How About Them Trades, Eh?

[Kazekirimaru]

So,

Can I post a trade thread in my clan's restricted section, or not? I'm foggy as to the stipulations of this post requirement.

[Pendulum]

I believe you've already received permission, Kaze. It will be at-will, of course.

[Pendulum]

'Course this series of events has me about as disgruntled as you, so take my statement as you may.

[Second Harkius]

you savor threads like these pendulum and you know it

[Pendulum]

Yes well it's my Christian duty to love unconditionally and try to understand points of view I find clash with mine, so yes, I suppose I do. Thanks for getting me closer to God, KS.

[Second Harkius]

Pendulum doesn't know the feeling of disgruntled on this forum. We keep him very gruntled.

[Kazekirimaru]

I believe you've already received permission, Kaze. It will be at-will, of course.

Most appreciated.

[redthirst]

Great posters who want to use B/S/T will also be turned off by a high post requirement, not just spammers.

In fact, a high post requirement just promotes spamming - not quality posts.

how do we know if they're great posters if all they do is post &
quot;i have a card you want in your want card thread"?

And how do we know that's all they're going to post?

There's been a few people who have posted in this thread that
1. They're interested in trading, but
2. They wouldn't have enough posts, even though
3. They do post quality content.

Also, Spam - all I have to judge you on is what I see. You can't throw examples of things you've actually done "behind the scenes" that I couldn't possibly know and then accuse me of ignoring it because it doesn't fit my argument. I get that spamming as King Spam (or whatever you call yourself from week to week) is appropriate, but that doesn't make it any less spam - which is hypocritical if you want this site to be all about quality content.

we know they will post like that because there is precedent set on MTGS where users with 0 posts can hop into the trading forum and let er' rip. this was previously established and is the entire reason we're
arguing for a post count baseline in the first place. we have become the oroboros at this point.

Sure, but I have no idea how many people joined MTG forums so they could make a trade and then stayed and provided quality content.

Does anyone?



Is it worth ostracizing 10 trade forum lurkers (which don't detract from the "quality content" one bit - unless they're forced to make X number of useless posts in order to trade, that is) if it means we'll also be potentially losing some number of quality posters in the process?

I'd rather have an excess of members than too few - you can always weed out the idiots if you have too many, but you can't get quality content from nothing.

But whatevs.

[Kaitscralt]

How did this topic turn to quality of posting? If you're looking for a spam-free site then why did you leave Salvation?

[redthirst]

I didn't bring up the "quality of posts" issue - that was one of y'all that wanted to make sure people weren't joining up just to trade and were instead contributing to our great works.

I don't care if anyone lurks as long as they're not actively detracting from an otherwise productive discussion.

[Thrillho]

Because I don't want 10 trade forum lurkers because this isn't a Magic card trading site. I want 10 community members who, as a part of their being in a Magic card game community, just happen to want to trade.

If your sole purpose of being on this site is to lurk around the periphery and share nothing, it's great to have you but it'd be better if you could bring something to the table.

Redthirst, I believe you are the first person to bring up quality. Most other people arguing for the post count limit have been talking about community participation.

[redthirst]

I had considered this the first post about wanting quality:

Yes, and look where that got mtgs. Thousands of posters, dozens of rippers, and maybe 20? actual deck strategists.

Does this not imply that we want quality posts over quality of posts?

I think this probably verifies that was the spirit of the post:

This site is about fostering a higher quality of poster. Give me 10 great posters over 1000 angry manchildren any day.

And yes, having members that bring something to the table is > having lurkers, but people spamming nonsense is not, IMO, "bringing
something to the table."

Also, a dozen members who do nothing but trade and lurk are > a dozen people who didn't bother to sign up because they couldn't trade. A lurker can still bring something to the table, someone who says "fuck it" and leaves, can't.

[Thrillho]

Why do you assume people will not sign up for a forum because they cannot trade the second after they sign up for it?
Given that the current established precedent is "Joins forum and does not post anything other than 'I have the card/s you want on your want cards list'," and that this entire argument is based on "We are trying to build a community that maybe also has a section for trading, too," what does enabling "Joins forum and does not post anything other than 'I had the card/s you want on your want cards list'" do to aid "We are trying to build a community that maybe also has a section for trading, too." You basically dodged this question over my last 3 posts to say "Well maybe they will post quality content too," when for all intents and purposes that has seldom ever been the case (as a former MTGS Market Street mod and ongoing Market Street committee member, I at least
am aware of that much).

What is so stigmatizing about joining a community and, as a new member who has not established his/herself, not being able to trade the first second you log on, knowing full well you haven't established yourself? Doesn't it seem more likely that someone trying to get-in-get-out with a con is more likely to say "'fuck it' and leave" than someone interested in sticking around a community and building and becoming a part of a community to get turned off by any kind of credit building prior to doing business? Isn't that sort of immediate ability to rip people off a selling point for conmen?

[Thrillho]

I understand you've personally never had problems with online sales before, but just because you've never had problems and want to jump right in doesn't mean there aren't people out there who have had problems and do need some kind of protection against being ripped off in a market that is entirely trust-based.

[Manders]

I like the idea of having a post limit - 1000 is much too high, and even 500 is pushing it. For most people, it takes a very long span of time to amass that. 100 posts might be more reasonable - still enough to deter lazy rippers to find a site with no post limit (such as Sally), but pulls in the large majority of casual members who don't post on a daily basis.

The sample trading rules are ok, but could use some refining.[/
quote]

I don't think a couple of months dedication is too much to ask.

It's not too much to ask. The problem is that many people in the entitlement generation don't want to be asked to do anything at all.

Then those people can go to Sally for their trade fix until they can trade here.

[redthirst]

I just think that the risk of having potentially quality members decide not to sign up because we wouldn't provide a service that every other site does is a very real concern and not worth it to discourage rippers (who are easy to avoid anyway if you're not a dumbass and probably not overly interested in a smaller site).

[Manders]

This post count rule only applies to creating a trade thread, correct?

I believe trading in general.

I can't speak for the others (and may be speaking too soon as I haven't read past your post yet), but I have no problem with you guys trading among yourselves in your restricted section regardless of post count.

It will just be at your own risk.

The post count would be for a public Trade forum.

[Manders]

If I had known that asking about a trade thread was going to cause such an argument, I wouldn't have opened my mouth in the first place. Damn.

Seriously, with the sardonic and scathing tone in the majority of the posts in this thread, I feel like I'm being reprimanded for even suggesting it.

Never mind. I'll just stick to my clan like I intended. Cheers.

Discussions can sometimes turn heated when two (or more) people don't agree on something.

This does not mean you should just give up something you believe in. No one is reprimanding you. No one has even said, "GODDAMMIT, KAZE, WHY DID YOU BRING THIS SHIT UP, LOOK WHAT YOU STARTED?!"

If you hadn't, someone would have, and we'd still be having this discussion.

[Manders]

The forum posts itself can and probably should be hidden, but I would like to see the Trade section itself made visible so that people can ask about it. Part of the reason there's so much drama surrounding this subject is because it is quite a popular part of any MTG community (and quite a positive thing too, IMMHO).

What's that second M mean?

[Manders]

I had considered this the first post about wanting quality:

Yes, and look where that got mtgs. Thousands of posters, dozens of rippers, and maybe 20? actual deck strategists.

Does this not imply that we want quality posts over quality of posts?

I think this probably verifies that was the spirit of the post:

This site is about fostering a higher quality of poster. Give me 10 great posters over 1000 angry
manchildren any day.

And yes, having members that bring something to the table is > having lurkers, but people spamming nonsense is not, IMO, "bringing something to the table."

Also, a dozen members who do nothing but trade and lurk are > a dozen people who didn't bother to sign up because they couldn't trade. A lurker can still bring something to the table, someone who says "fuck it" and leaves, can't.

It's been mentioned earlier that anyone who came and completely spammed their way to the limit without becoming a part of the community, (meaning they've never opened themselves up to anyone, never taken part in any important discussions like this, never discussed decks or strategy of their own, etc.) would be denied access due to feelings that they are doing that for the sole purpose to spam.

I could see some ripper who's banned on all other sites and had no other means of online trading doing this, and this is not what we want. We
will notice people doing this, redthirst, and will go from there.

[Manders]

I just think that the risk of having potentially quality members decide not to sign up because we wouldn't provide a service that every other site does is a very real concern and not worth it to discourage rippers (who are easy to avoid anyway if you're not a dumbass and probably not overly interested in a smaller site).

We are (or will be) providing the same service they are looking for. They'll just have to wait a bit to take advantage of it. If they're not willing to, then how much do we really want them here?

I don't want people that came to trade on the site. I want people that came to be a part of our friendly, open, honest, MtG community on this site. (Or at least people that want to play Mafia. I'm good if all they do is that. )

[Thrillho]

I just think that the risk of having potentially quality members decide not to sign up because we wouldn't provide a service that every other site does is a very real concern and not worth it to discourage rippers (who are easy to avoid anyway if you're not a dumbass and probably not overly interested in a smaller site).

That doesn't answer any of my questions, especially since it is established that a good bulk of traders who go to a site only for trading do not post in other areas of the site.

While it is great you personally have never been scammed, that doesn't help the pages upon pages of users on other sites who have been. Calling people who got scammed in trades dumbasses doesn't suddenly not make it a problem that needs to be
accounted for in some way (be it through creating a barrier to protect or merely disavowing culpability for trades orchestrated on the site).

Also, jumping to hyperbole that now we're not providing a service when no one has suggested for pages that this site shouldn't have a trade section further dilutes your message.

I have very real concerns with your proposal that I am asking you about and if you don't want to address them in any meaningful way, that's fine, I will move on from your proposal.

[Thrillho]

And to explain why I have these questions:
I've used four different mediums to sell or trade hundreds per medium of transactions for Magic and one other CCG, I spent several years as a mod on MTGS' market street and still participate in their Market Street Committee. Outside of real life person-on-person trading and selling, I've also managed my own booth (that was 100% my own card supplies and singles) at various PTQs. I've had people scam me (3 over the last 14 years of my life) and while I've never stolen from anyone, I have delayed shipment or oversold myself and had to finangle work-arounds, so I am aware of having to use tricks to get around customer dissatisfaction. I have a pretty good handle on what you need to do to not get scammed or at least protect people from being scammed. Because of this wealth of experience, being told we should just tell people not to get scammed and then wash our hands of not having a
trade section seems like an abysmal idea and I would like some assurance as to why having a trade section needs to be orchestrated in that way and not one that will protect our users more effectively.

[redthirst]

You're discussing not providing the service to new members - so having a trade forum that they can't participate in until they unlock that achievement isn't too different from not providing the service (at least, from their point of view) - that's not hyperbole.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the X post rule will ostacize established members with 5000+ posts so I didn't think that was something that needed to be discussed.

The only "very real concern" I remember you posting is that you want this to be "A community with a trade forum" and not "A trade forum" so people should have to earn their right to trade here and not be allowed to post for the sole purpose of trading. I thought I had answered that concern with the following points:

-Not allowing people to trade when they join could potentially cause them not to bother joining. This does not promote the community.
-Requiring
member to post X number of times before they can trade does not promote quality posting or community building. It promotes spam.

Both those points lead to the main point: that members who do nothing but trade do not subtract anything from the community - in fact they add to it by giving people another reason to join - but losing potential members and promoting excessive spam do subtract.

The only thing that subtracts from the community in the trade forum is scammers and it's very easy to not get scammed if you simply take some very basic precautions when you trade.

If I missed another one of your concerns, please forgive me - I'm answering multiple posts from multiple people with multiple concerns so some things are getting lost.

[Pendulum]

The forum posts itself can and probably should be hidden, but I would like to see the Trade section itself made visible so that people can ask about it. Part of the reason there's so much drama surrounding this subject is because it is quite a popular part of any MTG community (and quite a positive thing too, IMMHO).

What's that second M mean?

"most"

[Kaitscralt]

It also stands for In Magic Mage's Honest Opinion (Pendulum has been known to see her as a mentor of sorts)

[Kaitscralt]

Redthirst, we've established that we're willing to lose a few potential members signing up in favor of a system we feel better protects from ripping. If immediate trading without site participation is the line people are drawing for being on the site or not, then we're fine to let them go.

[imopen2]

250 and at your own risk is fine with me. If I hear one person bitch about being ripped tho....

[redthirst]

Redthirst, we've established that we're willing to lose a few potential members signing up in favor of a system we feel better protects from ripping. If immediate trading without site participation is the line people are drawing for being on the site or not, then we're fine to let them go.

And if that's what you want to do, then that's fine - just don't expect me to be happy about losing potential quality members (for whatever reason) to protect people from something that it's quite easy to protect yourself from anyway.

[Sir Sapphire the 3rd]

Redthirst, we've established that we're willing to lose a few potential members signing up in favor of a system we feel better protects from ripping. If immediate trading without site participation is the line people are drawing for being on the site or not, then we're fine to let them go.

And if that's what you want to do, then that's fine - just don't expect me to be happy about losing potential quality members (for whatever reason) to protect people from something that it's quite easy to protect yourself from anyway.

Its actually more to protect the Members AND the
site itself.
There are some sites that wont even have this discussion and will actually outright forbid trading to remove any issue from them.

[Kaitscralt]

You're making assumptions for thousands of people on the Internet just because you haven't been scammed before. You've obviously never been around one of the trading forums when one of the big rippers blows through town. Every level of trader is affected, even the best of the best. The best scammers are pro at it - it's their craft. You'd be sending your stuff first with a useless delivery confirmation sticker just like everyone else.

[redthirst]

Hard to say... it hasn't happened yet, or, if it has, it was so long ago that I can't remember the details or even any more than that it might have happened.

I guess I'll just have to take your word for what I'd do.

[Second Harkius]

You're making assumptions for thousands of people on the Internet just because you haven't been scammed before. You've obviously never been around one of the trading forums when one of the big rippers blows through town. Every level of trader is affected, even the best of the best. The best scammers are pro at it - it's their craft. You'd be sending your stuff first with a useless delivery confirmation sticker just like everyone else.

Yup. Some of the big rippers can take a dozen or so people for a ride. It's tough to ever hold them accountable since they use fake IPs, dummy P.O. boxes, and fake identities. I dealt with several back when I was a mod on MTGS. These rippers do not care about how much they rip from you and would actually
use your "YOLO imma never get ripped" attitude against you in a heartbeat.

[Second Harkius]

Redthirst, we've established that we're willing to lose a few potential members signing up in favor of a system we feel better protects from ripping. If immediate trading without site participation is the line people are drawing for being on the site or not, then we're fine to let them go.

Exactly. I mean we've moved down from 1000 posts to 250. I think we should go ahead and implement this policy (with the caveat that inter-clan trades are permitted at your own risk regardless of post count).

[Col. Khaddafi]

Exactly. I mean we've moved down from 1000 posts to 250. I think we should go ahead and implement this policy (with the caveat that inter-clan trades are permitted at your own risk regardless of post count).

Yeah, I'm kinda liking this compromise.

[Kaitscralt]

We could have the required post count be however many posts Kaze has, so the requirement goes up over time but he can trade from the get-go without any more tantrums.

[redthirst]

We could have the required post count be however many posts Kaze has, so the requirement goes up over time but he can trade from the get-go without any more tantrums.

Unnecessary back-handed comment...

Way to promote the community.

[Pendulum]

It also stands for In Magic Mage's Honest Opinion (Pendulum has been known to see her as a mentor of sorts)

I go where the boobs are, what can I say?

Speaking of which, what the hell man!??????

[Kaitscralt]

They'll be back soon.

[Pendulum]

They better be.