1 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

renoan wrote:
Amurphcs wrote:

Using this system, My concern would become more with the cost of product as well. People tend to ship things in their own way, and don't always use a "user friendly" system. The system I speak of would be:

Card ---> optional perfect fit ---> sleeve ---> hard cover ---> Team bag ---> Bubble mailer/PWE

The cost to ship 1 card in this way would be an additional approx $1.2 or so, depending on how much bulk you buy. Would these supplies be issued by deckbox?
I think that the cost would be marginal for trades that exceed $100, especially if you don't include insurance as the cost pretty much makes up the difference.
It would be nice if you could just use the shipping methods over again, but many times people use tape etc, which would limit the ability to use them again. Also, if a shipping method is suspect, you would want to re-package the items so there would be no problems on the next stage.

No idea how this would end up. However, if I were piloting such a service, I'd make it clear I'm not responsible for anything other than the escrow verification process. In home purchases, escrow doesn't get held accountable for anything other than verification that the title is clear. For a card escrow service, I'd make it clear that I open the package, verify the cards are in there and that they look like the ones in the pictures, and then put them right back in the packaging it was sent in (sleeves, if any, envelope) (and that in turn into a new envelope that will have the actual postage) and ship it off once I received both trades.

That might not be what users would want, though. Maybe Deckbox traders WANT to hold Deckbox accountable for such things. So, no idea what such a service would end up as.


What if deckbox made it a program that would state something along the lines of "trade with confidence"? Using the system you described it could be a part of the premium membership, where when a premium user trades with a premium user, the service is free? Im not sure how that would break down price-wise though.

Go to forum: Announcements

2 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

renoan wrote:

Rather than restrictions on trading, what about turning this into a possible service/business opportunity?

Imagine a Deckbox service that essentially acts as an escrow service.

Possible Process

  • Traders A and B have to submit pictures of their cards for them to both approve of the conditions. (This eliminates Deckbox having to verify conditions based on a subjective scale)

  • Traders send cards to Deckbox escrow address

  • Deckbox representative films: the opening of each envelope and each card (used as evidence that same cards were shipped as in pictures and protection from claims that Deckbox switched cards out), and the placing of cards into new envelopes (to protect against claims that Deckbox sent different cards). Alternately, something can be written into the service's terms of agreement contract that indemnifies Deckbox of any such claims

  • Upon verification, Deckbox sends the cards to the new owners (likely with tracking, again for liability reasons)

Thoughts on Cost
The service would cost money to cover expenses, such as shipping fees and labor costs for having someone handle the trade. I imagine labor would be around 0.2 hours (opening, verifying against trade lists, possibly filming everything, creating new shipping labels, then putting in mailbox for shipment). Assuming minimum wage may go up to $15 in the future, after employment taxes you're looking at about $16.50/hour. At 0.2 hours of labor, that's about $3.30 in labor, maybe about $2.50 for USPS first-class or $5.50 small flat-rate box (for larger quantity trades).

Labor could be split by both parties, and shipping would depend on what someone is sending. Per trader, Deckbox's expenses would amount to about $3.65 (half of labor, $1.65, plus $2.50 first-class) for smaller shipments, and $6.65 for larger ones. Add in a 25% profit margin, and you get approximate service costs of $4.56 and $$8.31. At just 10% (I don't know Deckbox's overhead costs, so I don't know what would be feasible) the pricing would be more like $4.01 and $7.31.

Worth it or Not?
This wouldn't be economical for low-value trades, but for high-worth trades, some users may find this useful. Ultimately, the cost might not be all that much higher for some traders. If any of you are like me, I decide whether to add tracking based on my level of trust in the other trader (definitely not so the other user can track where the shipment is, I couldn't care less about that). Mail gets lost on rare occasion, but I suspect the more common culprit are traders claiming not to receive cards. Deckbox would be a trusted service, so I wouldn't feel the need to spend money on tracking when sending to Deckbox. I save money on my shipping costs, and spend a little more for the service. So, for trades above a certain monetary threshold (for me it would be around $50), the cost would be minimally higher in return for peace of mind.

Those are my initial thoughts on how such an escrow service could work (I'm sure you all can think of many other iterations). The inspiration was thinking about what the problem is we're trying to fix. People tend to get scammed on higher-value trades. Lower value scams certainly aren't pleasant, but the sky won't fall if you lose $20 in cards (let alone $5-$10). This would avoid restricting traders (an issue brought up by some), create a solution for those who are interested in a trade but normally wouldn't do it for fear of getting scammed, and would add an additional revenue source for Deckbox, paid for by those interested in the service. There may even be opportunity for including some version of this service for premium accounts, but that would have to be figured out by Deckbox's accounting team to see what would actually be worth it (perhaps X escrow trades per year for free).

Anyway, just a thought and opening this up for discussion.


Using this system, My concern would become more with the cost of product as well. People tend to ship things in their own way, and don't always use a "user friendly" system. The system I speak of would be:

Card ---> optional perfect fit ---> sleeve ---> hard cover ---> Team bag ---> Bubble mailer/PWE

The cost to ship 1 card in this way would be an additional approx $1.2 or so, depending on how much bulk you buy. Would these supplies be issued by deckbox?
I think that the cost would be marginal for trades that exceed $100, especially if you don't include insurance as the cost pretty much makes up the difference.
It would be nice if you could just use the shipping methods over again, but many times people use tape etc, which would limit the ability to use them again. Also, if a shipping method is suspect, you would want to re-package the items so there would be no problems on the next stage.

Go to forum: Announcements

3 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

Speking as a newer user and as recently being an online trader over the past year, i will say that i have currently been scammed twice in about 150 total trades. It makes me more aware of what is going on, but a lot of the trades that I do i try to keep around $50 or more just because it makes the shipping worth it. It insures that I am sending in a BM with tracking and vice versa. PWE always has some risk, amd I have been accused of scamming when I honestly send the $10 of cards in a PWE and it got lost in the mail. I just started to ship with tracking for any trade now, as it only costs 2.60 and intl i get tracking from stamps.com...although thats kinda slow to register etc.
I would be fine with a cap as I can work around it, but maybe there can be something where a new user can trade high value cards of some sort of requirement is met? I.e proof that card is in hand, tracking number, and the user they are trading with can provide the same and has a "verified" account? This way new users with proof could ship cards first and would have some protection for the other person that they will ship or else they can be charged for losses?

Go to forum: Announcements

4 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

HikingStick wrote:
Amurphcs wrote:
HikingStick wrote:

Wouldn't requiring a verified address for trades over a certain amount provide some of the safeguards needed? It's easier (at least in the USA) to file a mail fraud claim if the other party's address is confirmed.

While not sure I'd support the idea, a credit card or bank account (alternate payment method) could be required for trades over a certain amount. If the trade goes south, the alternate payment information could be used to make it good. This would, of course, require a revision to site rules and trade policies, and all parties of a trade would have to agree to all terms.

I would be more inclined to use a mediator. Basically both parties send to a site admin/mod and once all cards are checked and deemed accurate in terms of condition set etc then the mediator sends to respective parties

That would require shipping both card sets twice (trader to middleman, middleman to other trader). It could also introduce claims that the middleman damaged/lost/stole cards. There's no means of compensating such middlemen, either, so I don't believe it would ever work.

I am aware. I was mainly speaking to trades that are worth around 1k, and or trades that include very expensive cards like moxes etc. I believe sending to an admin or mod would be fine and not a random person. Also at that point i would rather spend the extra 2.60 to ship to be more secure.

Go to forum: Announcements

5 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

Im interested in knowing what the average number of transactions open are for users on here? Personally i only try to keep 1 or 2 open at once

Go to forum: Announcements

6 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

Zyron wrote:
wonderdog79 wrote:

ok I am going to comment based on what I am reading as I read it so if it get jumbled, I apologize.
...
ninth @sidewayzracer/Amurphcs, buyer feedback is a decent idea. ebay does it and it shows that you are active on the site like Amurphcs states and not some inactive scammer. perhaps not even feedback but just a tally of how many purchases you have made through the site.
...

...
Also, Ebay removed negative and neutral feedback for buyers, you can only leave positive feedback.  They did this because of the aforementioned reasons here, sellers would withhold feedback until a buyer left it then use it as a weapon if the buyer had a legitimate complaint.  For instance, a seller once sold me something not even close to what they advertised.  I paid return shipping on the item, so I was out a few bucks, and I left neutral feedback, not even negative.  The seller was so upset that he shorted me and made me pay return shipping that he left me bad feedback even though he sold an item that wasn't what he stated.  It's hard to have a system where buyer feedback is honest since it is basically another tool for bad sellers to use to pressure buyers into giving fake positive feedback instead of honest feedback.

Perhaps a tally is a better option in this instance, however, would it hold any weight when going from purchases to trades? I also wonder if we could publish orders as we do trades, so at least everyone could see the value of purchases, who we are purchasing from, etc. Not sure if that feature is already there or not. Could be an alternative way of feedback so if someone sees a person only making a lot of $10 purchases, it may weigh less than someone who buys $50 or more.
Sorry if that got convoluted,  just waking up.

Go to forum: Announcements

7 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

d72B wrote:
Amurphcs wrote:
d72B wrote:

The idea that Deckbox must support a new user to trade high value cards in their first trades is ridiculous.

Its not a must support is a willingness to support. The site already does this by not having a cap if you actually think about it. Is that ridiculous too?

If restrictions are implemented and they're as high as suggestions like this then they're useless. Currently there's a risk of abuse. That's why we're having this conversation.

Bottom line: if a user doesn't want to be "verified" then their trades should be restricted for everyone's safety. The restrictions shouldn't be based on what a user thinks they should be able to do; restrictions should be data driven. Only Sebi has the data and so he should determine what is reasonable for a new user (not to discount this great discussion).

P.S. Warnings will simply be ignored..

I just feel that the initial quote of the limit of $100 was too low to be honest.
I also feel that not being able to trade good value cards for higher value cards would be a turn off in my opinion. It would also increase the amount of shipping I would need to spend in order to get to a point where I would have the ability to trade for the values that I would be interested in, primarily trades in that 100-400 mark.
I agree that some kind of verification should be necessary in order to trade with less restrictions, and for those who dont have a verified account should be limited in the amount of trades and value of trades they are able to do.
What if it were unverified max value 100, verified 400 until established?
Then maybe established unverified 200, established verified no restriction?

Go to forum: Announcements

8 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

d72B wrote:
Amurphcs wrote:

New traders have a maximum value cap of $400 (i.e playset of tarns or lotv, or a couple gaea's cradles), and may have no more than 3 trades open?

The idea that Deckbox must support a new user to trade high value cards in their first trades is ridiculous.

Its not a must support is a willingness to support. The site already does this by not having a cap if you actually think about it. Is that ridiculous too?

Go to forum: Announcements

9 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

sebi wrote:
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...

What if the following was used:

New traders have a maximum value cap of $400 (i.e playset of tarns or lotv, or a couple gaea's cradles), and may have no more than 3 trades open?
I think this would allow enough room to trade high value cards for new users, and limit the downside of doing multiple small trades to just build up rep too quickly. If we are talking about building up to a range of 20-30 rep, then it would take a decent amount of time to actually get there.

Go to forum: Announcements

10 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

Sidewayzracer wrote:
Amurphcs wrote:
Sidewayzracer wrote:

Im not sure y a buyer would be deserving of feedback.

"He didnt chargeback me hes a good buyer"

would probably be the extent of feedback

Because it currently looks like ive only done 2 trades on here, while i have made numerous purchases on here as well. The point is the seller receives feedback, why not the buyer as well? It would allow people to see who is a good buyer and who is shady, especially when it comes to receiving the cards. Think about that, and then tell me that a buyer who has good practices isnt deserving of feedback. Doesnt have to be a long thing, "prompt payment, great buyer" or whatever, but it would go a long way to identifying those who have bad practices as buyers.


Buyer feedback is un-needed,  prompt payment doesnt mean anything when everything is paid for before shipping.  It would allow for the feedback system to be gamed to inflate ratings.

So are you saying that someone like me who participates on this site to primarily buy cards and do a few trades is less valuable to the trading community than someone who strictly trades? I dont think it should be an inflated singular rating, but sellers have both a trade and sell rating, why cant others have a buyer/trader rating?

Go to forum: Announcements

11 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

Sidewayzracer wrote:
Amurphcs wrote:

On a separate note, it may be good for sellers to have the ability to leave feedback for a buyer. I have done around 6 purchases on here thus far, but have no feedback to show for it which is kind of disheartening


Im not sure y a buyer would be deserving of feedback.

"He didnt chargeback me hes a good buyer"

would probably be the extent of feedback

Because it currently looks like ive only done 2 trades on here, while i have made numerous purchases on here as well. The point is the seller receives feedback, why not the buyer as well? It would allow people to see who is a good buyer and who is shady, especially when it comes to receiving the cards. Think about that, and then tell me that a buyer who has good practices isnt deserving of feedback. Doesnt have to be a long thing, "prompt payment, great buyer" or whatever, but it would go a long way to identifying those who have bad practices as buyers.

Go to forum: Announcements

12 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

TechnicolorMage wrote:

The tier system is a bad idea. It's not what stops scammers. Stopping scammers starts with IP logging/checking and being dedicated to banning without remorse any returning rippers on a daily basis. It means having trustworthy moderators who won't allow friends to practice shady trading practices. It means immediate sanctions against users if even the slightest hint of treachery should pop up. If your system on DB can't do this, you will always be open to returning rip off artists.  I'm not saying it's foolproof, but these are all proven tactics that reduce ripping. The rest is common sense, something we all have lapses on from time to time. Internet trading is a scary proposition, you can't hold each traders hand through every possible scenario.

However, it's not all doom and gloom. I would be in favor of a more detailed feedback system.

For example

You rate your experience out of 5 stars for each of the following:

Communication
Shipping speed
Packing
Card Condition
"insert something I have missed here"

These would allow for a continually evolving/updating feedback system. Someone could have 100+ positive refs but when you dig deeper you see that Trader X "card condition" is 3.8/5  thus indicating that card condition may not be as described. Being armed with info like I get a better idea of what my potential trader partners habits are like.

I really can't stress enough the logging of IP addresses and the daily requirement of staff to check them against banned IP's. At MTG Salvation when I was the head honcho over the Market Street we were dedicated to checking all new user IP to see if they cross referenced with anyone else on the site. Doing a thorough background check (even if you have to suspend the user for a day or two) makes it more difficult for thieves to get a foothold.

None of what I say will eliminate all theft, it's simply not possible. Realistically were looking for deterrence, not complete elimination.

Verification systems (credit card, paypal, "insert whatever you think is legitimate" is fine as a SECONDARY step, but these types of things can alienate your user base, especially those who are afraid to put their info on the internet.

Just my .02  from a guy who was ripped on this website along with many others by somoene with over 200  positive refs and as a former Moderator on a large site dedicated to trading.

+1 on the whole thing really. A multi-facet rating system would be great.
I also think that it should be suggested that if that system is in place, people should leave the exact reason for leaving anything less than 5 stars for a particular rating. That way it would be a more detailed account so it takes some of the subjectivity out of the equation.

Go to forum: Announcements

13 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

AuspSqueeky wrote:

Just thought I'd weigh in. First of all, Sebi, this is of course an amazing site and you're a marvelous administrator. Keep up the great work, as I sincerely appreciate all the features you continue to add making this site better.

All in all, I'm in favor of checkbox style warnings rather than any kind of hard limits on anyone, ever. If anything, I think this kind of feature is less important than finding a way to leave less than positive [see: honest] feedback for someone without risking retaliatory feedback in return. The reason why some people have been scammed by high-rep users is because once you understand the system, anyone can easily manipulate it to avoid ever getting negative feedback by putting the threat of retaliatory feedback upon their trading partners.

This encourages (or at least allows) poor trading experiences. I have never had a trade not arrive (other than one I sent that got lost in the mail about a year ago) but I have had multiple bad experiences with cards not arriving in the condition described. Of course, I can't realistically hold my trading partners accountable for this without attempting to reverse the entire trade, and even then I risk negative feedback for doing so. Instead, because I value the positive reputation I have built, I just suck it up and accept the fact I was scammed by someone giving me terrible condition cards.

Do you have any implementable ideas for features that would allow people to actually leave honest feedback for other users to help mitigate situations like this and in turn hold the community to a higher standard?

Negative feedback should only be allowed to be left if approved by an admin. They would be able to review the situation and make a decision from there. Any neg feedback given without approval should be able to be deleted

Go to forum: Announcements

14 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

On a separate note, it may be good for sellers to have the ability to leave feedback for a buyer. I have done around 6 purchases on here thus far, but have no feedback to show for it which is kind of disheartening

Go to forum: Announcements

15 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

HikingStick wrote:

Wouldn't requiring a verified address for trades over a certain amount provide some of the safeguards needed? It's easier (at least in the USA) to file a mail fraud claim if the other party's address is confirmed.

While not sure I'd support the idea, a credit card or bank account (alternate payment method) could be required for trades over a certain amount. If the trade goes south, the alternate payment information could be used to make it good. This would, of course, require a revision to site rules and trade policies, and all parties of a trade would have to agree to all terms.

I would be more inclined to use a mediator. Basically both parties send to a site admin/mod and once all cards are checked and deemed accurate in terms of condition set etc then the mediator sends to respective parties

Go to forum: Announcements

16 Reply by Amurphcs

(10 replies, posted in Announcements)

Can sellers leave feedback for buyers?

Go to forum: Announcements

17 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

gumgodMTG wrote:
dawsonjay wrote:

How about a simple 'The person with less feedback always sends first' rule?

A person with feedback under a set threshold must send first seems like it would solve this. 

I do like the idea of 'verified users'.  Users who have done something to confirm their information.

edit: +1 to this:

Amurphcs wrote:
elpablo wrote:

+1

+1 as well

I think a threshold is better served as a benchmark. Something to the extent of:
"Traders who have 25 feedback or more should use their discretion for simulsending with people who have 24 feedback or less unless they have traded with them prior. Members who have 24 feedback or below should be prepared to send first in any trade."
25 seems like the trader would be "well established" enough on here, as Im finding it difficult to even get past the 5 mark, though I have not updated my entire invantory yet tongue.

Go to forum: Announcements

18 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

swordfischer wrote:

I'm a bit on both halves regarding this, as I can see where sebi is coming from with this, and I think the intention is right, but the execution needs to be polished.

One suggestion I didn't see was having the same custom preferences as sellers have with minimum purchase amount, but for ordinary users;
Let users decide if others can initiate a trade if some parameters are not met, like the amount of trades ("You cannot initiate a trade with this user as they require you to have completed at least 5 trades"). And then leave these parameters optional - does it make sense?

On magic card market you need to wire money to your account in order to get verified (paypal does the same thing) - and I figure as some of the other guys mentioned, this will be another implementation that we could all benefit from (combined with the suggestion above 'You cannot initiate a trade with this user as they require you to be verified or premium')

You can also just decline the trade as well and choose to only trade with verified accounts. I dont believe adding an option will really make a difference.  They can outline their trade preferences in their profile page.
Is there any adjudication here? Im not 100% sure if there is but having an active mod that handles disputes and has the power to suspend ban or implement a way to make them pay if a scam or rip occurs that might be helpful.

Go to forum: Announcements

19 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

elpablo wrote:
Brendan wrote:

I do think adding a 'verified account' mark (really, this should be the checkmark, and the premium account designation should be a blue ribbon or something --

+1

+1 as well

Go to forum: Announcements

20 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

sebi wrote:

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

I have been scammed before but not on here. My practices for trading are now as follows and as I briefly mentioned in my post before.

1) anyone with 10 feedback or less they send first no questions asked.
2) any trade over $40 must be sent with delivery confirmation in a bubble mailer. Generally speaking I only do two types of trades. Small trades for about $5-$20 and bigger trades from 75+. This way I know when theirs will get to me. If they want to send in a pwe they must send first regardless of feedback.
3) any international trade they send first as long as my feedback is higher.
4) always ask for pictures of higher end cards like jtms, lotv, etc. I usually ask for something random in there as well so I know they have physical possession of the card.
5) try to stick with people I know or have traded with before.
6) if something doesn't feel right, or if there is a severe lack of communication then I'll pass on the trade.
7) generally I try to keep initial purchases and trades with new users limited to smaller values. This way if I do get ripped off at least it won't cost me too much overall. Then once we have done a couple trades then I will start going into the higher end of trades with them.
8) if any problems do arise, attempt to work it out with the individual and If that doesn't work seek out staff of the website.

Basically a lot of this is common sense to me at least. There are rules and regulations for trading on sites for reasons, and a lot of the time people don't always read them all the way though.  It's feels crappy getting ripped off or scammed but it does happen, and usually it ends up being my fault because I didn't protect myself enough on my end.

For reference, I got scammed purchasing from a seller with 0 feedback, and one other time when I decided to simul with a user with 0 feedback when mine was around 25.

Go to forum: Announcements

21 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

9700377 wrote:
sebi wrote:
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)

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 still think it comes down mainly to common sense and the general feel of the trade. If i have 50 feedback, and someone else has 15 i would feel that I am more than within my right to ask that you send first. I think you should still be able to deal with people who are just starting out, so long as they are willing to send first. If not, then pass on the deal.
In terms of the premium membership, you could make it so people who want to sell have to get premium, although im not sure how that will go over with everyone. It would also pretty much completely eliminate scams from selling, as it would be tied to a paypal account or cc.

Go to forum: Announcements

22 Reply by Amurphcs

(126 replies, posted in Announcements)

As a new user, I think that the financial restrictions are a bit harsh. Many people that I know of are looking to trade individual cards worth anywhere from $20-$50, i.e Dark Confidants, Blood moons, Fetches, etc etc. I would have to make numerous separate trades in order to actually trade up into lets say a Tarmogoyf or Liliana of the Veil.
I get that rep doesnt transfer from say MTGSalvation or Ebay or TCGPlayer etc as a trader/seller, but by putting such stringent boundaries on what I can or cannot trade is more likely to turn me off to this site, and stick with the aforementioned ones where I have enough rep to do whatever I want.
Basically, If you really want to set up some parameters to protect users on your site, I would personally suggest the following:

1) New users should not be allowed to sell any cards on here whatsoever. If they really want to circumvent e-bay fees/tcgplayer fees, then they should just try craigslist or somewhere else.
2) Users who have at least [x] feedback can start selling cards. At the lower end, if you would like to set it up where they have to use some sort of mediation, i.e they send cards to the mediator, payment is sent, mediator sends to buyer, that's fine, but seems extreme.
3) Lower feedback should always send first unless another arrangement is made. People who have higher feedback should assume *some* responsibility if a trade goes south because they decided to simulsend with someone with less than 10 feedback. Sorry, but people should always be wary. New users should understand that they should be sending first, and in turn should try to trade with people who have lets say 25 feedback or more. This way they are trading with people who are established, and can build rep that way, instead of getting ripped off new user to new user. The person who is active on here has more to lose overall with bad rep, so they are more likely not to try to scam a new user.

I always know that I am likely to be sending first. That has never been an issue for me. I usually try to trade with people who have a good amount of feedback, and like to go back to those same people should I want to trade again to build rep that way.
I am not understanding how limiting the financial risk will mitigate the frequency of scams, and I am not understanding how adding things like "must be a member trading for x months" will really help too much. Someone could just make an account, make a few trades, sit on their account, and then start scamming.
It all really comes down to the individual. If I'm not comfortable with how a trade looks, or if there hasn't been a good amount of communication or pictures exchanged etc., then I usually just pass on the trade. A good tool that I use is I tell them to take a picture of the cards, along with a household object or basic lands (since who doesn't have a ton of basics floating around). This way, i can say something along the lines of, "Hey, shoot me a picture of your Gaea's Cradle, with a plains and a mountain in the picture". It's really hard to pull something like that off the internet, and this way I know they have the card in hand.
Overall, there is no good way to stop scamming and ripping, and the best you can hope for is to trust established users to make good trades, new users to understand the rules and regulations, and for everyone to use their common sense. There will always be some amount of scams or rips, as no medium will ever be perfect. It's a fact of life, and if you really want to make a trade that's worth $1000, use a mediator so that there is no question of who has what card, what condition it is in, and if they actually have it in hand.

Go to forum: Announcements

23 Reply by Amurphcs

(2 replies, posted in Trading Post)

I have 4x FNM path to exile, as well as non foil versios from different sets. Also have 1x finks from mm. Im interested in the tarn and could throw in a marsh flats towards it.
Let me know either way.
Thanks!
-Adam

Go to forum: Trading Post