kicker is, I offered to send again, or whatever solution he wanted. It was only a $4 trade. He said "i'm pretty sure my roommate stole them." and never accepted my offer to make the trade right. You just can't predict what people will do.
IronMagus, I see what you're saying, but it is his responsibility to keep track of his side of the trade. The only reason I pointed out the rules is because he was breaking them. Deckbox only works if we all, as a community, adhere to the same rules.
You seem to be somewhat familiar with Deckbox rules but it seems you overlooked neutral feedback.
3.1 Manipulating feedback score by any means (Fictional trades or users) is sanctioned by banning. Neutral Feedback does not affect a user's Percentile, and is to be used at a user's discretion.
The answer to your question "why did I receive a 0" is because your trade partner can leave neutral feedback for a successful trade if they weren't happy with it. Perhaps he felt you were rude in the way you approached the situation, or just was upset. It is his discretion to whether or not you were a good trade partner. By his leaving of neutral feedback, it seems clear he didn't feel you were.
Deckbox Forum » Posts by jassi007
