Wow! How unfortunate it is that I chose to save a hard copy of the post I made in a thread that has vanished. Deleting/hiding the thread won't make the problem go away... My questions are still quite valid. A copy of it is below, if someone would finally like to answer the questions.
Before I go any further, I will say that until this issue is resolved, the TC should really consider closing the Trading Corner until a new system is established. That way nobody will get scammed under this obviously broken system. With that said.
Yesterday's Post:
~~~~~~
Apparently the No Child Left Behind Act needs to be altered to add measures to work on reading comprehension. Obviously your system needs a change, especially for selling, and I'm glad someone (despite the fact that several responses have been received already, particularly by those who are in theory supposed to be an example to the forum community, but instead choose to answer with an ever mature and professional "lolno") has acknowledged that fact.
-----
Part 1: eBay References
Status: Unresolved
Q (1/14): If I were to link to my eBay feedback page (and, of course, prove ownership) in which I have over 1100 different people have vouched for my honest trading practices, and then stated that while I cannot demand anyone send first, I will coincidentally decline all offers in which the other person is not willing to send first, would that be allowed?
A (1/15): Linking to eBay in your reference thread, or in any kind of thread is strictly prohibited. The only place in which it may be placed is your signature. As long as you have zero references, you are required to send first. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Q (1/19): Fine then, if I were to refer them to my signature. And even if they were to offer to send first, I couldn't accept it? It would almost be rude to refuse such a kind thing! After all, isn't it ultimately the two card owners who make the choice on how to trade? And if we can't work that out in the thread, can I have them PM me to etch out those details?
[Random comment that does nothing to respond to the presented question] (1/19): If you don't like our rules or fail to abide by them, there's a simple solution. Don't trade here, stick with eBay or whatever it is you do.
A (1/19): This is a very easy question. If you have no refs, you must send first. There have been WAY too many rippers here, and that's the reason the rule is in place. Not suggesting that you are a ripper, but if you want to trade here, and you don't have any refs, you're sending first. Don't like it? Go somewhere else.
A (2/4): Your questions were answered, and it appears you just don't seem to be understanding them. Tofu gave you the correct answer, as ebay refs do not count towards your overall refs on the site. You may put those references in your signature, but they add up to nothing here.
Q (2/4): All you've done is restate your (broken) rules. It has not been answered. What I'm looking for you is to clearly state "even if the other party (the other owner of the items being exchanged) offers to send first, I am not permitted to accept that offer." Pokebeach clearly states that it does not take any liability for any issues that result from a trade. How can it then claim any right in ultimately dictating the terms of that trade? Shouldn't, if anything, they be more along the lines of "guidelines" rather than "broken concepts"? The system isn't perfect as is. All it appears to be doing is complicating matters.
-----
Part 2: Paypal/Selling
Status: Unresolved
Q (1/14): Does that rule also apply to sending money first for a purchase? I'm particularly interested in payments done with Paypal.
A (1/15): PayPal is the easiest and safest way to make a transaction. Still, same rules apply. As long as you have zero references, you are required to send first.
Q (1/19): I'm well aware of the propaganda. I've used it more times in a week than you have in your life. The notion that it's safe or easy is ridiculous, especially if I'm the one doing the selling (as I explained). If I don't live up to my end of the agreement, then they can leave me a negative ref, and they will get their money back no matter how "untrustworthy" I may be. It's not my word, it's Paypal's loopy policy. The notion that the transaction would be safer because they have one ref and I have none is insane. And how would we send "at the same time" if we both have 0 refs? I can't transmit a card online.
[Random comment that does nothing to respond to the presented question] (1/19): If you don't like our rules or fail to abide by them, there's a simple solution. Don't trade here, stick with eBay or whatever it is you do.
A (1/19): Hey, be nice. Rules are rules. If you don't have any refs, and they don't either, you could do something like this: Say you sell a Uxie LA to them for $6. They could send you $3 on PayPal, you send them the card, and then they send you the rest. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but that's the idea.
[Yet another random comment that does nothing to respond to the presented question] (1/25): Lolno.
If you don't like our rules, or fail to abide by them don't trade here. =/
Q (2/1): I don't see how I was being mean... Why would they send me only half of the funds? Under your theory that all first time traders are going to cheat the other person if given the chance, then couldn't I just run away with their $3? If I'm understanding you correctly, the point of the ref system is to give the person with the least likelihood to cheat someone, then wouldn't it be whoever was receiving the funds, regardless of refs? Anyone can do a claim or chargeback on Paypal, and often times, even if they did actually send it, the one who sent the money will STILL win the claim. Because there is no way for the sender to get their card back (but their is for the buyer to get their money back), wouldn't that make the ref rule a moot point? If that's the case, then I could easily build up the refs via that method so as to not have to worry about the other (fairly self-contradictory) trade policy.
A (2/4): One of the reasons we are working to make sure a user has some sort of feedback before they start selling is for the reason you stated. If both the buyer and seller have zero refs, we hope to eliminate the problem of either of them getting ripped off. This is why we do have the 15 refs/3 months rule in effect for trades.
I know we need something a little more efficient for selling, however.
We've been running into so many problems with people lately, that making changes to the trading system is going to be the best idea.
A (2/4): Why in the world would the burden be on the seller? I do hope that SOMEONE on the trade council understands how Paypal works. If the BUYER doesn't come through, the SELLER can do NOTHING about it. If the SELLER doesn't come through, the BUYER can do SOMETHING about it. Shouldn't the party that has no further available options be the one that gets the benefit of the doubt?
EDIT: Please forgive any spelling and grammar errors. I don't have time to run through to double check at the moment.
~~~~~~
Secretsof2113 said:
I'm not wanting to play devil's advocate in any way with this, but I'd like to see some of the opinions of the members of this site as to what they would like to see changed on this trading forum. The trade council is in the works to build you a good trading ruleset, and something that people can't try and poke their way through. I want to hear some feedback from the community that we'll take into account when discussing a new revamped ruleset.
Here are some questions to consider:
1. What do you like about the current trading setup?
2. What don't you like?
3. What would you like to see changed?
4. Are there any rules that you think we should do without?
Namely my biggest idea is with users selling. I hate to see people join the site and immediately try and sell and force people to send first because it deals with money. I want to impose a rule that a user needs a certain number of refs and be here for a certain amount of time in order for them to be able to sell their cards on here.
We want your trades to be successful, and not have you worry about the person you're trading with. Please, we do want your honest opinions, because we can't fix it if we don't know that it is broken.
Before I begin, this discussion about the "new revamped ruleset" should NOT be done behind closed doors. There is absolutely no reason for it to, and maybe someone will think of something the TC already hasn't. The other advantage is some of the more stubborn members of said council won't be able to pass a poor decision by throwing a tantrum and having the issues locked/deleted as easily. Also, I'm glad that there are a few members of the TC coming out of the woodwork and finally taking some initiative. Really, I applaud you. Despite how unbelievable that may be given my sarcastic nature, I actually mean it.
1. Nothing. It is broken and hippocritical.
2. Everything. Rules contradict themselves and the rest are pointless.
3. The whole thing needs to be revamped. My primary issue is in the fact that the TC feels it has a right to set requirements on the trade itself. If they wish to manage the way threads are run (must have a ref thread, bumping limit, etc) that's well within their rights (and what they should be doing). If you claim no liability in the outcome of the trade, you get no say in how it goes. Period.
4. Throw them all out and start from scratch. Really, this is going to take more time than a simple 1, 2, 3, 4 and I don't really feel as though it's worth investing my time in discussing a better system if this is only something that will "be taken into account". If you want suggestions, then let the community as a whole be your soundboard. Allow us to all see the main thread in which you are having the discussion about what to do. Let us refute ideas we think are bad and propose other solutions if we're able to. At the end of the day, the TC can be the deciding vote if it must, but there's no reason to hide what you're all talking about.
The fact that the # of refs can force people into sending first is your biggest problem. All this guy from Portugal had to do was have one legitimate trade, and then he is able to beat out anyone who's just starting. THAT'S how people get cheated. And yes, ESP flipped out on a user asking if they could send at the same time if they had 0 and the other party had 4. Oh, and that's another deterrant. Half of the people who are supposed to be helping are curt to the point of being rude. Bottom line: refs should be guidelines, not criteria.
