Stop deceptive trades

[random11x]

Ive been seeing a lot of "deceptive" trades on the trade system lately. I've reported them but they all do the same thing that should be relatively easy to stop:

 

The person tries to "give" a shaymin ex up for trade and asks for a bunch of random cards, commons and uncommons mostly. But hidden in that list the person also asks for 2 of the exact same shaymin ex.

 

They are essentially hopeing that people dont fully look at the list and skip over the card thinking they will get a good card for cheap but in reality they are losing out.

 

There should be no reason for anyone to put up one card and ask for two of the same exact card. And it should be simple enough to check before allowing the trade to be created.

 

I get there would be work arounds to this like "1 shaymin" for "99 cards and 2 full art shaymin" but this fix is so easy to do and would at least help a little with the trades section getting fludded with deceptive trades.

[xsYosho]

You can only accept a trade after you scroll down...

[The_Iron_bat]

Am I the only one who uses the "Report Trade" Button? Yes? Ok.

 

Use the REPORT TRADE button. It will penalize the responsible Trainer, and take the offer off the market. However, if you were one who accepted one of these trades, that sucks, because now your card is lost. Is there a Card Recovery system?

[ViggyTheMiggy]

Oh my goodness guys i just got the best idea ever! You know the best action you should take! Get over it! Yeah! Thats it! Just Get over it!

You guys complaining about trades, are whats going to make things worse! We thought it was bad when they updated it making it so we have to pay for trades, and now you guys are gonna make it worse. What could be next? Could be anything really. Could make the trading fees higher. Could even make a limit to daily trades, or even how many trades we could have up at once completely. or maybe, more people with special snowflake syndrome will complain after that, and theyll just ban everyone with even slightly misleading trades. Hey, this guy is selling aggron-ex for one more pack than its worth. BAN! This guy has Shaymin-ex tagged for want, and he already has one! BAN! This guy over here has a trade that will profit him in the end. BAN! 

Oh, but what do I know. 

[random11x]

You can only accept a trade after you scroll down...

 

Yes. but if you are scrolling quickly and just skimming the list you could miss something. I agree it would be the persons own fault but its such a simple thing to add and there is no down side.

 

Am I the only one who uses the "Report Trade" Button? Yes? Ok.

 

Use the REPORT TRADE button. It will penalize the responsible Trainer, and take the offer off the market. However, if you were one who accepted one of these trades, that sucks, because now your card is lost. Is there a Card Recovery system?

 

are you the only one who posts without reading? Maybe? ok. Refer to the second sentence of my original post. I havent fallen for one of these trades. But why have them waste space in the trade window, when you could do a simple check that would prevent it.

 

Oh my goodness guys i just got the best idea ever! You know the best action you should take! Get over it! Yeah! Thats it! Just Get over it!

 

You guys complaining about trades, are whats going to make things worse! We thought it was bad when they updated it making it so we have to pay for trades, and now you guys are gonna make it worse. What could be next? Could be anything really. Could make the trading fees higher. Could even make a limit to daily trades, or even how many trades we could have up at once completely. or maybe, more people with special snowflake syndrome will complain after that, and theyll just ban everyone with even slightly misleading trades. Hey, this guy is selling aggron-ex for one more pack than its worth. BAN! This guy has Shaymin-ex tagged for want, and he already has one! BAN! This guy over here has a trade that will profit him in the end. BAN!

 

Oh, but what do I know.

 

Dude.... Im not talking about blowing up the trade system. There is no reason for anyone ever to make a trade where they want 2 of the exact same thing they are putting up for trade. You want to give me one example that makes sence, then ill stop talking. If someone said to you hay do you want one dollar? all you have to do is give me two dollars... would you accept it? do you know anyone that would accept it? If you would accept it then boy do I have some trades to offer you... just let me know. Thanks

[graywh]

Honestly, it should be simple for the server to reject the creation of any trades that have the same card on both sides--giving and receiving.

[ViggyTheMiggy]

Yes. but if you are scrolling quickly and just skimming the list you could miss something. I agree it would be the persons own fault but its such a simple thing to add and there is no down side.

 

 

are you the only one who posts without reading? Maybe? ok. Refer to the second sentence of my original post. I havent fallen for one of these trades. But why have them waste space in the trade window, when you could do a simple check that would prevent it.

 

 

Dude.... Im not talking about blowing up the trade system. There is no reason for anyone ever to make a trade where they want 2 of the exact same thing they are putting up for trade. You want to give me one example that makes sence, then ill stop talking. If someone said to you hay do you want one dollar? all you have to do is give me two dollars... would you accept it? do you know anyone that would accept it? If you would accept it then boy do I have some trades to offer you... just let me know. Thanks

Oh my gosh you complete misconstrued what I was saying. I never said anyone was ever going to actually ACCEPT the bad trades. I just stated whining about them existing at all was poor as it was. We already have to pay to put up public trades, why restrict how we can trade? So this kid thinks he can school some other kids with his double shaymin act or whatever. Its public trades. only like one in every hundred public trades arent a rip off anyway. Thats why its common knowledge not to trust public trades. And everyone who has two other shaymins already would most likely know better.

 

All im saying, is that is a bad idea to tell people how they can and cant trade. Its not ripping someone off if I post my offer up there. Its ripping someone off if im talking to them and telling them what things are worth. I dont even think ripping off is against the rules? it might be, but public trades arent the place to target people. 

 

Got the cops here focusing on the small crimes, while there are bigger issues to cover. This is stupid. 

 

Vigz Out!

[random11x]

 

Got the cops here focusing on the small crimes, while there are bigger issues to cover. This is stupid.

 

 

This would litterally take 3 minutes of codeing to fix.

[awesome_guy]

random11x, i'm not in favour of the bad trades.. but in general, it'd take a lot of work from the developers side to fix this.. in any case, if you have a big enough offer you're looking at it's only right to look at all of it (after all that's why the developers introduced the scroll down before you can accept patch)

 

and banning trades which add both card on the same side would be awkward since I wouldn't be able to give cards to any of my friends who wanted to borrow them by simply putting the same card on both sides and simply adding the card I want to give to my side.. it'd instead take a 2 offer detour if I just want to swap one single card

 

wouldn't it all be easier if we just looked at the offers we're about to accept before accepting them?

[Ceildric]

Oh my gosh you complete misconstrued what I was saying. I never said anyone was ever going to actually ACCEPT the bad trades. I just stated whining about them existing at all was poor as it was. We already have to pay to put up public trades, why restrict how we can trade? So this kid thinks he can school some other kids with his double shaymin act or whatever. Its public trades. only like one in every hundred public trades arent a rip off anyway. Thats why its common knowledge not to trust public trades. And everyone who has two other shaymins already would most likely know better.

 

All im saying, is that is a bad idea to tell people how they can and cant trade. Its not ripping someone off if I post my offer up there. Its ripping someone off if im talking to them and telling them what things are worth. I dont even think ripping off is against the rules? it might be, but public trades arent the place to target people. 

 

Got the cops here focusing on the small crimes, while there are bigger issues to cover. This is stupid. 

 

Vigz Out!

 

It's ripping someone off no matter where you do it, how you do it, if you're knowingly taking advantage of them.  A lot of traders used to throw up lots of bad offers on public, knowing that a small percentage of those would get a hit from some sucker that wanders along.  Those trade offers were clearly posted in bad faith, with bad intentions.

 

And really, you need something to be explicitly listed as "against the rules" for you to realize it's wrong?  How about a little morality or respect for your fellow man?

[the_sqveel]

I was in closed beta, back before it was so obvious who was "giving" and who was "recieiving" and back when we could "trade" something for nothing (which is not trading in my eyes, but giving) and thus people could ask for something for nothing, and make it look (through clever wording) that you were getting something for nothing as opposed to the other way, that was deceptive trades. That was immoral and preyed on those who could not read english too well. That needed to be fixed, and it was

 

now we have to pay to put up a trade, have to trade something for something, have a limit on the time the trade stays there, have to scroll to the bottom and see all the trade before accepting, and can't add our own bespoked text to trade, i'd argue that deceptive trades are impossible.

 

why not let these people waste their coins putting up trades no-one will accept? They're only wasting their own time and coins. And if someone does accept it i say fool on them. They had all the tools available to check wether they think the trade is worth it or not. IT clearly shows what you are giving, what you are getting, and forces you to scroll through all the cards before you can accept. If someone scrolls through quickly without checking and accepts a bad deal it's that players fault. It's like just accepting ** and Cs without reading them then trying to sue the company about it.

 

sorry guys, but after seeing years back ACTUAL deceptive trades, i have no sympathy for the people who accept the unfair trades that are here now

[awesome_guy]

I completely agree with the_sqvveel.. though  putting up deceptive trades is unforgivable, so is accepting them- since the pokemon company limited your trade to 100 at a time- way better than the previous 400+ offers I've seen and the mandatory scroll through all of it.

 

if you cannot spend the time to use these resources, maybe you don't deserve it to be changed

 

I honestly wouldn't mind much if this goes either way (as long as it allows me to continue giving and borrowing certain cards from friends with a single simple trade- without having to worry about your counterbalances moving back)

 

yes it is possible to make a change for these trades, but is this really more important than the censors, the game lags, the massive data consumption, tourney stallers, or the slowking glitch is my question

[Starkipraggy]

The devs have more pressing issues to worry about than trying to save people from their own stupidity. Like the_sqveel said, it is more than sufficiently clear what you're getting and what you're giving, and on top of that you can even see how many common/uncommon/rares are on each side of the trade. The devs are not nannies, they don't have time to mollycoddle you every step of the way and kiss your boo-boo if you let yourself get scammed.

[Ceildric]

I was in closed beta, back before it was so obvious who was "giving" and who was "recieiving" and back when we could "trade" something for nothing (which is not trading in my eyes, but giving) and thus people could ask for something for nothing, and make it look (through clever wording) that you were getting something for nothing as opposed to the other way, that was deceptive trades. That was immoral and preyed on those who could not read english too well. That needed to be fixed, and it was

 

now we have to pay to put up a trade, have to trade something for something, have a limit on the time the trade stays there, have to scroll to the bottom and see all the trade before accepting, and can't add our own bespoked text to trade, i'd argue that deceptive trades are impossible.

 

why not let these people waste their coins putting up trades no-one will accept? They're only wasting their own time and coins. And if someone does accept it i say fool on them. They had all the tools available to check wether they think the trade is worth it or not. IT clearly shows what you are giving, what you are getting, and forces you to scroll through all the cards before you can accept. If someone scrolls through quickly without checking and accepts a bad deal it's that players fault. It's like just accepting ** and Cs without reading them then trying to sue the company about it.

 

sorry guys, but after seeing years back ACTUAL deceptive trades, i have no sympathy for the people who accept the unfair trades that are here now

 

Just because there were deceptive trades in the past, even arguably more deceptive ones, does not mean the current lot don't qualify is immoral and ill-intended.

 

Let's look at a similar circumstance outside the card game.  How many of you thoroughly read all the fine print in all the EULAs that you accept?  If there was a clause in there somewhere that was unreasonable and clearly intended to take advantage of your naivete, would you not feel wronged in some way?

 

Or let us consider a real world Pokemon trading card situation.  Imagine there is a class of special needs kids who have just opened up some packs.  A couple of older kids without learning disabilities who have been playing the game for several years now decide to wait outside the classroom of the special needs kids and offer them trades.  They'll offer some flashy looking, but otherwise useless, EX cards or perhaps a handful of random stuff for "just one" of the cards the special needs kids have just opened (which happen to be from the latest set, and be in very high demand).  Surely there's no ethical dilemma here right?

[random11x]

Listen... Im a software engineer. I design software for a living. This check would litterally take the devs 3 minutes. lets say 10 minutes to fully test it. Although its so simple I cant see it needing that much testing.

 

If the devs think this would take some valuable time away from something else thats their call. Im not going to complain if they leave it as it is. I just thought it might be a simple solution to help clean up some of the trades out there. In my case, as I have 2 shaymin ex I would hate it if some punk (for lack of a better word) was actually able to pull this skeem off, and illegitimately get a free rare card just because someone wasnt being smart when they accepted the trade. And again for the 100th time, its so simple to fix so why even let there be a chance someone could pull it off.

 

As for trading with a friend, make the check only affect public trades. Simple.

[awesome_guy]

yes but then again, preventing the censor to censor lagged comments should take even less time than that.. or even implementing that both can see that the chat was censored would take at max a few minutes.. I don't see why "some punk" who manages to get a bonus off you not observing the trade you make properly should be more important than the chat lag which frustrates thousands of members daily

[random11x]

yes but then again, preventing the censor to censor lagged comments should take even less time than that.. or even implementing that both can see that the chat was censored would take at max a few minutes.. I don't see why "some punk" who manages to get a bonus off you not observing the trade you make properly should be more important than the chat lag which frustrates thousands of members daily

 

did I not just say its up to them if they have time. And they already have a patch for the chat problem. It will be in the next release.

 

Also the chat problem is related to a bug. It can be dificult to track down bugs if you dont know the exact circumstances that cause them. So I wouldnt call it simple to fix. But they did anyway.

 

This on the other hand  is not a bug, It just a simple check, maybe 3 lines of code.

[the_sqveel]

How many of you thoroughly read all the fine print in all the EULAs that you accept?

 

heh, this is why i said this is exactly like people not reading terms and conditions before signing a contract. It's on your head if you don't check these things when the resources are there for you

 

( censor censored a capital letter T next to a lowercase s for some reason in my original post when i tried to shorten terms and conditions)

[awesome_guy]

 

Let's look at a similar circumstance outside the card game. How many of you thoroughly read all the fine print in all the EULAs that you accept? If there was a clause in there somewhere that was unreasonable and clearly intended to take advantage of your naivete, would you not feel wronged in some way?

 

 

 

Or let us consider a real world Pokemon trading card situation. Imagine there is a class of special needs kids who have just opened up some packs. A couple of older kids without learning disabilities who have been playing the game for several years now decide to wait outside the classroom of the special needs kids and offer them trades. They'll offer some flashy looking, but otherwise useless, EX cards or perhaps a handful of random stuff for "just one" of the cards the special needs kids have just opened (which happen to be from the latest set, and be in very high demand). Surely there's no ethical dilemma here right?

ceidric.. if you signed the end user license agreement without looking, there are a few differences from the current situation:

 

 

 

1. the eula doesn't force you to scroll through it to the bottom-just click on the accept button

 

 

 

2. the eula isn't limited to being of anywhere near the length of the maximum sized trade.. I could check the trades a hundred times over before being able to read that eula

 

 

 

3. the pokemon company can get penalized legally or at least with bad reviews/player numbers if they make a deceptive eula

 

 

 

ptcgo however has made you run through the cards you're offering- it barely takes any time to validate a 30-40 card trade and I doubt validating a hundred card trade takes much time out of your day- maybe a minute or two- luckily most of the valuable cards ****, hgss cards, sr,legends, sl's, etc.) are blatantly visible to the eye

 

 

 

all i'm saying is.. if a player was to be careful while looking at his trades, he'd notice this change is completely unnecessary

 

 

 

i'm not necessarily against this patch, just saying it's being made out to be a bigger deal than it is

[Mod_Poplar]

Hello Trainers!

 

Thanks for your feedback. It will be submitted to the Dev team for consideration. This thread will remain open, but please remember that all discussion should remain constructive. Thanks!

[Stratadrake]

Honestly, it should be simple for the server to reject the creation of any trades that have the same card on both sides--giving and receiving.

 

This.  I can generally understand things like wanting to trade a plain card for its foil counterpart, but there is simply no good reason to have the exact same version of the exact same card on both ends of the trade.

 

 

This would litterally take 3 minutes of codeing to fix.

 

... followed by 5 minutes of compiling, an hour of immediate testing, three days of alpha player tests to vet it didn't break anything in the process....  see, it's not the raw coding that's the bottleneck, it's the procedural overhead.

[Ceildric]

 

 

 

ceidric.. if you signed the end user license agreement without looking, there are a few differences from the current situation:

 

 

 

1. the eula doesn't force you to scroll through it to the bottom-just click on the accept button

 

 

 

2. the eula isn't limited to being of anywhere near the length of the maximum sized trade.. I could check the trades a hundred times over before being able to read that eula

 

 

 

3. the pokemon company can get penalized legally or at least with bad reviews/player numbers if they make a deceptive eula

 

 

 

ptcgo however has made you run through the cards you're offering- it barely takes any time to validate a 30-40 card trade and I doubt validating a hundred card trade takes much time out of your day- maybe a minute or two- luckily most of the valuable cards ****, hgss cards, sr,legends, sl's, etc.) are blatantly visible to the eye

 

 

 

all i'm saying is.. if a player was to be careful while looking at his trades, he'd notice this change is completely unnecessary

 

 

 

i'm not necessarily against this patch, just saying it's being made out to be a bigger deal than it is

 

 

1. Some EULAs, as well as less binding Terms and Conditions agreements, now make you scroll through them (at least really quickly) before you can click "Accept".

 

 

 

2. You're right, trades can be browsed more quickly, but how much a trade can ********* over is considerably less as well. Even if you lose one of your most valuable cards in this game, it's financial impact in your life is probably going to be pretty slim. That said, the analogy obviously has some flaws, but I don't think that completely invalidates my point that most people are more than a little lazy / naive / complacent in certain ways, and that doesn't necessarily mean it's moral to take advantage of them.

 

 

 

3. This last point of yours actually supports my side of the argument, if you ask me. Write a deceptive or abusive EULA and you're going to probably get bad reviews, and there's a good chance it won't hold up in court. Create a deceptive trade and what's the penalty? Maybe you get reported if the right person notices? But then, how big of an impact does that actually have? I kind of doubt that if I report someone's trade it's going to get deleted and the guy get a strike on his account (and if it does, that sounds highly abusable), and there's a good chance the guy is using a secondary account anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you that this problem is probably being made a bit of a bigger deal of than it deserves (though, is starting a feedback post really "making a big deal"?), but I would also say that the backlash against the initial complaint has been much bigger than it deserves as well.

 

 

 

TBH, I don't even like the OP's solution that much, but I don't think it calls for the usual victim-blaming mentality either, along with with the slippery slope-esque argument against tweaking the trade system to make it clearer.

 

 

 

Even your contention that developers should focus their time and energies elsewhere seems a bit misplaced. Surely all feedback should be welcome and collected here, and the developers, not you or I, can judge what they want to or are able to work on first.

 

 

 

Along that line, I don't think it's quite fair to suggest that working on this would take away time from working on an issue like poor resource management by the game. The technical / execution side of a tweak to fix this sort of thing is going to be easier and much more straight-forward than increasing resource management efficiency across the whole game. Meanwhile, this problem is more design / theory intensive than solving resource management issues. This requires a management and/or design decision about what is fair but not too heavy-handed or with too many unwanted side-effects. The other requires technicians not only figuring out techniques for increasing efficiency, but also going through the code and implementing it.

 

 

 

Simply put, solving this issue likely involves different people than solving some of the others.

 

 

 

Now, as for my own personal take on a solution, I think I would prefer having the sorting of items in trades changed so that the rarest cards are displayed first.

[random11x]

... followed by 5 minutes of compiling, an hour of immediate testing, three days of alpha player tests to vet it didn't break anything in the process....  see, it's not the raw coding that's the bottleneck, it's the procedural overhead.

 

Thats their systems. Im sure they would put multiple changes in any alpha test. But only they would know how they handle their release procedures.

 

 

all i'm saying is.. if a player was to be careful while looking at his trades, he'd notice this change is completely unnecessary

 

i'm not necessarily against this patch, just saying it's being made out to be a bigger deal than it is

 

You're right. This is a very small deal. For us, and for the developers. So why not have it to save the few people that would fall for something like this. Like you said its not a big deal, I dont know why people are going crazy over a simple suggestion like the world is going to end if it gets accepted. The only people who should be mad about this are the people who are doing it.

[bocs888]

What do you think/feel about having someone moderate trades? I don't know if this is a solution to this problem or other trade issues but I've been thinking about this for some time. Or would this cause a whole lot of other issues?

[Chihiko]

Why not just add a warning symbol next to the accept-button, if the trade contain the exact same version of a card on both sides. This would make it easier to spot such a trade, but you would still be able to accept if you want to do the trade anyway. I'm considering awesome_guy's opinion about borrowing cards between friends. They could also highlight the cards that are the same with a red frame for example to make it stand out and easier to spot..