Search options (Page 2 of 8)

Lots of things can be red flags even if you're not guilty of whatever is supposedly being flagged. Simulsending won't protect you from scummy behavior anyways if that what you're afraid of. "Users below X feedback trading with users above X feedback have to send first" is totally a rule I would support.

Sorry, my tone got somewhat severe because no one else was criticizing what I saw as some very deep flaws with this proposal. But now other people are echoing these concerns.

It seems like there are mainly two goals here. The first one is to protect users from scammers. As others have said, the main scamming risk comes from simulsending. I'm pretty okay with preventing simulsends on low-feedback traders by restricting their ability to deal with eachother. I'm not okay with restricting their ability to trade with more-experiences users though and I think it would really damage the attractiveness of the site to new users if it became infeasible to use it to get valuable cards immediately. The second one is to push premium memberships again. Obviously a lot of people are going to be annoyed by that and I think that just needs to be handled carefully.

I am absolutely unwilling to sacrifice 25% of my trades for the "benefit" of being subjected to paternalistic restrictions. Your point that messy situations arise regardless of experience only motivates against this system. When I ask a new trader to send first, the risk of my being scammed is very low. I have never been scammed under this situation, and if I felt like the risk was high enough than I would just not trade with newer users.

That is, I already have incentives to protect myself here. I've chosen what risks to take. Telling me that I'm incorrect and need additional protections at the cost of 25% of my trades? I'm sorry, but fuck that. Restrictions on the abilities of new users to trade with me are in fact restrictions on me as well. And I don't want these restrictions. I don't gain anything by having them. I mean, maybe we can have a Rank 5 for people who are adults who feel like they know what they're doing or something, at least?

Or it gets tuned out because the criticism stops being seen as constructive and more as just being annoying. You can't bug a developer into implementing new features for you.

Fair enough, he did say this for a couple items.

Also, didn't see your replies to a couple old items:

Generally I won't confirm trades before I have the cards in hand. I recognize this is a risk I'm taking though, and I internalize the majority share of the risks (eg. if an issue with a card does arise, I'll just have to buy a new copy.) Delaying trades just because you don't have cards in hand yet is just another form of poor practice.

If I want to have 6 on my tradelist but only 3 for sale, I can't do this. And there are more reasons one might want to do this than just the one I describe.

That would seem like the easiest thing to do. It's easy to underestimate the difficulty of this, though - adding all these dimensions onto shipping policies makes the shopping optimization problem harder, and I'm not sure how easy it is for sebi to accommodate all of this.

It's also noteworthy that TCGPlayer doesn't allow users to set multiple rates on singles within a single country, probably in large part for this reason. This has always been tricky, though, as merchants face a tricky dilemma between setting low rates and possibly getting shitty orders (ie. someone orders like 10 bulk cards with free shipping, and shipping costs end up being higher than the value of the trade) and setting high rates and not appearing prominently in searches.

Still, I'd guess that allowing for a minimum order size dimension to be specified and then showing the shipping rate on a single card would be the best way to go. Although I'm not sure what you'd display if the user doesn't specify a rate that a single card can be sold at..

Now it's $2.04.

I don't think the purpose of what you're describing is to mislead you, though. Basically, Deckbox doesn't let you specify a minimum order size on a shipping option, so users that want to offer free shipping on large orders and a positive shipping cost on small orders (which should be allowed) aren't able to specify which cost should be used on the price of a single card by Deckbox's algorithm... I believe. Maybe some people are taking advantage of this, but I'm not sure if there's a way to *not* take advantage of this if you want to discount shipping on large orders.

I do have one suggestion for the marketplace that shouldn't be too difficult to implement: It'd be nice if you could have it so that you can only list a subset of your cards for sale. eg. If I have 10 Wooded Foothills, I might want to keep a playset and have the remaining 6 for sale. Right now there's no way to do this unless you give 6 of your cards a special flag or something silly like that.

For me the status quo is a problem because sometimes I'm a bit loose with my inventory - I'll list cards that I'm receiving as parts of other trades before I actually have them, for example, so that I can negotiate trades with them while they're coming to me. But I can't do this with sales because if I can't say "sorry, don't have this yet" to someone who buys a card.

One additional point is that sellers can also write these conditions into their *shipping options*. This guarantees that buyers see them.

But yeah, for me the fundamental problem with Deckbox market is that the number of "feel bad" sales I made were very high, and this made it overall an... unenticing proposition. Sebi has focused on making the experience smooth for buyers but hasn't done much to incentivize sellers to sell on Deckbox market beyond the simple fact that it's easy to price cards that we already have listed in our collections, and that Deckbox's cut of sales isn't that high. But if you actually do something like just use Deckbox's "price all" feature every week, you are going to end up having a frustrating time.

If I could make one single change, it would be to let users put dollar quantities on trades as just another item, and then set up some structures to facilitate those payments and have Deckbox take a cut. This could be done in addition to the current market features, and then people could choose whichever way that they want to engage in sales. I understand why Sebi build things the way that he did, but I just don't think trying to emulate the TCGPlayer experience really fits well with the advantages of Deckbox - I want to be able to place all my cards up for sale, but I don't want to continually be annoyed by selling cards that Deckbox's prices are wonky on, or having to sell a bunch of bulk that's barely worth the price of digging up, or whatever.

You'd have to get multiple accounts. The site doesn't support having multiple inventories on a single account.

Cancellations will sometimes occur when there are obvious algorithmic errors. The issue is that I'm presuming that there wasn't an algorithmic error in the order you had to cancel - it's just that a card's price spiked and Deckbox's price was slow to reflect that (or you were slow to update your prices in response.) Most stores will stand by these orders. If you were on TCGPlayer and cancelled and cancelled an order like this your account would probably be placed in jeopardy.

Like I said, I understand. I stopped selling on Deckbox in large part because I felt like a lot of the orders I was getting was because I was doing automatic price-setting and people were just taking advantage of spikes (or anticipated spikes.) But the status quo on most sites/markets is to let buyers do this.