Topic: Dispute handling and new user limitations

Hi Sebi / all,

I wanted to give my feedback on the change to the bad trader resolution tool. Since removing the bad trader forum, I've twice been involved with traders that turned out to be scammers. Both times I was hesitant to approve the trade and was willing to do so only because I insisted they send first. Both times they managed to get a number of other traders to send their cards first or "at the same time". Both times I ultimately reached out to other trade partners this person had going to see if they were having the same problems and/or to warn other traders. I feel like these issues could have been averted or mitigated with a few changes.

1. I liked the bad trader forums - it was a way to see if anyone I was trading with had issues in the past or issues that hadn't yet shown up in negative feedback.
2. People don't leave negative feedback until it's too late. By the time the negative feedback is up, a dozen or more people may have sent cards.

  • I think that it would be helpful if you were able to tell if a trader or potential trader had any "open" support/dispute cases against them, even if I couldn't see them. In the current setup, this is probably the first early warning flag that something is going on. As a rule, I would never send first/the same time if someone had any negatives or any open issues.

  • I also think that new traders (<10 feedback) shouldn't be able to trade above a certain value or have more than X open trades until they reach sufficient feedback. Both times the traders had "100% feedback", but only 2-3 pieces of feedback.

TL:DR We can't stop scammers, but we really should do more to empower traders to know what someone's been up to, and to slow their ability to scam a lot of people in a short period of time.

Last edited by rfioren (2015-07-14 17:52:17)

Re: Dispute handling and new user limitations

I was worried we'd lose visibility on these issues as well.  I frequently read the BTR forums to educate myself on what's going on with other trades and how to avoid problems.

I, also agree that new traders should have to start a little slower.  Making them send first doesn't mean they aren't abusing others.

Last edited by elpablo (2015-07-15 17:14:52)

Re: Dispute handling and new user limitations

elpablo wrote:

I, also agree that new traders should have to start a little slower.  Making them send first doesn't mean they aren't abusing others.

And many of them are also trading with newer traders who don't know the rules, or have approximately the same feedback as the scammer. Someone with 2 positive feedback can force a bunch of 0-feedback people to send first under the existing rules.

Re: Dispute handling and new user limitations

rfioren wrote:

1. I liked the bad trader forums - it was a way to see if anyone I was trading with had issues in the past or issues that hadn't yet shown up in negative feedback.


  • I think that it would be helpful if you were able to tell if a trader or potential trader had any "open" support/dispute cases against them, even if I couldn't see them. In the current setup, this is probably the first early warning flag that something is going on. As a rule, I would never send first/the same time if someone had any negatives or any open issues.

  • I also think that new traders (<10 feedback) shouldn't be able to trade above a certain value or have more than X open trades until they reach sufficient feedback. Both times the traders had "100% feedback", but only 2-3 pieces of feedback.

TL:DR We can't stop scammers, but we really should do more to empower traders to know what someone's been up to, and to slow their ability to scam a lot of people in a short period of time.

So these are points I totally agree with. I have seen it too often where someone with like 2 feedback is starting 10+ trades and offering the same cards in a lot of them. I think it can keep the potential of scamming down.

I also like the idea of flagging someone who has a current open dispute. I used to look at the forum dispute page every time I started  a trade to see if someone had a potential of ripping me off. Well though out post I think.

Re: Dispute handling and new user limitations

Agreed on both points, I think showing that someone has an open dispute is important, and a limitation on new accounts.

Not sure if to limit the number of trades, or the value, or both. Suggestions appreciated!

Re: Dispute handling and new user limitations

sebi wrote:

Not sure if to limit the number of trades, or the value, or both. Suggestions appreciated!

I would vote for both. My suggestion would be 5 trades with a $30 limit, though those can certainly be tweaked if other people think otherwise.

Profile  Tradelist

Re: Dispute handling and new user limitations

sebi wrote:

Agreed on both points, I think showing that someone has an open dispute is important, and a limitation on new accounts.

Not sure if to limit the number of trades, or the value, or both. Suggestions appreciated!

Both probably, although value is more important. If you also implemented something about open disputes, it would be hard for a scammer to steal much if they could only do a couple of trades at a time and the value per trade was limited. By the time the first person flags their account they can only have scammed a small $ amount.

I'm not sure how it would go over across the rest of the users, but setting restrictions may also be more helpful for monetizing the site (not sure how that's going so far, would love to see an update). I doub't a potential scammer would be willing to give their paypal or CC info to you, so using payment as a gate would also keep scammers to lower activity levels.

What about something like you can't have more than N+1 (or 2) open trades at a time where N=current feedback. I might also set guidance, although maybe not a rule, that new traders should complete 5-10 trades with people with 10+ feedback before really going for it. I think the rippers are mostly taking advantage of the newer traders, so getting the newer traders some experience, and keeping the minnows away from the sharks a little bit would be helpful.

Re: Dispute handling and new user limitations

I"m just wondering... without the BTR forum it's hard to know how rampant scamming is.  Whats the meta data?  What percentage of trades at any given time could be considered fraudulent?

We need to make sure it's visible when it happens, but I wonder if we're making it a bigger issue than it really is.

Back on topic, i think some combination of both restrictions is good. 3 Trades seems fine, not sure what a limit should be.  Ratings?  time on deckbox?  It is important however that the the 3 open trades need to be from start to finish and both parties received cards in good order.

I think the flag should be visible near the user name while looking for "trading opportunities", goes for selling cards as well.  And visible when proposing a trade.

Re: Dispute handling and new user limitations

elpablo wrote:

I"m just wondering... without the BTR forum it's hard to know how rampant scamming is.  Whats the meta data?  What percentage of trades at any given time could be considered fraudulent?

We need to make sure it's visible when it happens, but I wonder if we're making it a bigger issue than it really is.

You may be right -- I don't think it's "rampant", but the last two scams that I had a front row seat to seemed to be "big", or rather, bigger than they should have been than I think they should have. Even if most people didn't read the BTR forum (I did), the takeaway I got from these recent scams was that the lag between first possible issue and banned is probably too long.

Sebi - any data or qualatative assessment? Was BTR forum ended because it wasn't effective? wasn't time-effective? or for legal liability issues?

Re: Dispute handling and new user limitations

I also think that new traders (<10 feedback) shouldn't be able to trade above a certain value or have more than X open trades until they reach sufficient feedback. Both times the traders had "100% feedback", but only 2-3 pieces of feedback.

I really disagree on this one. Or at least I think it should be limited to new traders trading with eachother, where the "send first" norms might be fuzzier. A lot of my trades are with new users and I don't want to see them restricted.

I've mentioned this before, but I think that someone should send first in pretty much 100% of trades, high feedback or not. Unless you really need the cards right away it's just a decent insurance mechanism. Not all sketchy traders have low feedback, sadly.

I think the solution here is to just implement some sort of sending rule at the trade stage. Like, one of the parameters of a proposal should be who sends first. For users with low feedback, the default will be for them to send first. If two users with low feedback engage in the trade, the first sender should either be randomized or perhaps it can be the party with fewer open trades.

I also think removing the BTR forum was probably a good idea. I felt like it promoted a lot of drama that strained the community to have fights aired publicly like they were.

Last edited by 9700377 (2015-07-16 19:52:41)

Re: Dispute handling and new user limitations

https://deckbox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=26354

Just want to point out, this is the exact thing that we want to avoid. Only 6 completed trades with 2 positive and 2 negative feed back (the other two have not had feedback left yet). Even though he was caught early-ish, how many of his current in work trades is he scamming people on? By limiting the number of people that you can start a trade with if you have a lower then 15 positive feed back (This is an arbitrary number that I made up) then this might never have happened.

I do for sure see he pros and the cons for this sort of system but I never want to see anyone get scammed and their cards stolen. Without the BRT forum, it is a little harder for people to keep track of who might be scamming or not, so we need t system in place to protect users.

Last edited by valdor (2015-07-23 13:23:02)