776 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

HikingStick wrote:

Personally, I believe that getting into caps and limits makes things too complicated--for the users, and for the coders/admins. Why not change the trade workflow to *require* new traders to send first? The higher-rated trader is instructed not to send until they receive the cards.

Because this does not cover cases where < 10 users trade with < 10 users, or when one user has 11 feedback and the other also has 11 feedback.

It is true that it makes things complicated but I am quite decided now that I do not want to allow large scams to be able to take place, and part of that is making guards against abuse by new users.

Of course some type of scam will always happen, and some people are just thieves regardless of the obstacles they face when stealing, but like I do feel safer in my city knowing there are laws & police & locks, I'd like to have a bit more protection and guarantees in place for the newer users.

Go to forum: Announcements

777 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

(Also worth noting the mentioned case is not cut-and-dried yet, I will still try to contact him further, but it is a perfect example of what the proposed system tries to prevent.)

Go to forum: Announcements

778 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

No, it does not happen too frequently, but I would like to take it from "rarely" to "almost never". If I only limit no-feedback users to no-feedback users, it will happen at 10-feedback users with 10-feedback users then.

I don't want anyone to have thousands of dollars in promised trades at once, if they do not make a commitment to provide a credit card or paypal account. It's a minimal commitment, for what I hope is a useful service (trading on deckbox).

Go to forum: Announcements

779 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

I see a lot of users not being happy with limits, but I also do not want to have cases like the linked one happen here again. If they happen on other sites, that is their business, but something will be done to prevent it here.

Go to forum: Announcements

780 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

mobung wrote:

With a 3-trades cap, I would be encouraged to cancel the trade in order to keep my slots open.  Sure, canceling a trade isn't a hostile action, but it still feels unpleasant when both parties are keen on said trade and will likely lead to fewer trades overall.

There's no "3 trades cap", only a value cap. You can leave the trade accepted without marking it sent, then it will not "Block" things. Only when you mark things sent = you promise cards were sent, then it counts them as "in progress".

Again, the whole point is to prevent people from saying they "sent" the cards to 15 traders, but lie about it, and dissapear with everbody's cards.

Latest case: http://deckbox.org/users/DoctorGraim/trades

Go to forum: Announcements

781 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

I mean it would not prevent you from trading, a new user would simply need to wait for his cards to get to destination before opening new trades for other cards. For national trades this would be 2-3 workdays usually, no?

Go to forum: Announcements

782 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

kathirene89 wrote:

Would it also limit people doing many low value trades at once ? Like 10 or so 2-15 dollar trades ?

Well, the thing is, if you only do low value trades, and you have less than 250$ in many months, do you really want to at once start doing 250$ worth of trades at the same time suddenly?

The restriction would just be for all the trades that you have open at the same time where the other person did not yet receive the cards. So for the cards you promised and are "in transit".

Go to forum: Announcements

783 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

TheWorldHatesPaul wrote:

Some folks want restrictions, other just want warnings. I like the idea of both, reduce the restrictions as stated in your original post, but still add some (such as users under some threshold must send first, users under a certain threshold can only trade below a certain value, etc). Also include the warnings and verified users.

How low should I reduce the restrictions though? I felt 250$ traded at the same time is plenty, but it seems people do not agree...

Finally, I am all for 2-step authentication on this site!

Yep, on my list of things to look into.

Go to forum: Announcements

784 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

rfioren wrote:

I DEFINITELY think that once a trader has an OPEN issue/complaint to resolve, that they should not be able to initiate new trades,

I am generally suspending users as soon as I see problems occur, and they become unresponsive...

It is hard to draw the line of when you want someone blocked. If just opening a dispute blocks someone, users will use that in annoying ways. If it would block both the disputer and the disputee, people would not open them because they would be blocked, and they will open a support ticket instead...

I agree with the idea of course, I was just not sure how to best put it in practice.

Go to forum: Announcements

785 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

I also see a lot of users complaining a 3.99$ monthly membership is too much, but wanting to trade more than 250$ worth of cards AT THE SAME TIME on deckbox, while also receiving the benefit of administrator moderation, support, and everything else.

Go to forum: Announcements

786 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

PhyrexianLibrarian wrote:

- preventing users from having too many trades in progress at once?

This was my intention with the limits, to prevent too much value being traded at once, so as to limit someone who wants to make 20 trades worth 2000$ and run away.

Go to forum: Announcements

787 Topic by sebi

(0 replies, posted in Mox Commanders)

Forum Rules for communities:

  • The community administrators are Moderators for your community's subforum. Nevertheless, if you notice abuse, vulgarity or inappropriate content, please report it to admin@deckbox.org

  • Using English is NOT mandatory. Any language can be used in your community's forums, but please use english in the global forums (Announcements, Magic the Gathering, etc)

Go to forum: Mox Commanders

788 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

BOOM wrote:

I think you are a bit out of line Sebi,  I am a budget player and most of us are just here for good fun.

Sorry if I offended, did not mean to.

Go to forum: Announcements

789 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

hailing_frequency wrote:

Why not limit this to a warning? Instead of prohibiting trades as detailed in the first post just have a highly visible warning every time a trade would violate the propositioned rules. E.g.: "Yes, I've read and understood that this trade with $50+ worth of cards is with a user with 0 feedback and I'm at risk here if I don't get him/her to send first. Click checkbox." That would kind of get the best of both worlds, you'd grant an extra level of security, since, let's face it, most scams come down to social engineering anyways, so a simple warning is actually a real security asset. (There's a reason why banks repeat over and over "don't give your PIN to anyone".) But at the same time, you'll allow people who are willing to take risks the freedom of trading what they want with who they want.

Interesting idea, I like this a lot at first glance.

Some comments about the specifics of the rules, rather than their general nature:
Is it really intentional that level 1s are unable to trade with level 4s? Why would I ever want to be a level 4 (instead of level 3) trader if that meant that the vast majority of traders wouldn't be able to trade with me? Apart from lifting the $250 ceiling, that seems like a downgrade.

Unintentional, I rephrased now to clarify. Level 4 also has absolute freedom.

I understand that the value limits are arbitrary and, no matter where you put them you'll end up with some awkward results. But with current values you can get Marsh Flats for just under $50 and Verdant Catacombs for over $50. Similarly there's Jace, the Mind Sculptor for just under $100 and Liliana of the Veil for just over. This ends up feeling very strange, where, if you want to get rid of your BW tokens deck for a Jund deck in modern you can trade off your marsh flats, but can't get Verdant Catacombs. It just feels weird, and would ultimately make deckbox a much weaker tool Since the "trading opportunities" is one of the strongest features here and I really don't think it'd be good to limit trades along such arbitrary lines.

Agreed. This would however not be an issue anymore if the limits are simply warnings as you suggested, and users can just click "I understand".

Finally the good stuff: Limiting the highest level to users with an active and verified credit card or paypal account seems like a good idea. There's a ton of safety in connecting the accounts to actual, real world, IDs. Espescially because this limits the swapping and borrowing of accounts.

I think so too.

Go to forum: Announcements

790 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

I think one issue with this request for comment is also that users who have been scammed or are the ones that the feature would target are not reading or replying to this post smile

Go to forum: Announcements

791 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

valdor wrote:

Ill be honest sebi, that is kinda unfair to say. I love deckbox but I dont pay for premium. Instead I support deckbox by telling everyone I know about it and convincing people to try and join. I promote the site where I can. So saying that you can only support by paying money seems unfair to those that dont have credit/debit cards or are extremely tight on money that even $5/months is too much.

Sure, this is why ANY kind of payment information is accepted, you do not have to be premium. Which means you can buy or sell, or whichever way you prefer.

Having zero verification on our users is a very bad position to be in, because there is nothing we can do against scammers when they do not even have to show a credit card or paypal account to trade cards worth thousands of dollars.

Go to forum: Announcements

792 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

El_Panda_Rojo wrote:

I've chosen not to become a premium member because I don't feel the need to utilize the premium features, not because I don't support the site or feel it isn't a useful tool. I do my part in other ways, like getting my friends to sign up and start trading here. And I suggested scrapping the idea entirely only if you were opposed to the notion of changing the criteria of the "level scale." What, am I not allowed to give input just because I don't put money towards the site?

Nope, feedback is always appreciated. Just pointing out how "Either change the criteria or scrap the idea, please." sounds.

Go to forum: Announcements

793 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

El_Panda_Rojo wrote:

The biggest issue I have is that people like myself who only trade on deckbox, not buy or sell, will never be able to get to level 4. I bought a card using the site one time, but for the most part if I'm spending money then I'm just going to do it using tcgplayer. However, I have hundreds of completed trades over a couple of years with 100% positive feedback - why should that exclude me from this "level 4" just because I don't have a credit card on file? Maybe I just don't want to put in my card info. That doesn't mean I'm a less reliable trader. Either change the criteria or scrap the idea, please.

So you consider the community a useful tool for you but you would not even consider supporting it by becoming a premium member, thus you wish that the idea be scrapped smile

Go to forum: Announcements

794 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

9700377 wrote:

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.

Agree to the sentiment, let's keep the tone friendly though smile. I appreciate the fact that established users are able to care for their interests, but many newer users give up on online trading because of bad experiences with people who get to 15 positive score and then scam 10 people.

I want to get rid of them and provide as safe an environment as possible to all newcomers smile (while also providing proper tools to non-newcomers too)

Go to forum: Announcements

795 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

Good points all around, thanks for the discussion. I can see why established users would want new users to not be restricted as long as they send first.

I'd like to incorporate that in the rules, while keeping restrictions for "new user" to "new user" interactions (which are the most problematic), while keeping the whole thing understandable.

Thinking about this, and will post updates. Keep the conversation going though, lots of good points.

Go to forum: Announcements

796 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

For selling & buying no, at least not to begin with. There fraud is not so much of an issue since Paypal is also always involved.

Go to forum: Announcements

797 Reply by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

d72B wrote:

Sounds great! Maybe I missed it, but how do you go from level 3 to level 4? Is the same kind of system under consideration for selling/buying?

Not 100% sure yet, still thinking if there should be some additional account age requirement. It might also be possible to just have it Automatically become level 4 if you got to level 3 AND you have a payment mechanism on file, as explained.

Go to forum: Announcements

798 Topic by sebi

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

I am revisiting an issue that was previously proposed and discussed: having a system where newer users are limited in some way in trading, to avoid fraud. This would encourage people to build up their reputation with the site and with other users on the website as a way to prove themselves trustworthy. It would also get rid of many users trying to scam and cheat users and members of the community.

This is not a new concept, ebay has a stars system, and Tcgplayer has seller level system, etc. I am opening this topic as an avenue for discussion and collecting feedback. The following is my current draft idea, and it is subject to change before being implemented.


Users have a Trader Level, that ranges from 1 to 4 which indicates trustworthyness.

Level 1 users are brand new. They can only trade with users with Level 2  and higher, and they must send first in a trade. They can also only have 50$ worth of cards in open trades at one time.

They reach level 2 after trading 200$ worth of cards and have been trading for at least a month on deckbox.

Level 2 traders can trade with anyone, but must send first when trading with Level 3 and higher. They can have 100$ worth of cards in trades at one time.

They reach level 3 after trading 500$ worth of cards and have been trading for at least 3 months on deckbox.

Level 3 traders can have 250$ worth of cards in trades at one time.

Level 4 traders have no restrictions.

All traders receive an extra level if we have an active credit card on file from them, from an active premium subscription (functionality for this is upcoming hopefully this week), or if they have sent or received a payment on deckbox in the last month via an active and verified paypal account. This can be either for premium membership, bought or sold cards.


This also means that you can only be level 4 if you have used a valid and active payment mechanism, that we know of. This would prevent account transfers and sales, and provide us with avenues for action in case of scamming.


I think this system would promote a more fair and friendly trading environment, would reward longevity on the website, and clean and friendly trade histories.

As always, I look forward to reading your feedback, and thank you in advance for your help in shaping this feature.


Later Edit A lot of feedback seems to indicate that restricting the value that new users trade is not a good idea, and I agree. I will try to re-formulate the proposal to allow for that.

Go to forum: Announcements

799 Reply by sebi

(389 replies, posted in Site Discussion)

beacon wrote:

$100 for this FRF foil Island.

https://deckbox.org/mtg/Island?printing=27053

Fixed, thanks.

Go to forum: Site Discussion

800 Topic by sebi

(10 replies, posted in Announcements)

Sellers can now set a minimum and maximum order values on shipping options. This makes it possible to have more flexible options. Buyers will also automatically be only shown valid shipping options based on their order size, thus removing previous confusing situations.

We strongly suggest that sellers keep at least one shipping option that can be used for even the smallest of orders (i.e. min value = $0.00). You can set this a bit higher, to cover paypal / deckbox / shipping / handling fees. The absence of such an option will cause some cards in your tradelist to appear not shippable, and your cards to not be found by buyers through the Shopping Assistant / Optimizer.

The shiping options lists on the Seller Account page are also shown grouped per destination and sorted by price, so they should be easier to manage now.

Buyers can also better see all the seller's shipping options now via a little info dialog opened either from the seller profile, or from an entry on the market part of a card page. (by clicking on the shipping cost)

The card pages in their marketplace section now more accurately display shipping options. This means that the shipping cost shown for each card is how much it would cost for shipment of just that card.

Go to forum: Announcements