Search options (Page 5 of 8)

Sebi was upholding the site rules in the sense that there's a long-established precedent that if a sender uses tracking and the tracking shows that the package arrived, then the sender has fulfilled his or her side of the trade even if the recipient claims to have not received it. The reason for this precedent is obvious - if there's some sort of error at this point, it's *much* more likely to be the recipient's fault than the sender's, and so as a rule we assign the loss to the recipient. This might seem unfair in cases where the recipient is innocent, but *someone* is going to take a loss here and it might as well be the person who's clearly most-*likely* to be at fault. In this case, that would be you. No one at the site wants to interrogate your postmaster over this - that's up to you so that you're properly incentivized to sort these delivery issues out.

This is how it's always worked. The chef analogy is silly because the relationship of traders on this site and shipping companies is not similar to that of a chef hiring a waiter - we can fault a restaurant when a waiter drops your food, we cannot fault a trader on here when they use tracking and a package disappears, which of course opens up the possibility of people abusing the system by claiming to have not received tracked packages.

The one point in your favor on this is that it's not clear what constitutes "proof of delivery" in the rules here. Most people, including me, consider tracking to provide proof of delivery. You're right, though, that there are stronger ways to provide proof of delivery through shipping confirmation. I'll note, however, that one can claim that those don't provide "proof" as well if one pleases - one could just say that any confirmation is erroneous (as you did with the tracking case) and that therefore the sender is still liable for delivery. It would probably be good to make this explicit in the rules.

The bottom line here though is that this outcome is not sebi's fault. He's applying the precedent that everyone understands and will reply to this thread telling you exists. There are very good reasons why we don't make traders resend packages even if tracking shows that they arrived, and thus changing the rules on this would be a bad idea. People in BTRs need to understand that even if they're innocent, then in many cases *someone* is going to take a loss and if the circumstances are such that it's much more-likely that you've done something wrong than your partner than it makes perfect sense for the rules to be structured so that loss is placed on you. It sucks in that particular case but it would suck a lot more if the rules were different.

I think if it turned out you had gone around and bought every copy of Glittering Wish available on the site, and it could be reasonably demonstrated that the low prices you bought at were the result of an error in the pricing then reporting you would be justified. To me the important question would be whether you knowingly exploited the pricing, which may be difficult to show in some cases - for example, if the price was low but then corrected but people still had it automatically pegged to the low price and hadn't updated, then one could buy out those cards without realizing that the prices were the result of a Deckbox hiccup and in that case I don't think you should be banned. And yes, if these cases seemed to occur often and people were getting investigated spuriously I think this would be a problem for Deckbox. But again, this was not the case in the Polukranos example and no cases of this occurring have arisen, therefore I don't think worrying about this can be justified.

Come on. Yes, for any suspicious usage pattern we could generate a hypothetical where that usage pattern would actually be the result of innocent behavior, like the case where four people ship packages to me and they all coincidentally get lost and it isn't my fault, but patterns are taken as evidence in these cases and even if they can generate false positives. So yes, you can be tried/judged incorrectly under extremely-unlikely circumstances, but what does this prove? The guy involved with the Polukranos case didn't even try this argument since it was so implausible (notably, he was *only* targeting the version of the card that was underpriced in trades - that's what made it obvious to begin with!)

What you're doing isn't showing that there's a problem with the rule, but there's a problem with any fact-finding process that takes patterns as evidence. You're proving way too much here.

Or they can do what they're doing - do their best, but when a bug exists and is exploited, ban the exploiter. It really doesn't upset the balance that much, and it helps built trust in Deckbox's pricing system, which is important. Like, I have a ton of cards listed for sale and I peg all the prices to the Deckbox price because it's too much work to maintain them on my own. If there's a pricing error that someone takes advantage of, I can cancel those sales and report the user and not have to worry. The alternative - that I have to manually monitor all my prices or just not list cards because the downside of getting fucked even once can wipe out the return from 10+ sales - is clearly unacceptable.

I don't think the lines are that hard to draw here. Yes, there are users who purposely target cards that are listed at lower values on Deckbox than other markets and that's fine if those prices aren't the result of clear bugs or anomalies in the pricing system. The Polukranos case got attention because it was obvious. afaik there haven't been any other users who have gotten in hot water over this.

You bring it up and either negotiate an answer or cancel the trade.

I think there's a point here that people might be a little careless about accepting trades before verifying conditions, but as someone who's guilty of this myself I'll say that the reason why there's a rush to the acceptance stage a lot of the time is because it "locks in" the trade unless some unusual circumstances arise. Like, if a guy wants a card X and opens 10 trade proposals for them and I'm one of them, then it's tempting to accept the proposal before anyone else does even if I haven't verified the card conditions yet or whatever.

Is this bad behavior? I'm not entirely sure. The underlying issue is that people want to be able to ensure increasing degrees of commitment to the trade in discrete steps, and the way they're doing this is mapped oddly onto the current process of trading - you can accept a proposal with only a few reservations (and thus guaranteeing that your partner becomes accordingly committed to you), but exchanging the addresses creates additional commitment. And the functional value of that is fine, but it is a bit silly to tie it to the address-exchanging step. But you'd lose that functional value if you made address exchange automatic.

While we're talking about consolidating the trading process, I actually have a different suggestion: I think it might be useful to have shipping options built into the trading interface rather than have those be negotiated. ie. When you make a proposal, you would also choose a rule for who ships first and also options for how you intend to ship (tracking, insurance, etc.) and maybe for your partner as well. I think there's a tendency for awkward post-confirmation negotiations to occur when people forget to do these things upfront and it might be a good idea to force these parameters to be a part of the trade process itself.

It's both. It's a pricing problem because once you choose the correct listing, it will no longer have a market price for your promo. It's the same for my Utter End from prerelease - TCGPlayer puts it at $5 but Deckbox doesn't have a price for it (at least it didn't last I checked.) Granted, some promos (like the FNM ones) seem to be priced okay, so maybe there's actually a bug in the pricing algorithm rather than some sort of structural shortcoming.

Did you list your Champion as being from the KTK prerelease by specifying this in the set option? Or did you just turn on the promo flag and say it was from KTK? If you did the latter, this could explain the pricing issues.

I think this has been commented before, but I think the "promo" label is kinda deprecated - the buy-a-box promo Rattleclaw Mystic should be the "Media Insert" one that you can choose under the set, I believe, and you shouldn't need to mark it as promo/foil since that's assumed.

But it is incredibly confusing right now - in general promos will have their own special set flag, but you can also flag any card as a promo... though I'm not sure if you actually should. The bottom line, then, is that you should never have to actually flag a card as a promo. I think.

I have been burned on this before. Like, I labeled all my KTK prerelease promos as just being promos and didn't flag them as foils and Deckbox priced them identically to the non-foil rares... so someone noticed this and bought them out. :\

You could just use the set price guides (eg. http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/price_gui … f%20Tarkir) to cut 95% or so of that burden. Just route the requests through TOR at various times of day. It's not unfeasible.

It's not based on completed sale data. It's probably based on some weighted average of all the other indices out there. It's not transparent because the site got in trouble when it just used TCG low/mid pricing, and so if it turned out that these prices still played a role in Deckbox pricing then this issue could arise again. For all I know, they just take TCG mid prices and then throw in a noise parameter that follows a random walk with drift (okay, I doubt they do that.) If that were the case, though, there's no way that they'd disclose this.

Obviously this will lead to issues. If Rabblemaster is still at $15, that's one. More-broadly, I've noticed that a lot of format staples (shocklands, etc.) seem slightly-underpriced relative to TCG mid. But 75% of TCG mid seems like an outlier. Outliers will always exist, though.