System for Avoiding Trade Scammers
TappedOut forum
Posted on Nov. 16, 2011, 6:37 p.m. by yeaGO
Hello all,
It seems that TappedOut has its first official trade scammer buddy. Buddy, I apologize if it turns out this isn't the case, but let's be real: statistically its not likely for the post office to discriminate against you so much =)
I'm opening up this topic for people to discuss a system for spotting scammers. My first thought was: 'If someone is here creating decks and being part of our community, they aren't likely to scam'.
Well, clever scammers can always create fake decks and look really active.
I could come up with a system that allowed people to 'register' trades and make them public. But so what? People could come up with fake accounts and register a bunch of trades with themselves.
What do you guys think?
KrazyCaley says... #2
Here's my take on this. It sounds like the best possible solution is some kind of escrow. Have designated ultra-trusted users act as escrow agents for the trading users. The traders send their agreed-upon cards to the escrow guy. Once the escrow guy has the agreed cards from everyone, he sends them on. If the cards don't show up, he sends them back.
Advantages- Traders cannot scam each other, ever.
Disadvantages- Have to find escrow users that are extremely trustworthy and reliable.
Costs of the trade increased; escrow guy has to pay postage. Maybe traders can somehow offset this cost, or maybe better-off escrow agents can pay this cost themselves as a way of helping out?
December 1, 2011 6:01 p.m.
KrazyCaley says... #4
Oop, it has. I'm always fooled by the page numbers.
December 1, 2011 6:24 p.m.
They get me too ;)
...as well as replying lengthily and having several posts inbetween where I wanted my post to be...
Aaah, must learn to be short and snappy ;)
December 1, 2011 6:27 p.m.
KrazyCaley says... #6
So, I'd be willing to escrow for folks. If you enclose the necessary postage for me to mail it on, I have no problem escrowing. I like to think I'm trustworthy, and in any case, a bunch of people on this site know who/where I am, and that my career would never permit me to cheat anyone in this way.
How ought we to set this up?
December 1, 2011 7:48 p.m.
its been offered by myself and others as well. so long as people work together to prevent scammers there shouldn't be much of a issue. if there is any worries or concerns with the trade don't do it plain and simple.
December 1, 2011 8:05 p.m.
Quite simply, you guys could just appoint a select few people to do it, and make it known, perhaps listing the necessary members as part of the tappedout team as escrowers. Then for each trade that occurs that the participants feel they want an escrower, they each message the desired escrower and go from there.
We already pretty much have it, but - happy trading!!
;)
December 1, 2011 8:25 p.m.
Of course it would!! You say it as though I'm saying what's going to happen.
Just throwing ideas out there dude, as KrazyCaley requested.
December 1, 2011 8:31 p.m.
I don't think its a yeago decision =). If people want to use you guys as escrow I am open to it. I think having many people available is better, since it will effectively double shipping cost and ship-time you will want to pick an escrow somewhat intermediate to the trade. Maybe a map or something, too?
December 2, 2011 11:42 a.m.
yeaGO!, is there a way to implement a percent system? Like, a feedback percent. The categories could be Positive Trade % and Negative Trade %. Just a thought..
December 2, 2011 12:59 p.m.
nibbles272 says... #14
i agree with RiotMaker, i would be more incline to trade with someone with 90% positive feedback over someone with 20%
December 2, 2011 7:27 p.m.
I think he means that if a trade didn't go so smoothly, ie, cards took way too long to arrive, sender took several prompts to send cards, sender sent cards in a poor fashion where damage was likely to occur, sender lied about condition of cards, etc etc, then the receiver would not vote very highly - similar in a way to the 5 star rating system as seen on youtube a while back, or windows media player.
:)
Of course, a banning is super effective ;)
December 2, 2011 8:57 p.m.
Yeah, I just prefer to ban. Sorry I don't like the grey area. People are either cheats or they're not.
December 3, 2011 2:12 a.m.
That's a good clear cut way of putting it. I agree with it too, I just thought I'd try and wrap my head around what they meant by negative feedback as well.
December 3, 2011 1:18 p.m.
Well, could there still be a trade percentage? A banning is more effective, yes. But you wouldnt have to include the negative part in the feedback percentage system. You could have say, 97% out of say, 18 trades for example.
weterr123 says... #1
Ok, so I've read every single post here to get the gist of things.
Firstly, I just want to say that the user buddy is a dick. Additionally though, this is a blessing in disguise - unfortunately, fellow members have lost cards, and that is sad and frustrating - but, it is good that members will be more vigilant and careful, even if no additional prevention system is put in place.
I agree that with referrals and a rating system used together, that is the best bet for safety and trust when entering a trade.
November 29, 2011 2:58 p.m.