Search options (Page 3 of 8)

This guy is a jerk and I understand banning him but I think one thing that might get lost here is that greenmage (who I've had positive experiences with in the past) probably does deserve more than a slap on the wrist for what he did, assuming the public chat accurately relays the facts. If someone asks whether your cards are NM and you give an evasive/misleading answer in order to justify sending non-NM cards, then what you've done is completely unacceptable. I understand that the dispute process wants people to resolve things on their own and negative feedback is used very sparingly, but this tends to allow people to get away with sketchy behavior. And yeah that sketchy behavior can set people off and we can ban those people as toxic, but we should really be looking at the deeper causes of that toxicity.

Usually I'm willing to assume when I receive shitty cards it's just a mistake or I failed to investigate the conditions enough beforehand (which arguably shouldn't be necessary, but w/e.) I would be pretty mad if I felt someone had just straight-up lied or used some sort of wordplay to send me shitty cards, though. I wouldn't have reacted this way, but at the same time it represents a problem for the site if users learn that they can take advantage of the good faith extended to them by others.

I strongly feel that if greenmage was willing to acknowledge that the cards weren't NM he should've offered to pay for the return - in the cases where I've messed up on a trade (most commonly when I've sent someone the wrong cards on accident) I've always offered to do this, because it is my fault that this happened. I don't want to get too much into critiquing the entire arbitration process but simply letting him off with unwinding the trade seems way too lenient.

Correct. I wish I had a better guess at why this was happening. Let me know if there's anything I can do or test to help.

I should have made clear that the trade chat and "Click to Receive" thing were the only issues I ran into. I could otherwise navigate the site okay. But I didn't test much other stuff.

Firstly, I don't think it's really in your interests or to your credit to make this a personal callout of sebi. Many of these cases puts him in a difficult position of having to decide who loses value on a trade. That's unenviable, and he shouldn't have to be called a scammer or ripper or whatever just for ruling in a way that makes someone unhappy.

That said, if the facts of the case are actually as you describe then I do think it's wrong that you had to take a loss. I can understand why a user that employs tracking should not be responsible for lost cards, but imo that should only be case if the tracking shows that the cards were delivered to the proper destination. The scenario you describe sounds way too abuseable - sender just generates a tracking number then keeps his cards and sends nothing, and then says too bad for you since a tracking number was generated.

Full disclosure, I recently had a similar case, except the tracking just showed that the package was routed to some random location and stopped updating. Maybe I'll get them in 6 months or whatever. I accepted the loss here since the sender probably wasn't at fault. But if tracking had just shown nothing I would've been mad since the sender would've been unable to demonstrate that he had sent anything whatsoever, which is the entire point of providing additional protection for tracking. So I was a bit surprised that tracking protected senders when the tracking showed the packages didn't arrive. I'm very surprised because it seems clearly wrong if tracking protects senders when they can't even show that a package was processed by the post office. I think that rule obviously protects senders too much, although I guess a plain reading of the current deckbox rules implies this.

But in the end you were banned for trying to circumvent Deckbox's adjudication system because you didn't like the ruling. This is understandable - even if you don't like the rulings filing a mail fraud claim after adjudication is basically rejecting the process, and saying that you are unwilling to submit to sebi's rules. Why should you expect to be able to continue using the site at that point? You should've taken a loss on the trade, given the sender neutral feedback fairly voicing your complaints, and perhaps brought up the rules for discussion here. Trying to supercede the rules was a mistake, though, and maybe you should try apologizing for it.

Do you think the non-responsive traders would consider it easy/fast? Do we really want to even start this argument?

There's just almost zero upside to forcing a response, in my view.

Yeah, I'm thinking of just putting a $5 shipping fee on orders under $10. Seems crazy but it's honestly probably the best way.

That said, this sort of thing still messes with the shopping assistant, I'm sure. Sebi should just allow sellers to hardcode some parameters on their shipping options so that the assistant can maximize around them.

Deckbox is undoubtedly a cheap option for selling but I think it probably has a disproportionate share of "shark" buyers that are just looking to snatch up underpriced cards, and that's still going to be a real problem.

PSA: It's the Pro Tour. If you're selling cards, you should probably unlist everything in standard right now.

[Edit: Noticed that max card quantity is already hardcoded. Good.]

As a small update, the buyer recommended that I just put these conditions under my shipping options. So I did that. Pretty sure that has to be enforceable.

I pretty much agree. I was in the Top 10 in the number of sales for a while but for a variety of reasons I've basically stopped trying to use Deckbox market. The first two points you make are pretty important. I didn't realize Paypal charges to do refunds.

The third point is also difficult to address. But I noticed that a lot of the times my sales were on cards that were spiking and that Deckbox just hadn't caught up on (or I hadn't refreshed my prices enough.) No offense to the people who did this, but I really hated seeing someone purchase a bunch of spiking bulk cards off of me plus a $5 card  that they clearly didn't want but had to purchase to satisfy my $10 minimum... they just wanted the bulk cards that were spiking.

I even started turning off my prices around PTs to try to avoid this. But that wasn't sufficient. It felt like half of my sales became like this. A market whose sales frequently make one side unhappy is not going to be very vibrant.

The market is set up as it is because I imagine Sebi wants to offer buyers a smooth experience where they can just make spot purchases at pre-defined prices. But this is undesirable for sellers in a variety of ways, and upgrades to the market haven't really been forthcoming. I'll give things another shot if I become interested in liquidating parts of my collection again, but I agree that these are all things that I'd like to see addressed.

Honestly, there's already a way of informally doing this: You can just make a list of cards to be added using the "Add Cards From a Text List" option. Anyone could post a text list for a given set as a community service.

The systematic mispricing of MM2 cards really needs to be fixed. One user is trying to trade off a foil Kiki-Jiki, which is $53 on Deckbox but $20 everywhere else. I told him this but he's trying to trade it to others and whoever accepts a trade is probably going to be pretty disappointed. I'm not sure if I'd call this scummy (since he knows the "real" price) but it is a problem. I mean, okay, it's scummy but I don't feel like yelling at him.

Less-egregiously, another user today tried to offer me 2 Cliques at $66 per when TCG has them at $49 per.

I really disagree on this one. Or at least I think it should be limited to new traders trading with eachother, where the "send first" norms might be fuzzier. A lot of my trades are with new users and I don't want to see them restricted.

I've mentioned this before, but I think that someone should send first in pretty much 100% of trades, high feedback or not. Unless you really need the cards right away it's just a decent insurance mechanism. Not all sketchy traders have low feedback, sadly.

I think the solution here is to just implement some sort of sending rule at the trade stage. Like, one of the parameters of a proposal should be who sends first. For users with low feedback, the default will be for them to send first. If two users with low feedback engage in the trade, the first sender should either be randomized or perhaps it can be the party with fewer open trades.

I also think removing the BTR forum was probably a good idea. I felt like it promoted a lot of drama that strained the community to have fights aired publicly like they were.

This is subtle, but it seems like the prices on KTK fetchlands are too low (they're hovering at around TCG low) and this is messing with my ability to sell cards on here. Normally I put my prices at 89-95% of Deckbox price, but if I do this then my fetches are way below TCG low and they sell immediately for prices I'm unhappy with. If I put my prices at 100% then I can't sell anything other than lands. The same applies to a smaller extent with shocklands. Like, Polluted Delta is at $12.50 right now, but... where are Deltas actually being sold for that price? Everywhere else on the internet has them higher.

Yes, I could manually adjust the prices of fetches/shocks but this also messes with trading, since every time I trade these lands (they're popular, so this is all the time) I have to explain that I'm not going to use the Deckbox price. And quite frankly being able to peg to the Deckbox index is a huge reason for me to use Deckbox market over say TCGPlayer, and if I become unable to rely on that..

Again, it's just an issue of a dollar or two but over a high volume this become a significant percentage of my margins. Please look into whatever in your algorithm is generating these low prices on staple lands and consider rectifying it.