[ Closed ] Request for Comment: Trading restrictions&User levels to promote trust (Page 4 of 6)

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.

I mean it would not prevent you from trading, a new user would simply need to wait for his cards to get to destination before opening new trades for other cards. For national trades this would be 2-3 workdays usually, no?

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?

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?

Last edited by Amurphcs (2016-03-17 17:49:20)

Capping the number of open trades seems bad for trans-Atlantic traders.  Yes, it does only take 2-3 days for national trades, but I don't think very many people outside of the US are trading primarily with their countrymen.  Much like the proposed $50 limit, I would end up spending a lot of time just sitting on my hands waiting for my cards to reach Florida.  Capping the number of open trades also feels like it would lead to a drop in courtesy.  For example, Easter is coming up.  I'm not sure how it is in other countries, but things shut down for four days here in Germany.  It's a good excuse to travel abroad, or maybe just visit your grandma out in the country.  Currently, if a trading partner was like "Hey man, I'm going to be away for five days, is it okay if we pick our trade back up then?" I would have absolutely no problem with letting it sit.  With a 3-trades cap, I would be encouraged to cancel the trade in order to keep my slots open.  Sure, canceling a trade isn't a hostile action, but it still feels unpleasant when both parties are keen on said trade and will likely lead to fewer trades overall.

Well at this point, I think a majority of people are against potential rule as is stands. I am perfectly wiling to go with the will of the people.

So long-time traders no longer are allowed to trade over $250 unless they give you their credit card information?

I'm not cool with this.

The idea of having to trade a bunch of <50 dollar trades initially feels kind of onerous to me, when so much of my desirable trades is made up of duals, zendikar fetches and legacy staples.

I'd suggest a limit on number of concurrent trades as an option alternative to dollar amount.

ok I am going to comment based on what I am reading as I read it so if it get jumbled, I apologize.

First, I don't like the dollar limit on any tier. I think perhaps a limit on the active number of trades is a good idea. if a new trader has a goyf and wants my cards, I don't think it is fair to prevent that. the tracking and sending first helps prevent scammers at first.

second, I like the idea of enforcing the person with fewer confirmed trades to send first. However, if an experienced user is not doing this already, shame on them. I have only had one problem with a new user and I feel bad for him, however he chose not to use tracking and did improper packaging so it's not my problem. I do disagree with making it a lower sends first in all cases. I am close to 400 trades now and why would I want someone with 300 trades at 100% positive feedback to send first. doesn't make sense. I think there should be a cap at tier 1 as 20 trades and tier 2 as 50 trades.

third, having a credit card on file is not an option for me. I use paypal expressly for that reason. there have been way too many security breaches to start giving out my credit card number to every site I use.

forth @Zyron, I personally have 2 accounts. I manage them for different purposes and also (before premium) traded to myself to move cards from one account to the other. I also have noted on my profiles that the other account exists. If someone was to try to do some shady things by "trading" between accounts they created, that is of course a bad thing. I personally check the references for anyone under 30 confirmed trades to see who they have been trading with to ensure nothing shady is going on. I also check the "member since" to see if the shady things mentioned above could be happening.

fifth, if anyone is doing a thousand dollar+ trade and are not using a third party for the exchange or meeting in a populated place, then sucks to be you. this only makes good trading sense. many local gaming stores are happy to do the exchange. I see comment about a mediator. I for one think that is a great idea. this site could leverage willing traders with high trades counts as mediators for high value trades. there would be extra expense (to the senders buy sending postage value to the mediator's paypal) and time delays but as long as the mediator is verified through their address and paypal, this is a great alternative.

sixth @Amurpcs, stopping new users from selling is not a good business idea. the fact that sebi enforces people to use paypal, adds the security that is needed for buyers. they can do a chargeback through ebay if needed.

seventh @AuspSqueeky, always leave accurate feedback even if it is negative/neutral. if your trading partner does leave retaliatory feedback, open a ticket and sebi will reverse it. I have had experience with this. dude was pissed because I wouldn't take a different edition of the card worth 25% less than what he promised. left me negative feedback saying "trader is too picky". sebi reversed it to neutral feedback which is appropriate. Although sebi, I have asked in the past and would like to state it again. keeping feedback hidden until both parties have left it, is a wonderful idea!

eighth, I like TechnicolorMage's idea on expanding the feedback option. I have to say that at least 1/3 of my trades have come in with a problem (ie wrong set, bad condition, missing card, etc). most traders are very quickly fix the problem but sometimes it isn't worth the hassle for a 10c card. for those of us who have collections of playsets this would be a great way to give a lower score for the issue but still leave positive feedback.

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.

tenth, I talked about it above but I cant find it now. I think that limiting new users to current trades in route is a better idea than a dollar cap. I think that 3 is too low though and that 10 would be my max until they hit the next tier.

tenth @sebi, I think this site is amazing and I consistently tell everyone at my LGS how awesome it is! thank you for an RFC on such a big issue as this.

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.

This blows and actually brings up another issue I want to raise:

I would like to be able to remove my feedback IF another user does not leave feedback for me.

I'm tired to chasing people down for feedback.

This type of crap needs to stop, there was nothing wrong with this trade. We simuled, mine arrived first - my card was mint. His arrived, cards were mint, everyone happy. I leave feedback, he doesn't. Hogwash.
UPDATE: Feedback left!
Give me the power to remove my feedback, maybe then, he will pay attention to the messages I am sending him.  If you are afraid of abuse of system, then let us message an admin/moderator to remove the feedback for us.

This isn't the first time I have had to chase someone down for feedback but it would be nice if it were the last time under this type of system.

Last edited by TechnicolorMage (2016-03-22 10:35:24)