New Trading rule feedback thread!

[BlackstarBatty]

The new trading rules are up! This is a feedback thread for those to express their opinions on the new ruleset. I'm hoping these will work out for people and prevent people from having to worry about getting ripped off. Please address your concerns here.

 

[afnlsjg]

[/quote]

The new trading rules are up! This is a feedback thread for those to express their opinions on the new ruleset. I'm hoping these will work out for people and prevent people from having to worry about getting ripped off. Please address your concerns here.

Really?

Those with less refs will send first. Unless the one with more agrees differently.

I'm really not sure how else to phrase that the TC are really the ones responsible for the ripping.

 

[Taylor45]

Very nicely written Council!
Now all you guys should do is make a way for that particular thread to stand out amongst the other stickies or something. Because you see traders all the time who scan right over that...

 

[BlackstarBatty]

The new trading rules are up! This is a feedback thread for those to express their opinions on the new ruleset. I'm hoping these will work out for people and prevent people from having to worry about getting ripped off. Please address your concerns here.

Really?

Those with less refs will send first. Unless the one with more agrees differently.

I'm really not sure how else to phrase that the TC are really the ones responsible for the ripping.
[/quote]

Um....what? What does Pokegym have to do with Pokebeach? And how are the TC members responsible for ripping? No one grabbed you by the hand and said "YOU MUST TRADE HERE." You'e making a conscious decision to make trades online. At any site you are going to be taking a risk.

 

[TofU]

Very nicely written Council!
Now all you guys should do is make a way for that particular thread to stand out amongst the other stickies or something. Because you see traders all the time who scan right over that...

Thanks! Actually, we have also found a conclusion to said statement.

We've decided to merge other stickies with the Rules and leave the sticky count to two, that way new members can read both threads in a fair amount of time. As to what the other sticky is going to be...that has yet to be decided.

Hope you like everything. =]

 

[afnlsjg]

The new trading rules are up! This is a feedback thread for those to express their opinions on the new ruleset. I'm hoping these will work out for people and prevent people from having to worry about getting ripped off. Please address your concerns here.

Really?

Those with less refs will send first. Unless the one with more agrees differently.

I'm really not sure how else to phrase that the TC are really the ones responsible for the ripping.

Um...what? What does Pokegym have to do with Pokebeach? And how are the TC members responsible for ripping? No one grabbed you by the hand and said "YOU MUST TRADE HERE." You'e making a conscious decision to make trades online. At any site you are going to be taking a risk.
[/quote]

Because their ref policy is exactly what ours should be. At the end of the day, it is the decision of the TRADERS who THEY trade THEIR cards with.

This is what I've been saying all along. When you inhibit people from following their instinct from trade to trade (take me for example, I think many would feel comfortable accepting my reputation on other selling/trading venues if they have one rep and I have none). Instead, I would be required to send first, and the person who made one good trade could easily just cheat me and make a quick card or two. Instead of the person with an obviously greater resume send second, you force them to send first, and make them easily open to being cheated. That's how your Portugese friend was so successful. Do a few legitimate trades, and then force people's hands into trading more. He did a lot of small trades so nobody felt they should push it for the $5-10 in cards.

 

[BlackstarBatty]

Users have always been able to choose who they've been able to trade with. I did't realize that had to be mentioned in the rules. I forget we're working with a much younger group to users on here.

 

[afnlsjg]

Users have always been able to choose who they've been able to trade with. I did't realize that had to be mentioned in the rules. I forget we're working with a much younger group to users on here.

I am aware they could say "I have 0 refs, and do not wish to trade with another user with 1 ref because I am suspicious".

They should have the OPTION of saying "I would like to go through this trade, but I am suspicious. I have (insert reason here) why I am reliable and I will sweeten the pot by (insert extras if they so choose) if you agree". They might as well if they're going to have to pay for a MM to slow down the arrival of their items.

 

[Fridge]

I'm unhappy with bthe portugal rule: Its racist and doesn't make any sense.

Right, so quite a few members from portugal have been rippers. You can IP ban those guys, or they will have to send first without many good reps anyway. HOwever, say a REAL ripper comes along, and makes a trade with a portugeese guy, the portugeese person will have to send first, even if he isn't a ripper - yet hte other person is! Why? Because he's portugeese.

There have been more american rippers than portugeese ones, so, why don't we make all americans send first! Its a genius plan!

-_-

This rule hasn't been thought out, and is an act of racism against all portugeese.

 

[BlackstarBatty]

We have IP banned them. You do know that dynamic IPs do exist, right?

By making them send first until we can prove they are trustworthy seems to be the least racist way to do it. By banning them from trades completely, it's unfair. By banning all IPs from Portugal from the site is unfair. None of the rules are gonna be fair, but at this point, it's all we can do.

 

[afnlsjg]

We have IP banned them. You do know that dynamic IPs do exist, right?

By making them send first until we can prove they are trustworthy seems to be the least racist way to do it. By banning them from trades completely, it's unfair. By banning all IPs from Portugal from the site is unfair. None of the rules are gonna be fair, but at this point, it's all we can do.

That doesn't answer my question.

Oh, and another one... other than consolidating stickies, what did you change?

 

[BlackstarBatty]

Did you even bother to read the rules? Changes that were made:

-Verified sellers-you can't sell until you go through us.
-The 15 refs/3 months rule is gone with trades. It was pointless and caused more trouble than it was worth.
-When selling, the buyer will always send first.
-Easier to read.

And with the middleman service, they aren't really paying for it. It's going to cost them a grand total of 42 cents more to send a card to us. Once again, they aren't forced to go through with any trades, or to "sweeten the pot." Having the piece of mind that both sides will get their cards should be plenty enough.

 

[afnlsjg]

Did you even bother to read the rules? Changes that were made:

-Verified sellers-you can't sell until you go through us.
-The 15 refs/3 months rule is gone with trades. It was pointless and caused more trouble than it was worth.
-When selling, the buyer will always send first.
-Easier to read.

And with the middleman service, they aren't really paying for it. It's going to cost them a grand total of 42 cents more to send a card to us. Once again, they aren't forced to go through with any trades, or to "sweeten the pot." Having the piece of mind that both sides will get their cards should be plenty enough.

I stand corrected. Yes, I did read them. I simply placed an illogical addition to your terrible rule structure at the bottom of the concerns list.

If anything, it should be TRADERS that have to be verified. When you trade there is no recourse for either party, and should require more trust to reach.

Unless they've been changed since I last post (I'll check again now), the 15 refs/3 months is now just "who has more refs". That's EVEN WORSE. Now instead of having to honestly trade 15 times before cheating someone, they only have to do it once. I mean really, do you all want people to get cheated or something?

EDIT: I am correct. You removed the 15/3 rule (something which was never enforced anyways) and have simply made it easier for people to get cheated. I mean really. I almost feel bad for bringing this up. Now all I've done is allowed for you folks to make it much simpler for scams to take place.

EDIT2: Oh, and who's to say a middleman won't scam either? All that does is raise the likelyhood that someone will give in to the temptation of free stuff.

 

[BlackstarBatty]

You talk so much about loving the rules of Pokegym. These are pretty similar to them. How about you just go over there then? If you're so worried about getting ripped off here, then just don't trade. Simple as that.

 

[afnlsjg]

[/size]

You talk so much about loving the rules of Pokegym. These are pretty similar to them. How about you just go over there then? If you're so worried about getting ripped off here, then just don't trade. Simple as that.

They are simply an example of one other well known community that employs this same principle. As a matter of fact, I only checked there AFTER I first proposed the solution.

My goodness. Do you honestly believe these are even CLOSE? The rules, heck, the PRINCIPLE is entirely different. The trading council should be an ADVISORY BODY, not a group of zealots who feel they know better than everyone else. Every trade is different. You simply do not have the capability of overseeing each and every trade, period. Next thing you know all deals will have to be run by you to make sure nobody gets cheated. It's rediculous. THEY ARE NOT YOUR CARDS. You cannot dictate who people trade with, what cards they trade, or where the person is that they are sent. If the site claims NO LIABILITY in what happens to the cards, how in the world can you justify trying to have ANY SAY in what happens during THEIR TRADE. If you're not liable, it means you're not supposed to be involved.

And congrats on taking the "instead of dealing with it, I'll simply avoid it" approach. That'll work wonders for the community. Sheesh.

 

[BlackstarBatty]

The trading council is an advisory body. WE DO NOT TELL PEOPLE HOW TO MAKE THEIR TRADES! We don't sit and breathe behind their necks and tell them what they have to do. These rules are there so everyone knows what should be done. We say the ref rule is to be followed, but do we know who is following it? No. We don't have that kind of power, nor do we want that kind of power. The middle man service isn't something to be abused. I believe I mentioned it there. If anything, we'd rather not do it unless we absolutely have to.

Here, how about this. How about you write up a set of rules and post them here. We'll see if you can make a perfect list that EVERYONE agrees with. Put your money where your mouth is (because it's obvious that talking behind a screen name is what you do best) and then we'll talk.

 

[afnlsjg]

The trading council is an advisory body. WE DO NOT TELL PEOPLE HOW TO MAKE THEIR TRADES! We don't sit and breathe behind their necks and tell them what they have to do. These rules are there so everyone knows what should be done. We say the ref rule is to be followed, but do we know who is following it? No. We don't have that kind of power, nor do we want that kind of power. The middle man service isn't something to be abused. I believe I mentioned it there. If anything, we'd rather not do it unless we absolutely have to.

Here, how about this. How about you write up a set of rules and post them here. We'll see if you can make a perfect list that EVERYONE agrees with. Put your money where your mouth is (because it's obvious that talking behind a screen name is what you do best) and then we'll talk.

That's nonsense! You ARE NOT ADVISORY when you FORCE people to follow YOUR rules and conditions.

Your ref rule ------> REQUIREMENT <------- does not qualify under either of the three responsibilities the trading council has:

1. Management (thread set-up, bumping, rep thread rules, etc)
2. Review (if someone scammed in a trade, if someone went back after an address exchange, punishments for said offenses)
3. ADVISORY (posting notices that give people suggestions on with whom they should trade, where, and how)

Let's draw a nice comparison. Let's say my mom forced me to take my cards outside every day and set them on the porch before we left. Despite the fact that they're my cards and she has enough other things to worry about, I obey so as to be able to continue to use our house. One day, we all come home and the cards are gone. It is concluded that a thief took them. The sad thing is I'm not shocked. I have been laying my cards out every day just asking for them to be taken. Now is the thief the only one to blame? Yes, they took them, but maybe if they hadn't been placed before them on a silver platter the person who grabbed them may have kept walking.

So, mom, where on the porch would you like them placed?

And no, I simply can't say all the things on here that I say on there. Otherwise I may get in trouble for hurting someones feelings. Trust me, I would be MORE than happy to repeat all of it if I could.

Oh, and for starters, I would simply make it that "it is suggested that the person with less refs send first" instead of "you must" or however you phrase it.

 

[BlackstarBatty]

It's changed. ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?

I know you won't be.

but then again, this isn't Vilebeach.....

 

[afnlsjg]

It's changed. ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?

I know you won't be.

but then again, this isn't Vilebeach...

Actually, yes, it's a great start. I'm glad you've converted to the logical side of the force. The other side is so, well, I guess I shouldn't say it. When I get home tonight I'll be sure to fix the other major flaws in it as well (selling, other outstanding hippocracies, etc).

Oh, and I've always found "Ignorance-is-bliss"beach to be pretty tasteless too. Although, I think Vilebeach is pretty catchy. Maybe "Logicbeach" would better suit your pallet? Although I'm pretty sure the latter two are synonymous...

 

[Naki Feralkin]

Seeing as how you obviously aren't a member of this staff, I honestly don't see how you should be solo influencing an entire group of people just because you know how to smart mouth people.

Really, all that needs be said is take your whining to the Gym since its apparent that their trading rules are better, no? I mean, not that I disagree with you because it really is (Secrets knows that as well), but your whining is obviously not welcomed here and it would probably be better suited elsewhere.

And really, do you have anything better to do with your time than criticize a forums trading judgment? They're having some problems, cut them slack and save them time (and frustration) by not being a smarty pants in the first place. (I have values too, so I'll do the right thing and not be a vulgar person.)

Chill, Relax, let them take care of it. You're not a mod, you're not staff, you're a member of this forum. Feedback is cool, but criticizing every single detail that is in those rulings just for fun is not.