[Discussion]The Bad Trading Report process (Page 1 of 2)

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 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

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.

Last edited by Helios52 (2013-02-13 20:49:42)

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...

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.

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.

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:

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

Last edited by Actinide (2013-04-30 16:56:24)

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.

Last edited by Actinide (2013-04-30 19:00:36)

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 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.

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.

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.