[ Closed ] Request for Comment: Trading restrictions&User levels to promote trust (Page 3 of 6)

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.

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

IMO, no thanks. A restrictive tier system is a bad idea. I want greater access to a larger card pool, and I want the same for everyone, regardless of their trading experience. Level 4s should be able to trade with level 1s, and the same goes for level 1s looking to trade with all other user levels. This site needs to be as open as possible and a small degree of risk is to be expected.

I am, however, open to a verified/non-verified distinction (either by credit card, PayPal, or address), but not to the extent that it limits someone who does not have a credit card or PayPal account.

Full disclosure: I have been trading a mix of high value and lower value cards on the site for some time now with nothing but positive feedback, and as a result I would likely fall into the 4th all-access level.

Last edited by easysantiago (2016-03-16 01:47:25)

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?

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.

Last edited by TechnicolorMage (2016-03-16 05:15:42)

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

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.

For a long time and reliable deckbox user with well over 100 trades with %100 feedback. My highest trade was between $250-$500, and have had lots of sucess. I would be very displeased to be put down to a level 3 with restrictions just because i dont want to donate $10 for a seller account i wouldnt use or purchase premium that i cant currently afford. I have spent a lot of hours building my rep on a person to person basis and would consider it considerable time wasted over the last 3+ years using this site.

1. Agree with everything rfioren said. Preventing established traders from scamming is very difficult and awareness of disputes is one of the best ways to combat this. In the end the threat of mail fraud charges should deter an intelligent person from scamming, but history has proven that this isn't enough so I believe Trader Levels and "verified" status would help. It's also just a neat idea for traders to "level up".

2. I think everyone complaining about potential trade restrictions is being dramatic and it's not likely to affect you that much. Yes there is an opportunity cost to not having unlimited trading bandwidth, but if you're worried about it so much you can get "verified" to level 4 to be unlimited. And if you can't get "verified" because you can't use PayPal then don't blame Deckbox. A "no cost" ($0.01 transaction?) option to link your PayPal to your DB account would be great since people seem to think it will cost them a lot ($5 for premium or just buy/sell a cheap card?) to get "verified".

3. Improve visibility: wherever you see a user name and feedback score you could also see icons showing

• if they're on vacation (clicking on this could give a popup showing return date, if specified),

• if they're premium,

• if they're "Verified",

• and if they're currently involved in any disputes (clicking on this could give a popup showing who initiated the dispute and which type it is).

4. Buyer feedback is as valuable as any other feedback: sure, in most cases the feedback will only show that nothing went wrong (same with most trades and purchases), but there is valuable feedback when anything goes wrong, e.g. "Buyer claims cards never arrived while tracking showed it arrived", "Buyer complained about card condition and was unwilling to resolve the issue", "Buyer takes advantage of the pricing system by buying only cards that are price-spiking". This allows sellers to be proactive and block unwanted buyers. This also rewards users for buying on Deckbox.

5. Expanding feedback as TechnicolorMage describes would be great and has been discussed in the past (couldn't find the thread though).

I'm singling this out as a really really good idea that should probably be independent of all the discussions here.

I think a new system for discouraging scammers is great, but I'm skeptical that a tiered system would accomplish anything. Someone who wants to steal cards could simply do enough low-value trades to climb the ladder, then initiate a bunch of high-value trades, take the cards and run. The barrier would still be too low, and in the meantime you'd prevent new users from using the site for its intended purpose.

Here are a few things that I think would discourage scammers:

- verifying accounts through the use of established addresses, credit cards, however.
- formalizing an escrow system (that'd be a LOT of work though)
- preventing users from having too many trades in progress at once?
- establishing that users with a low or different enough trade record should send first

I disagree with the star-rating idea, the nature of Internet reviews means that most reviews will be either 5-star or 1-star, so it'd be no different from the +1/-1 that already exists.

Would it also limit people doing many low value trades at once ? Like 10 or so 2-15 dollar trades ?