Search options (Page 34 of 118)

Removed duplicate Endbringer launch promo.
Removed duplicate Westvale & Ormendahl misimport. Caused actually by this gatherer mixup (notice the text below the images is vice-versa )
    http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/ … eid=410049

Hmm, is there an Atarka promo aside from the prerelease one? Have a link to it?

We have a CSV export for detailed exporting, in the Tools menu.

I did get your email and checked the file, it was indeed a row with an extra comma in there. Where was this csv exported from?

Thanks everyone for the input, I will close this for now as I feel many have given their thoughts already.

I will consider rewriting this as a second draft and taking your feedback into consideration, and re-posting it.

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.

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).

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

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".

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.

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.