[ Closed ] Request for Comment: Trading restrictions&User levels to promote trust (Page 2 of 6)

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.  My friends and family all know to buy me magic cards as gifts when the occasion calls for it.  Then I need to trade down to finish the decks I am building.  I am unable to fit a monthly fee into my budget but have recommended this site to other traders who purchase through deckbox and others who have become premium members.  Plus they can sell the add space for when I am logged on. So just because I am not putting physical dollars into deckbox does not mean I am not helping to support this site.

If you choose to put a higher value on the opinions of those who pay for Premium that is your business but maybe should not be targeting that in a public post.

Last edited by BOOM (2016-03-15 01:18:48)

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.

What if you never do anything but small trades ? Some people regardless of how many trades they do might never reach that amount cap to go up a level .
This sort of system would make it unfair to those who do smaller trades .
Most of the people I trade with have high trade scores now with the system that's being talked about it might not be able to find theverything things I need on this website anymore.

Isn't this idea a bit unfair to honest people with no rating or low rating ?

Perhaps instead of having a dollar amount you have to reach before going up a level making it a trade count instead and not quite as high either. 
I have been on this site a few years now and only done 32 trades and the Grand total of said trades most likely isn't up to 200 dollars so if I read right I would most likely still be stuck in level one and limited to who I could trade with.

Last edited by kathirene89 (2016-03-15 05:52:44)

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.

Just force new users to send first... I've been doing this since the start and have had zero problems with scamming / fraud in over 200 successfully completed trades with 100% positive feedback.

The value cap / inter-level trading restriction seems convoluted and problematic to me.

Also, implying that people who don't want to be premium members don't support Deckbox is ridiculous. Perhaps if the additional features were more appealing, people would sign up.

Last edited by beacon (2016-03-15 09:43:33)

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.

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.

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.

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. Even though I'm not a premium user I support this part of the idea.

Sorry if I offended, did not mean to.

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.

+1

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')

I dislike this whole idea.  Trading restrictions (value and levels), levels, how levels are advanced, all of it.

Levels: L1s can't trade with other L1s.  Wanna trade your Drana, Liberator of Malakir for 2x Cinder Glade?  Tough.  As a user with low feedback who loves janky rares, I'm mostly interested in low-value (which carry an inherently lower risk) trades.  This rule would seriously limit my ability to trade random little junks for other random little junks.

Advancing: Having advancement be tied to the value of cards traded seems bad.  I'm far more likely to be comfortable trading with a dude who has made a dozen $10-15 trades than one who traded away a playset of Aether Vials and a pair of shocks.  A "number of trades or $xx, whichever comes first" threshold makes far more sense.

Value Limits: This feels downright hostile to new users.  I would be disinclined to trade a Magus of the Moon to a Canadian L4 since his $30 price tag would eat up the majority of my L1 limit for a full month.  Did I get lucky and pull an Expedition at draft?  Looks like I can't trade it locally or here.  Sure, I could pay money to get the restriction lifted, but that feels an awful lot like bullying.

Foreign Users: I don't live in the US.  I have no problem trading worldwide since postage is 0.90€, but all trades to North America take about a month to complete (send first, 2 weeks until receipt, 2 weeks until my cards arrive).  It took a while to cross the 5-Trade threshold, and that was without additional limits being set on my ability to trade.  While I heartily recommend Deckbox to my buddies, my recommendation would change to "It's nice for inventory management, but you really have to work to get anything out of the trading system" under the suggested changes.