Trading Card Bad Posts

Discussion in 'CPA Voting Forum' started by Goku, Jul 16, 2001.


Do you think that there should be a restriction placed on false haves in a H/W list?

Yes, there should be some sort of restriction placed. 0 vote(s) 0.0%
No, there should be no restriction whatsoever placed. 8 vote(s) 100.0%
  1. Goku Sylvan Warrior

    Some of you may remember my thread in CPA/Magic Issues about "Bad Posts".

    Those who have not should check it out before voting.

    Anyway, I would not only like to see response, but some ideas on possible restriction systems for bad trading posts, such as what proof to use, and the specifics on systems. And mind you, that the "Yes" option above can mean any type of restriction system, any at all. The "No" Option refers to no restriction system at all, no matter what rules are put forth in it, and how it is enforced.
  2. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    As I said in your other thread, I think it's generally bad form and manners to post stuff you actually aren't willing to trade, but I think it should be up to the traders to police that, not the site.
  3. Jake74 King of Worthless Trivia

    I don't know if I'd go so far as to call them 'bad traders' but it would be very frustrating to find out that the card you wanted is not available at all... it may take a week to find this out and in that time, you could have been trading your good cards for real ones instead of 'false' cards...

    My vote is to point out publically anyone that has a card on their list and isn't willing to trade it, no matter what...
  4. Goku Sylvan Warrior

    As a matter of fact, that seems the best way to go. I think, as Jake does, that it should be stated publically here that any card under the "Have" slot on the Have/Want lists should be for trade. After all, that was what it was generally understood to be in the first place.

    Zadok, could you help us out?
  5. sageridder Legendary Cpa Member

    So what would stop someone from just saying sorry dude allready been traded?Or what stops someone from falsely saying this,when they just didn't offer what the first trader wanted for the card?While i agree it is kinda sleezy to post haves for trade you won't trade,I don't personally think it is in the best interest of the site to act as a referee in trading with the exception of someone ripping off another.But even in that situation how would you know who to belive?I just think the whole buisness could get real ugly.
  6. Jake74 King of Worthless Trivia

    The difference is that if they post on the board that it is traded, others will know not to ask about it... although that still stinks. :(
    I don't think the site should be a 'referee', just that we should post if someone states that a card on their list is NOT for trade - I know this has happened...
    If you want extra for the card or if you value it higher than normal, just post that in your list... I have and I know I've seen it in other lists. Something like 'for something good' or 'for **specific card**'
  7. Salacious Crumb SevaTheSovietSoapDish

    I said "no"
    Hmm... this post seems kinda bland...

  8. Goku Sylvan Warrior

    Well, I must say, I'm just SO thankful to hear that , Crumb.

    Jake: I understand your meaning... As I stated above, I think that the best path to take would be for Zadok or some other admin to publically state that cards on one's "Have" list mean that the cards are for trade. Perhaps another good additional idea would be for people to post up whenever someone makes a false trading post with this. However, it would be difficult to prevent people from lying about this, so it may not be the most practical approach.
  9. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Like I said before, I don't think this is a matter that the site or admins need to get involved, as in posting that cards on Haves lists must be traded. However, I would be willing to Sticky a "warning" type message that lists users who practice it, if sufficient documentation is provided to back it up. Then it's more of a "buyers beware"; they can still trade with the persons but realize that not all may be available though listed.

    And vice versa, I could take them off the list if some certain amount of trades go through with both parties satisfied.
  10. Mr_Pestilence Wumpus

    I'm missing something. Why would someone post cards they don't have or don't intend to trade?

    But on the subject, how about requiring people to respond to offers in no more than 24 hours?
  11. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    See Goku's post in CPA Magic Issues on why (kind of) people would post cards they don't want to trade.

    In regards to your question, again, it's something the site probably doesn't need to get into. A time limit isn't something that's required universally although it might be nice and good manners; it's up to you to decide whether you want to trade with a tardy person or not.
  12. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    Requiring someone to reply within a specific period of time is neither fair nor realistic, Mr. P. Some people don't frequent the board that often.
    I think that an informal means of handling this is best. Don't make it an official CPA rule, but don't trade with people that do things that you don't like. If enough people don't trade with that person, it's almost as good, and doesn't raise other issues.
  13. LlanowarGoblin New Member

    I don't know what restrictions are currently there, but whenever I make a trade I edit my list on all boards that it has been posted to. I will put "in negotiations" while waiting for a response and delete it soon after I send.

    I never understood why anyone would post a list including things they had no intentions of trading.

    On a side note: I think everyone should be required to alphabetize lists.
  14. Goku Sylvan Warrior

    Spiderman: The sticky idea seems to be the best option for now, and I thank you for the good idea. Should I make one, and you sticky it? Or will you make it?

    I also think that a time restriction would be unfair, as many people here can not come as often as would be required in a time restriction.
  15. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    The chief problem with regulating these things is that you have to ride that very narrow line between what's making life easier and what's overstepping the bounds of the site.

    If restrictions ARE to be put into place, it needs to be done very carefully.
  16. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Goku: Well, I actually haven't heard any other admins besides Isty chime in, so can you PM me your documentation and I'll "kick it upstairs" to see if it warrants a Warning Sticky?
  17. Goku Sylvan Warrior

    I'll work on it, and get it to you as soon as I can.
  18. fuzzy510 I Don't REALLY Exist

    If a restriction is placed, mods have to check EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of the threads in the trading post. I know that nobody wants to do that, esp. the mods.

    Also, I know that if someone posted things that they didn't want to trade in their "Have" list that I wanted, I wouldn't want to trade with them. Ever. Make this known, and it might stop.
  19. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Actually, that's not how I, as a mod, views it.

    Only when someone brings it to our attention and provides sufficient documentation such as emails to back them up would we place the offending person on a "warning" thread.

    But your second idea is what I've been saying all along: if enough people boycott the offending person, perhaps they'll change their ways (or at least stop trying to trade here). The warning thread would be to "spread the word", that people might have to be more cautious in dealing with an offending person.

Share This Page