I agree with the negative rating. Deckbox in my opinion is way too lenient. Why is there even an option for a negative rating if a negative rating essentially gets you labeled a scam artist? The neutral rating is very very deceiving, you can see someone with 144 completed trades and 100% feedback, but if you take the time to look they have tons of neutral feedback for problems because "we can't leave negative feedback." I don't want it to be ebay, but still it seems like 1 negative and you are kicked off deckbox, making it impossible to notify others of questionable behavior.

drnaturalist wrote:I agree with the negative rating. Deckbox in my opinion is way too lenient. Why is there even an option for a negative rating if a negative rating essentially gets you labeled a scam artist? The neutral rating is very very deceiving, you can see someone with 144 completed trades and 100% feedback, but if you take the time to look they have tons of neutral feedback for problems because "we can't leave negative feedback." I don't want it to be ebay, but still it seems like 1 negative and you are kicked off deckbox, making it impossible to notify others of questionable behavior.

This is something to ponder. Someone's experience with a trader may be negative without it being due to a fraudulent trade transaction.

At one point, it was suggested that a reason code be required for negative feedback (e.g., didn't communicate, did not ship as agreed)--something out of a drop down list. It might be worth re-visiting the idea.

The BTR area can lead to a user account being flagged, or a user being banned. That's certainly worse than a negative feedback score. On Ebay, if you get negative feedback, you have the ability to post a response. They knew the system wouldn't be perfect. In the end, we need to decide how much we trust the other party based on the experiences that get reported.

BaronVonVaderham wrote:Ok I went digging through my trash to find it. For the record, I don't think it should be this difficult to get permission to leave negative feedback when the other party freely acknowledges he didn't send the cards the first time he claimed to do so.

This how it would be if you traded on any other site. There needs to be a process in making sure that Negative Feedback is actually warranted based on the evidence given to the Mods so people can actually know that the Negative Feedback was deserved. Trade reputation is the most important way to gauge a person's honest and so its the thing that needs to be most considered and monitored so people dont just go giving Negative feedback for their own interpretation of the rules. Thats why having the BTRs are good because it gives both Parties and a chance to speak their part and have a biased party decide the outcome. If leaving Negative feedback was just left after the trade was completed, it wouldnt mean as much because other people can still have or have had good dealings in the past with a person.

In this case Im not saying negative feedback shouldnt be given, but just like in court, there is always a Due Process to make sure the correct verdict is the right verdict

Helios52 wrote:

BaronVonVaderham wrote:Ok I went digging through my trash to find it. For the record, I don't think it should be this difficult to get permission to leave negative feedback when the other party freely acknowledges he didn't send the cards the first time he claimed to do so.

This how it would be if you traded on any other site. There needs to be a process in making sure that Negative Feedback is actually warranted based on the evidence given to the Mods so people can actually know that the Negative Feedback was deserved. Trade reputation is the most important way to gauge a person's honest and so its the thing that needs to be most considered and monitored so people dont just go giving Negative feedback for their own interpretation of the rules. Thats why having the BTRs are good because it gives both Parties and a chance to speak their part and have a biased party decide the outcome. If leaving Negative feedback was just left after the trade was completed, it wouldnt mean as much because other people can still have or have had good dealings in the past with a person.

In this case Im not saying negative feedback shouldnt be given, but just like in court, there is always a Due Process to make sure the correct verdict is the right verdict

Understandable in general, I agree...but in this instance there is free admission that the cards were never sent on multiple occasions where it was claimed that they were. There's clear evidence in the chat log that this trader was dishonest about shipping and never mentioned the poor condition of his cards....it seems ridiculous to have to dig through garbage for an envelope on top of that.

BaronVonVaderham wrote:

Helios52 wrote:

BaronVonVaderham wrote:Ok I went digging through my trash to find it. For the record, I don't think it should be this difficult to get permission to leave negative feedback when the other party freely acknowledges he didn't send the cards the first time he claimed to do so.

This how it would be if you traded on any other site. There needs to be a process in making sure that Negative Feedback is actually warranted based on the evidence given to the Mods so people can actually know that the Negative Feedback was deserved. Trade reputation is the most important way to gauge a person's honest and so its the thing that needs to be most considered and monitored so people dont just go giving Negative feedback for their own interpretation of the rules. Thats why having the BTRs are good because it gives both Parties and a chance to speak their part and have a biased party decide the outcome. If leaving Negative feedback was just left after the trade was completed, it wouldnt mean as much because other people can still have or have had good dealings in the past with a person.

In this case Im not saying negative feedback shouldnt be given, but just like in court, there is always a Due Process to make sure the correct verdict is the right verdict

Understandable in general, I agree...but in this instance there is free admission that the cards were never sent on multiple occasions where it was claimed that they were. There's clear evidence in the chat log that this trader was dishonest about shipping and never mentioned the poor condition of his cards....it seems ridiculous to have to dig through garbage for an envelope on top of that.

True enough, but even in Court and the defendant willing admits to killing someone, they dont just put them in Jail and throw away the key. They still go through the processes (albeit faster than if he denied it) before the case is closed.

Also Im just saying this all as a general statement to everyone who has an issue with how BTRs are handled not just you. Ive seen alot of posts about it recently so Im just making a point.

Do we have a volunteer to be judge and jury? Sure it would be great to have due process, but does it always lead to the right verdict? Look at all the bad trading reports, it's always a misunderstand or something and no negative feedback can be left. Again what's the point of having the option to leave negative feedback if it gets wiped the the BTR? If it took 2 months to get cards, sure they "completed" the trade, but mean while you lost out on 2 months of time playing the cards you send, trading the cards you sent, playing with the cards you should have received ect. I want to trust all the traders, but when I get cards that are claimed to be near mint and get something like this
http://i.imgur.com/PdwUi.jpg it is way more difficult to get the other trader to acknowledge that it's not near mint, and the hassles in get 4 bucks in trade value is not worth it. I'm not in this game to make money, but it's easier to unload a near mint Iona than a moderate play one and some 4 dollar card should I choose to sell or trade. The site clearly states that "Under no circumstances should you give negative feedback if: 1) you received communication from the other party and 2) you received the cards in the condition that you expected them to be in. Please use the text box provided to note excessively slow shipping." So in theory, they can communicate with you for 6 months, wait till post rotation, then buy the card on the cheap and then mail out to you and you won't be able to leave negative feedback. I am exaggerating a bit, but I hope somebody volunteers to oversee negative feedback, or have a drop down menu for negative feedback OR make neutral feedback more accessible on the main page since it is the best way to rate a trader in my opinion.

It is my belief that you give people/traders all the information possible, and let them decide whether they want to conduct trades with somebody with a shaky reputation/card grader or someone who has multiple post office issues. From my experience hearing you all, is that 1 trade gets lost in the mail every blue moon. When 1 person shows a history, either there is terrible luck or the person is being dishonest. There must be a better way at informing even the casual trader of these issues. When I first started trading I only looked at the positive feedback and number of trades completed, which I mentioned could be misleading...

drnaturalist wrote:Do we have a volunteer to be judge and jury? Sure it would be great to have due process, but does it always lead to the right verdict? Look at all the bad trading reports, it's always a misunderstand or something and no negative feedback can be left. Again what's the point of having the option to leave negative feedback if it gets wiped the the BTR? If it took 2 months to get cards, sure they "completed" the trade, but mean while you lost out on 2 months of time playing the cards you send, trading the cards you sent, playing with the cards you should have received ect. I want to trust all the traders, but when I get cards that are claimed to be near mint and get something like this
http://imgur.com/JzKI2Q9, it is way more difficult to get the other trader to acknowledge that it's not near mint, and the hassles in get 4 bucks in trade value is not worth it. I'm not in this game to make money, but it's easier to unload a near mint Iona than a moderate play one and some 4 dollar card should I choose to sell or trade. The site clearly states that "Under no circumstances should you give negative feedback if: 1) you received communication from the other party and 2) you received the cards in the condition that you expected them to be in. Please use the text box provided to note excessively slow shipping." So in theory, they can communicate with you for 6 months, wait till post rotation, then buy the card on the cheap and then mail out to you and you won't be able to leave negative feedback. I am exaggerating a bit, but I hope somebody volunteers to oversee negative feedback, or have a drop down menu for negative feedback OR make neutral feedback more accessible on the main page since it is the best way to rate a trader in my opinion.

Thats the job you take as Mod for a service such as this. They are the Judge, Jury and Executioner and by clicking the "I accept" button before each trade, you agree to abide by the rules of the site and those who "govern" it.

There have been plenty of trades where permission to give Negative Feedback was given and theres also been plenty where it wasnt needed. A BTR shouldnt have to immediately translate to Negative feedback is all Im saying.

Again Im not advocating that this person shouldnt get Negative Feedback but its just like any other site that you would trade on that you need to get permission to leave Negative Feedback otherwise you can get Negative Feedback yourself for not following the rules.

I never believe any system is perfect. There is an obvious flaw here, which must be addressed. I agree by the rules, but I don't expect them to be set in stone and immutable. No system should be, my way or the highway.

There have been various discussions popping up on various Bad trading report threads about the process itself.

As the BTR threads are supposed to only contain discussion strictly relevant to the case, so that all people involved can freely discuss the case at hand, I moved the posts here.

Looking forward to your comments on this topic.

The initial thread that prompted the posts below was this: http://deckbox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=6665

My 2 cents below, along with a bit of history.

The judge and jury

The trade system is implemented and online for at least 2 years now. Before the BTR system we also had rules that were more vague and open to interpretation, and no public discussion on disputes.

There still were disputes of course, and we still handled them, only it happened over email. People sent us email that they were scammed, or lied to, or that they received negative feedback when they did not deserve it. We then tried to answer and help them as best we could. We also emailed the accused party to ask them if the claims are true, and so forth.

The whole process was "behind the scenes" though, other users were not aware of what the site does when they would lie, or when they would be lied to. So we took the example of other big trading platforms, and we moved the whole discussion on the forum, so everyone can see and comment on what happens.

This of course came with stricter rules, because our former vague rules were being criticised and misinterpreted, leading to convoluted discussion.

Negative feedback

The problem with negative feedback is that it works both ways. If everyone is allowed to leave negative feedback, the aforementioned BTR would have worked the following way:

- BaronVonVaderham and Almundjoys would have left negative feedback to ieatoburritos
- ieatoburritos would have left retaliatory negative feedback to BaronVonVaderham and Almundjoys
- now we would get an email to support@deckbox.org that Baron/Almundjoys received negative feedback but they did not deserve it
- a whole discussion would start on email with us trying to understand what happened and who is screwing over who
- after many hours of wasted time for many people, we would come to the same conclusion as the aforementioned BTR
- the whole thing would start again with other people after a few days because they just left negative feedback not caring about rules, because they did not know those rules are enforced


Evidence

We're now at the beginning of this new system and we're trying our best to learn how it's done. We're not always sure what the right decision should be. Thus we err on the side of caution, and we ask for as much evidence as possible, so as not to make the wrong accusations.

In this case we might have gone too far. I personally knew ieatoburritos deserves negative feedback from the first post in the thread. The other 25.000 users on deckbox though, did not. They have to see what I see in the end, and have to trust that we make people stand by their claims with hard evidence. People lie about dates on envelopes all the time, even though in this case it was pretty obvious you guys had no reason to.

We definitely did not want to make you go through trash to find the envelope BaronVonVaderham. I'm sorry it has come to that. We will try in the future to expedite decisions on obvious cases, and not make people provide excessive proof.


Thank you for the feedback so far and looking forward to reading your opinions on these things.

Sebi,

You and the other members of the Deckbox team have done a great job restructuring the trading practices and guidelines to make it easier and safer to resolve disputes.

My main point regarding all of this is that people need to understand that this model of trading online is how it works any where else you might try and trade, be MTGSalvation or MOTL. These are the sites that are considered to be stable and reliable places to discuss trades and complete deals. Its pretty much been proven that how the system was before wasnt really working because there really was no structure in how to handle a dispute. As you said it was very "behind the scenes", with emails that no one aside from the affected parties and Mods would see. So people would be willing trading with people that were actually scamming others.

There are couple suggestions that I would make that I know exist else where to help in the processes.

1. I dont know if its actually possible to actually block a person's trading ability, but thats something that should be done. If you are the person who has OPEN BTR against you, you shouldnt be able to make a trade at all, almost locking their profile. Im not sure if it was just something missed in the case that started this discussion but ieatburritos didnt have any notice on their profile and even attempted to setup a new deal for a new one.

2. Restrict the BTR to just those who are involved in it directly ie. The accused, accuser and a mod. Thats it. Sure people are allowed their opinions but when people start posting in a BTR that they have never traded with either party involved or have their own issue, it only starts to make a problem bigger and clouding judgement on those who should be making the decisions. I know I myself am guilty of doing this but it was more to make a point in general than to share my opinion about the open case. Perhaps it would be a good idea to include a poll in some cases where people can anonymously vote on a possible verdict if people want to have a the judge and jury type scenario but that might only serve to lengthen the process of closing the case.

3. Something to consider in the future could be "marks" or "infractions" for people instead of just the straight Postive/Negative feedback. Just 1 Negative Feedback effectively brands you a bad trader and puts a mark on you that cannot remove. These would only remain noted on a profile temporarily and as long a person doesnt accrue more they could be removed and a person's reputation wouldnt suffer. This is probably something that would need alot more fine tuning and restructuring in and of itself but just throwing the idea out.

While your partner's lack of communication is troublesome, do keep in mind that two to three weeks is not out of the ordinary for USPS mail delivery. If sent on the date listed (4/19), then only a week and a half have passed. Some additional time may be needed...

No offense, but why do you feel the need to post on ever BTR thread HikingStick? Especially when 1) you didn't seem to read what I wrote and 2) you provide what I find to be incorrect information.

As I said above, he would have shipped Monday, April 22 based on what he said. Am I supposed to just assume he has shipped even without hitting the "I have sent my cards" button? That's kind of a silly assumption to make.

I have NEVER had USPS mail take two to three weeks within the US and I have completed over 3 times the amount of trades you have. This means I have shipped and received almost 250 more card packages than you, none of which take more than a week via USPS. California <-> Colorado has been especially fast and always within two days of the postmarked date. This is not a matter of him shipping and me not receiving.

Also, I just read what you wrote on Luminaxe's BTR. You are even incorrect there... You CAN see if people have swapped addresses based on their trade page. Why do you also assume that Luminaxe needs directions on how a BTR works? He obviously knew exactly what he wanted and just wanted approval of the topic. You don't need to chime in when you don't provide anything and even provide incorrect information.

sebi, Catinca - can we hold the MOTL rules in place here of:

Recently, there have been a LOT of people posting nonsense and such on BTA threads. You are NOT to post on a BTA thread unless:
A) You posted the person.
B) You are the person posted.
C) You are someone else who has an unresolved trading problem with the person posted.
D) You are a person pointing out a rules violation, or the need for evidence.

If you are not one of these four things, you will be warned for posting.

I think this would prevent unnecessary chaff that goes into these discussions sometimes.

Review the guidelines on how much time should be allowed to pass before posting a BTR. Sebi and I communicated via email on various drafts of the updated rules before they were posted.

I'm glad you've had no trouble with the USPS. I have had packages take three weeks to arrive (within the US) because they got shipped to the other side of the country first, and that's within the past few months. I shipped to California with tracking, and after my local post office logged it as in transit, the reporting went silent for about two weeks. Then, as I was preparing to send replacement cards, the status was updated that they were in Boston. After showing up in Boston, they finally got to California a few days later. Sometimes things happen (USPS first class mail does not guarantee delivery).

I post only as a moderator and community member who hopes that patience will prevail before BTR mitigation is necessary. I'm sorry if my involvement has offended your sensibilities.

Sure, do you want to review the trade guidelines yourself, or maybe just read what was even posted? I accepted the trade after agreeing to the shipping order on April 16, two weeks ago. As per the trading rules, we allow two weeks for delivery, which this trade has been accepted with no progress in two weeks. I can't really wait for delivery when nothing get marked as shipped, so a two week window for this trade is what I gave.

Are you saying you are a moderator because you're marked as one on the forum? Anyone who starts their own group is a "moderator" then. This seems like you trying to misattribute your own "power" that you are making yourself out to have when in reality, you don't have any. If you were an actual moderator of anything on deckbox, you should be able to resolve problems. Or, maybe at the very bare minimum, know how this website works (seriously, how did you not know you can see if people swapped addresses?).

Patience to me is waiting a two week window and over a week and a half for any communication from a trading partner. I feel at this point I have given them ample time to respond.

Let's calm down a little bit here and wait for an official response from someone. There's no need for harsh talk.

Actinide wrote:Are you saying you are a moderator because you're marked as one on the forum? Anyone who starts their own group is a "moderator" then. This seems like you trying to misattribute your own "power" that you are making yourself out to have when in reality, you don't have any. If you were an actual moderator of anything on deckbox, you should be able to resolve problems. Or, maybe at the very bare minimum, know how this website works (seriously, how did you not know you can see if people swapped addresses?).

As far as this is concerned, there are a small number of us on Deckbox that are actually assigned as real moderators throughout the forum, not just because of starting a group; HikingStick and myself are included in that.

That being said, being appointed to moderate the forums is entirely different than knowing the website from top-to-bottom. Not everybody understands how everything works, even if they use it on a daily basis. Especially the less intuitive and not as obvious items.

They should give you guys a different designation than the regular "Moderators" of groups then, because "Moderator" just doesn't carry any weight when anyone can have that title assigned to them, officially or not.

As for when he called himself a moderator, it sure seemed like he was implying he is more than moderator of the forums, otherwise why even bring that up? I also don't see how seeing a house symbol that is faded vs. a house symbol that is filled is not obvious or intuitive, but whatever.

I'm fine with waiting for an official response, but I don't need HikingStick trying to tell me I didn't read the guidelines when I obviously posted within the guidelines. He isn't helping anything when he makes his posts on here.

I have moved the discussion from http://deckbox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=8900 here.

The observation that some people are strictly moderators in their own community and others have powers over most of the forum has been noted, and we shall probably change the way that is displayed.

Also it has been noted that people would like less off-topic conversations in the BTRs and I kind of agree, only I'm not sure if we should enforce that drastically or not yet. We're thinking about it. We will definitely move multiple-post discussions out of there if they're not relevant to that specific case (like now).

Last but not least, HikingStick offered a friendly opinion / advice for you Actinide, in a tone that was not at all commanding or accusing. So I think your aggresivity is not warranted in any way.

Moderators are moderators because they help us and most of all they help other users with information and advice. I personally think they do a great job at that and that many people are grateful for it.

Let's keept it friendly.

sebi wrote: Also it has been noted that people would like less off-topic conversations in the BTRs and I kind of agree, only I'm not sure if we should enforce that drastically or not yet. We're thinking about it. We will definitely move multiple-post discussions out of there if they're not relevant to that specific case (like now).

I know that I do my able best not to interfere with the BTRs as I know how much it would bother me if everyone else wanted to give their two cents on any dispute I would have. I'll chime in if people need to post stuff that they've forgotten, but otherwise I try to mind my own business.

That aside, I'm curious whether there need to be restrictions regarding who can comment. On the one hand, I can see where it would prevent situations from getting heated. But on the other, perhaps someone, like HikingStick in the case that resulted in things being moved here, can offer some perspective that helps to resolve an issue or otherwise diffuse the situation. Personally I think it should be limited in the sense that someone monitors the BTRs more closely to ensure that things don't get out of hand or stray too far off topic.

In that vein, given that Sebi and Catinca are doing ALL of the site's maintenance, updates, and the like, would it maybe make sense to name someone to be "in charge" of the BTRs? I know that you guys do the best you can to handle things in a timely manner, but some of these things sit for a few days and tempers flare (the recent BTR between fairportmagic and NickTheSushi comes to mind as an example). What are peoples' thoughts about a moderator or two being named "BTR Czars" or something like that to assist in managing/resolving the BTRs? I feel like most of the BTRs we're seeing are pretty simple to resolve, as they require an e-mail to the offending party, a grace period for him/her to respond, and then some sort of punitive measure which would then be referred to the admins anyway.

Lastly, I have to really question our treatment of negative ratings in such a revered light. I definitely understand how the tit-for-tat negative feedbacks would work, but why not simply prevent the feedback from showing to the other party until the entire trade is completed and feedback is left on both sides? Personally, I've been fortunate not to have any real issues with negative feedback, but what is the point of negative feedback if you have to file a BTR and most of those end up with people being banned or listed as scammers? I think the negative feedback should be, within reason, the slightly lesser punishment for a trade gone sour (whether the person is just being a dick, lies about card condition, etc). Then people wouldn't simply abandon their accounts to create a new one in the event of negative feedback. For instance, if someone says they're going to mail something but don't mail it until a week after promised. They still upheld their end of the bargain, although at an inconvenience to their trade partner. This should warrant a negative feedback point, but I don't think it needs everyone to get involved for a BTR. If this is the case, we should REQUIRE that people provide a 2-3 sentence explanation for WHY they left negative feedback, which future traders can then see. In extreme cases, these disputes could be taken to a BTR, but I think we've gone and complicated the system to the point that BTRs and negative feedback are increasingly difficult to separate. Further, it's taking an increasing amount of time and effort to arbitrate all these disputes which I'm sure Sebi and Catinca would likely enjoy not reading transcripts and dealing with people arguing.

I mostly responded the way I did to HikingStick's comments because I honestly felt like he didn't even read what I wrote. If people want to respond with their opinions and comments, I hope that they would at least read what I had initially written.

He assumed that my partner had shipped and on the 19th, when clearly my trade partner said he was going to ship on the following Monday, the 22nd and as far as I know, had not shipped yet based on not hitting the "I have sent my cards" button. It's one thing to want to chime in on a topic, it's another to entirely skim over a post and make assumptions that just aren't there. Similarly, when he wanted to lecture me on reading the BTR guidelines, I had clearly posted within the rules and waited two weeks post-acceptance (once again, because I cannot wait two weeks post-shipment if shipment never occurs).


---


As for TyWoo's comments, I agree with him on having some "BTR Czars". sebi and Catinca do a lot of work for this site and could probably appoint a few people to help out. The BTRs on MOTL for example are run by 5 moderators/admin, giving quick responses even when one or two mods are bogged down by other obligations. I don't expect sebi and Catinca to be able to respond to everything super quickly, given that I'm sure they have tons more on their plate. I think the best idea would be to have a small moderator community made up of members that have high trading reputation and are highly active that can start directing the discussion to resolution or just send out the basic emails. I think in this situation, sebi and Catinca should still have the final say in any trade resolution (when it's not something simple, like someone just didn't respond and gets left negative feedback).

As for the negative feedback, I think Neutral feedback does a lot of the work instead of Negative here. If someone is a dick or ships late, I think you can note that with Neutral feedback. I personally check people's feedback whenever I'm about to initiate a trade to look for details like that and think most other members would too.

Personally, I really like the way Deckbox admins handles BTR and negative feedback.

By the current system, people with negative feedback deserve it without any doubt. I don't think people should be able to leave negative feedback just because a trader is "being a dick". People are often too quick to leave negatives. That would lessen the severity of a negative and muddy the difference between a poor trader and a scammer. For example, right now if I see a trader with over 30 feedback and has only 80% positive feedback, I will know to avoid him because someone trustworthy (Sebi, Catinca) have approved negatives. But if people can leave negative feedback whenever they want, then I won't be able to tell the difference between traders who actually try to scam people or if the trader was just being inconsiderate.

If they are inconsiderate traders, I would rather leave them neutral feedback with a warning to other traders. Since only time was lost, I believe a neutral would suffice. This is because no value was lost despite having a less than positive experience. I prefer negatives to mean that other traders had lost value dealing with him. This would also work a lot better if we can see how many neutral feedback (or % of neutrals) a trader has received.

I have two reasons for thinking that it should be easier to allowing negative feedback

1) Then newer users aren't left trying to differentiate between neutral and negative feedback.

Imagine for a moment that you're someone brand new to the game, much less to Deckbox. You're just starting to go out and trade online. Are you really going to go read up to discover that neutral feedback really means that the person isn't an optimal trader? You could easily end up getting stuck dealing with someone who would just leave a nasty taste in your mouth and will dissuade you from trading on here entirely. Normally in these cases I would be all in favor of neutral feedback here, pending that people ACTUALLY FILL THE COMMENTS FIELD IN. But let's be honest here, the majority of people don't really leave anything meaningful in the comments field. As such, the new user is at a disadvantage.

2) Allowing people to leave negative feedback will provide extra incentive for users to actually follow through with their agreements in a prompt, courteous manner.

Again, this has to do with the ambiguity of neutral feedback. If I'm a trader, I can be dismissive, or in some cases, outright insulting to someone else without any fear of any sort of punishment. If you can leave a negative feedback, it records that your trading partner did offer a pleasurable trading experience, and those "dick" traders would be identified and encouraged to modify their behavior. It might seem silly, but let's be honest, we all know at least one person in real life that is often at our LGS that we just do NOT want to deal with because they're condescending, offensive, insensitive, or *insert other bad thing here.* Presumably, you're not about to trade with that person. Yet on here, because of the limited number of interactions, nothing is really there to help us see who is just, for lack of a better way to say it, being an asshole.

Now, before everyone thinks I'm all about giving everyone negative feedback, remember what I suggested. In order to leave negative feedback the person would be REQUIRED to enter something into the comments field to explain their grievance with the trader and reason for negative feedback. Those reasons could then be evaluated by the "BTR Czars" to discern whether the situation really warrants a negative rating or is just someone being petty. This then frees up the REAL BTRs for cases where someone is a scammer or something worthy of a ban, as opposed to someone being lazy, or otherwise an ass.

Let's also keep in mind that I'm just spitballing here, but I just don't see the need for positive, neutral, and negative ratings when, in reality, you either had a good experience or a bad one. As a social scientist (getting my PhD within the month), I can openly say that adding the neutral category is just introducing measurement error ;)

Good arguments on all sides.

The "feedback levels" right now represent in my mind (possible the help pages should be updated):

Neutral: a poor experience with a trader, that might be subjective or not, that caused a bad communication, slight delays, a bit of stress, but in the end was resolved without loss of value or too much aggressive fighting. We don't interfere with these, you can say what you want, if you think you don't deserve it we won't do anything about it anyway. This does not influence your positive trade percentage at all.

Negative: a very poor experience. Whoever receives this would be aggresive, dishonest, using obscene language and threats. Other people with negative ignore their trading partner, ignore the admin emails and are generally unreliable. There is still no material loss here, no cards stolen.


The problem in the past when we were not 'policing' feedback was that some people leave negative out of spite, they lie about it, and do things to mess up trade histories of good and honest traders. We did not really want to get involved in these kinds of discussions, but the truth is it brings down the value of the community and pisses off honest people. And we should protect those kinds of people for the community to foster.

While we did not police feedback, we still got emails to support@deckbox.org from people receiving unfair negative feedback. So we still had to do an investigation and judge the situation, only it happened behind the scenes. And while some people did send us emails about it, and we solved it, others when getting to score +4 -1 after 5 trades, for no reason, and just left the site. So it seemed like an official process was needed, as negative feedback is (for good reason) regarded as an important indicator.


Maybe we should clarify to people that although there are stricter rules for negative feedback, it does not mean that person is a scammer or a thief. (If he's a scammer he will be flagged as one and banned). It just means that one particular trade did no go smooth and he was difficult to talk to.

It seems there needs to be some meaning to getting Neutral feedback. Im kinda thinking out loud as I type this but what about something like this...

Giving people "infractions" or "marks" to their profile. Think of the infraction as being somewhere between Negative and Neutral feedback. Instead of giving the other user negative feedback, you give them a "mark" on their profile denoting an issue with a previous trade/current trade. Should a person receive 3 infractions, they are placed on "Notice".

Being placed on "Notice" means that the "marked" person would be required to send first regardless of Rep or Feedback score in order to start and complete ANY future trades. Once the "marked" person's cards are received in a promptly order with good communication and condition as described the other person is free to send his/her cards to complete the trade. Once the "marked" user completes 5 successful trades with no further issues from those they traded with, they are taken off "Notice" and their marks are removed.

Now why this over negative feedback?

(New Users) - If Im a new user to trading online (we all were at some point) your already at the bottom of the food chain in regards to getting trades started. You usually have to start with small trades to show your not there to scam them when you want to make an offer for something higher end or worth more. You want your first trades to go smoothly so you can improve your score and move up the ladder. Giving a person like this (or the user in Actinide's BTR) effectively brands them and basically makes them start over in building their rep. Now everyone has their own story about why cards were late or this or that so I cant speak for why Actinide didnt get his half yet but this idea would be an effective warning to him/her that they can't take 2 weeks to send cards unless things were agreed differently.

(Mid Level Users) - These are the people who fall under the " have completed enough trades " area to be able to ask others to send first or send same time. People want cards fast and if your planning on not taking your time to follow the rules and complete the trade in a timely manner, you'll have to start from square one in order to re -establish your credentials if you get too many marks and learn a lesson.

(Trusted Users) - If you've done more than a successful 50 trades, its a good bet you know what your doing. Its pretty much assumed that you know rules and you are the one who usually the people who have no rep or feedback will trust and send first with no issue. There for it falls on you to show how quick and easy trading like this should be and if there is an issue, being able to resolve it without even needing a BTR. Also its a matter of respect between other traders in general that they show the same when dealing with the cards being traded for and away. I sure as hell wouldnt want get 3 "marks" and have my hard earned reputation count for nothing.

Obviously this is a flawed system in some respects but it could hurt to atleast have it out there to discuss and change for the better.

Recently I suggested having BTR Mods was a good idea. Im DEF not suggesting that Sebi and Catinca just relinquish their power to "mod" the BTRs but if there are people like HikingStick or NullParameter who are pretty active on many of the threads, who you guys trust in the Forum as well Deckbox in general, than I dont see an issue with just giving them the power to "Mod" a BTR. Like TyWoo said, the longer a BTR stays unanswered and unresolved, the higher the tempers will rise from those people who are already pissed about something that went wrong in their trade. To run a site like this I know is no easy feat and there are usually alot of other things that that need to be fixed/updated/tested/reset to keep going effectively and when you add in having to listen and sort out people's problems it can be a very daunting task.

We have decided to start applying some of the suggestions.

1. All members who are moderators only in thir subcommunity forum are now marked as Community Admin instead of Moderator. We now have a handful of people marked as Moderator, and Laura, Catinca and myself marked as Deckbox Team.

2. I have updated the BTR posting rules http://deckbox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=31533#p31533 . We will now forbid people to post in BTR threads unless they have important, relevant information about the case being discussed. Moderators and Deckbox Team are extempt from this rule.

Modertors can delete posts that are against the rules at any point on BTRs, or to ask BTR submitters to fix their sumissions according to the rules, offer suggestions or corrections.

For now we will keep the Deckbox Team members as being the only people to actually "bold-post" with official requests and resolutions on BTR threads. We will be discussing this though. We appreciate everyone offering to help with this, and will be considering widening the number of people responsible, but for now we'll do it ourselves.

Please keep the discussion going, if people have further suggestions do not hesitate to discuss them here. We'll be reading!

+1 sebi. Thanks always for your work.

Actinide wrote:+1 sebi. Thanks always for your work.

Seconded :)

sebi wrote:We have decided to start applying some of the suggestions.

1. All members who are moderators only in thir subcommunity forum are now marked as Community Admin instead of Moderator. We now have a handful of people marked as Moderator, and Laura, Catinca and myself marked as Deckbox Team.

2. I have updated the BTR posting rules http://deckbox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=31533#p31533 . We will now forbid people to post in BTR threads unless they have important, relevant information about the case being discussed. Moderators and Deckbox Team are extempt from this rule.

Modertors can delete posts that are against the rules at any point on BTRs, or to ask BTR submitters to fix their sumissions according to the rules, offer suggestions or corrections.

For now we will keep the Deckbox Team members as being the only people to actually "bold-post" with official requests and resolutions on BTR threads. We will be discussing this though. We appreciate everyone offering to help with this, and will be considering widening the number of people responsible, but for now we'll do it ourselves.

Please keep the discussion going, if people have further suggestions do not hesitate to discuss them here. We'll be reading!

Sounds good. I'll be sure to watch for any non-essential banter in the BTRs and will delete accordingly.

About the de facto style of the current rating system; if an additional rating was added to +1 feedback, we could separate the rating of a trader's honesty (card sent, in (relatively) described condition) and a trader's conduct.

If a user selects +1, a simple 3-star rating element could display, possibly with each labeled Speed, Packaging, Attitude. Traders can give a 0, 1/2, or 1 rating in each category, or ratings can be a full a range 0, 1/2, 1 - 4 1/2, 5.
If the former is used, on a user's Trades/Feedback page, an expanded graphic could be displayed, showing the 3 categories as 3-star averages, e.g. for 3 1-star ratings and a half-star rating in one category would be shown as 2.5 stars; averaged, increased 300%, and rounded to nearest .5 (<.75).

This would leave +1 and -1 as either legit or scammer/dishonest, and neutral feedback can be eliminated, moving the feedback usually left there to the additional ratings of +1 feedback. This would give a permanent and visible place for relevant information on a trader's ethic.