Dies to Removal

Trading here should be considered a reward in some aspects and a privilege. Not a right nor a draw to the site. I rather have A lot of people elsewhere on this forum enjoying themselves then many JUST here for trading like other places where the environment becomes very toxic to itself.

This is where I'm at with it. I would love to see a section for the people here that we know. I don't think we have much to worry about with current membership, but we should have a solid plan so we can keep up a tight ship when it's more than just us here.

You're way more coherent than I was when I had 4 teeth removed at once. Kudos on that!

Although I would like to amend my stake in the discussion, I think the first order of business is to open the forum and we can work out the technical stuff as time goes by.

Although I would like to amend my stake in the discussion, I think the first order of business is to open the forum and we can work out the technical stuff as time goes by.

We need to decide the basics, such as who's going to oversee it and who will be able to use it, before we can open it up.

Overseeing it should be simple. Shit, I can do that and not even get any power except that I might ask for an IP address every once in a while.

Simple, yet time-consuming.

And I would want someone I'm comfortable with making a mod to be the overseer of this, simply because the whole purpose is trust. We're trusting them to work hard to protect our members.

Not that I'm not comfortable modding you, Clicky. I'm just saying. Whoever oversees this will have responsibility and access. That's my opinion.

I understand that other MtG sites allow people to start trading upon registration, but those site also have vastly more manpower to protect their members from theft that we do/will have. While I understand we won't be LEGALLY responsible for any theft that occurs on our site, I feel MORAL responsibility to do everything in my power to protect our members. For this reason, I cannot, in all good conscience, agree to a trade forum without limitations on who can use it.

That's why I feel to curve the issue We shouldn't focus on making it easy to trade But more of a Side extra you get for being a solid member.

needs more galspanic

Oh, I see where I'm confused now! So some of us want both a posting restriction to guarantor established members and a more formalized, typical staff who will be given the responsibility of protecting the members from problems? Is that right?

I didn't think anyone wanted the staff responsible for anything. I thought we were avoiding that.

Legally responsible, no. We don't want to be liable if anyone gets ripped off.

However, and I'm just speaking for myself now, I don't like the idea of us not even attempting to protect our members from being ripped. If it happens, we will not be at fault in the least, but we should be willing/able to do everything in our power to prevent it from happening.

Yes, my apologies, I never meant to indicate legal responsibility.

1000 posts is a good rule, but it should always be at the buyers risk

Legally responsible, no. We don't want to be liable if anyone gets ripped off.

However, and I'm just speaking for myself now, I don't like the idea of us not even attempting to protect our members from being ripped. If it happens, we will not be at fault in the least, but we should be willing/able to do everything in our power to prevent it from happening.

I'd appreciate hearing more of your ideas. Standardized IP checks for all new members? For new members posting in the Trade forum? What would be a protocol you would be comfortable with for dealing with people who rip on this site? On another site?

I really hadn't thought that far in advance, Clicky, but I'm pretty sure we do IP checks on people now. (I don't, but I think someone does. Maybe only when something catches their eye, iono.)

However, I think just having a 1000 post minimum to enter into trades will deter anyone just looking to rip from attempting to do so here. Other than that, I'd prefer if we had all traders' information (real name/address/etc) on file so that, in the event something DOES happen, we'll have it to assist with whatever legal avenues the victim wants to take.

I mean, I'll admit I don't know that much about trading and the routine Sally goes through in Market Street, but adopting some of their methods wouldn't be unheard of. I just don't know WHAT those methods are.

I like it how people think IP checks mean anything. Like I'm banned on MTGS yet I still post wherever I want, it doesn't take much skills to circumvent IP checks.

I know, that's why I kinda dismissed the IP checks part of his post.

Well first off, IP/ID tracking does go a bit deeper than that used by an administration account on a privately-owned website. Not that I'm saying that pinging someone's TOR proxy is going to help the police catch the next Charles Manson or whatever, but that's just me being a curmudgeon so I'll shut up about it now.

Anywhoo, I thought the whole idea was that the forum would be at your own risk? Putting down too many restrictions and offering legal help in the event of something horrible happening seems to run at cross-purposes to that.

Trading online should always be at your own risk. Our only trade requirements should be 500+ posts. Ripping is tougher to do if you've actually spent weeks / months talking to and meeting the members of the forum. It could still happen but it won't be at the ridiculously high level of mtgs rips.

Also, is Pendulum quietly nominating himself to the trade mod job or am I just misreading his posts?

I just don't think we need a full time IP checker here. Most of the really bad rippers on ugly sally used proxies anyway and were caught via identical trade lists or other slip-ups.

I understand that other MtG sites allow people to start trading upon registration, but those site also have vastly more manpower to protect their members from theft that we do/will have. While I understand we won't be LEGALLY responsible for any theft that occurs on our site, I feel MORAL responsibility to do everything in my power to protect our members. For this reason, I cannot, in all good conscience, agree to a trade forum without limitations on who can use it.

That's why I feel to curve the issue We shouldn't focus on making it easy to trade But more of a Side extra you get for
being a solid member.

Many of the big time traders on Sally never even leave the trading forum. Instant registration + trade access promotes an anti-social attitude for some people who aren't even here to post / discuss / be a half decent community member.

It wasn't my intent, no. I do have some experience with the process (although of course I'm not the only one here who does), the only reason I even hinted at throwing my hat into the ring is because I'd rather see this get resolved quickly, it seems like it's mired out.

I understand that other MtG sites allow people to start trading upon registration, but those site also have vastly more manpower to protect their members from theft that we do/will have. While I understand we won't be LEGALLY responsible for any theft that occurs on our site, I feel MORAL responsibility to do everything in my power to protect our members. For this reason, I cannot, in all good conscience, agree to a trade forum without limitations
on who can use it.

That's why I feel to curve the issue We shouldn't focus on making it easy to trade But more of a Side extra you get for being a solid member.

Many of the big time traders on Sally never even leave the trading forum. Instant registration + trade access promotes an anti-social attitude for some people who aren't even here to post / discuss / be a half decent community member.

Which then also created the toxic environment of the trade forums. Something I wish to avoid at all costs

@Pendulum - I'm not against it but in my skeptical old age I just like people to speak their intentions plainly (something not done on you-know-where).

I don't think we need a hovering trade mod staff, be it one person or several. When I resigned on sally they had 5-6 semi-to-full time trade mods and the rips still occurred at roughly the same frequency.

They thought the problem was having "too few" trade mods; however the real issue was instant trade privileges to all new members.

Also has anyone noticed that these public "issues" discussions yield far more suggestions and open dialog than all of the private summits on Sally?

I really like how all of the major (and minor) decisions here are tossed out for public discussion.

Cause being upfront and honest has yielded better results even if it means something doesn't pan out. Tends to have a more vocal or open eyed view of why something works or doesn't work.

Also has anyone noticed that these public "issues" discussions yield far more suggestions and open dialog than all of the private summits on Sally?

I really like how all of the major (and minor) decisions here are tossed out for public discussion.

It shows there is a mutual respect between all community participants. That's another big "Ugly Sally" problem: the mods don't trust the userbase.

Cause being upfront and honest has yielded better results even if it means something doesn't pan out. Tends to have a more vocal or open eyed view of why something works or doesn't work.

I mean last time I checked MTGS CI before I was banned most of the threads were about a lack of transparency or clandestine mod summits.

By throwing out everything into the open here we've cut down on 75-90% of all future drama threads.

Also has anyone noticed that these public "issues" discussions yield far more suggestions and open dialog than all of the private summits on Sally?

I really like how all of the major (and minor) decisions here are tossed out for public discussion.

It shows there is a mutual respect between all community participants. That's another big "Ugly Sally" problem: the mods don't trust the userbase.

And in the current form will never trust them. But least not focus on wrongs they do But what Rights we have done.

I mean last time I
checked MTGS CI before I was banned most of the threads were about a lack of transparency or clandestine mod summits.

By throwing out everything into the open here we've cut down on 75-90% of all future drama threads.

And the minor drama we have is more in jest or fun to be smart asses to one another Or something that is plainly misunderstanding and is fixed quickly.

i respect no one

Well first off, IP/ID tracking does go a bit deeper than that used by an administration account on a privately-owned website. Not that I'm saying that pinging someone's TOR proxy is going to help the police catch the next Charles Manson or whatever, but that's just me being a curmudgeon so I'll shut up about it now.

Anywhoo, I thought the whole idea was that the forum would be at your own risk? Putting down too many restrictions and offering legal help in the event of something horrible happening seems to run at cross-purposes to that.

I'm sure there are some workarounds, but when you're actually not the FBI or something like that, IP tracking typically stops at the first TOR proxy door. You're better off checking other stuff like posting habits,
post syntax, etc...

But yeah, I think everyone is onboard with the "light" trade at your own risk approach. I do think 1000 posts is a bit harsh, but I understand the concept of being a regular member, since people who say rippers will need to put a bigger effort and hence will be discouraged. I think we could have something like some parameter means you are an established members, but established members would be able to vouch for other people to trade.

I think we are going to reach a consensus soon anyway so I wouldn't worry. Lets keep hashing ideas.

I don't care much because I will probably never do any trades but I think a post-based restriction is smart. I think the number should be closer to 500 than to 1000 tho

Ooh, I like the idea of vouches. That's great.
Just pondering here, is it possible to give automatic permissions to a user when they get the required number of posts but be able to circumvent that by granting them special access before they hit that point? It's probably a silly question but I know some systems don't like odd things.

A vouch system is a good way to build community.

I am totally on board for the trade threshold being 500 posts.


Maybe 500 posts + 1 vouch from another established member?

That way new users who want to trade will be forced to network / participate here. After all, we're trying to establish ourselves as a higher caliber website for community / discussion / trading.

Any user who just wants to trade anti-socially and with a higher risk of getting ripped can just head over to Sally. At least all of the traders here will have some stake in the community.

Any user who just wants to trade anti-socially and with a higher risk of getting ripped can just head over to Sally. At least all of the traders here will have some stake in the community.

Compare the number of MTGS rippers with over 500 posts to the number of rippers with under 500 posts. A JayC / Lance comes around maybe once every two years or so, whereas the "low post count" rippers are a dime a dozen.

I'll make a list of the ideas so far (if I forget any just quote the post and add to the list):

1. No restrictions, new users can trade immediately

1a. No restrictions, any user can make a trade thread but we caution traders to be especially wary of new / low post count accounts attempting to trade

2. Users need 1000 posts before getting trading privileges

3. Users need 500 posts before getting trading privileges

3a. Users need 500 posts + one vouch from an established member (someone else with 500+ posts) before getting trading privileges

4. Users need one vouch from an established member (someone else with 500+ posts) before getting trading privileges

5. Everyone can trade but only I can rip.

Ooh, I like the idea of vouches. That's great.
Just pondering here, is it possible to give automatic permissions to a user when they get the required number of posts but be able to circumvent that by granting them special access before they hit that point? It's probably a silly question but I know some systems don't like odd things.

Oh yes, its a walk in the park

What's the difference between a "vouch" and a feedback system? Seems weird and pointless.

Does it mean I say, "I've seen this guy on the forum. He seems like an okay person to me!" then we let him trade? Wut.

with the vouch system the guy who vouches is kinda responsible for the guy he brought to the trades, so I think it fosters more responsibility in the selection of people.

Someone in cahoots with a ripper could just vouch for them. And if we're going to set a "committee of vouchers" then we're already going too far IMO. The only thing to look at in someone is how often they're here and posting, which is the same as requiring a very high post count.