quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterWolf:
Why? It'll take little to no time and it'll just be like the security questions you sometimes have to answer when logging into your bank or facebook.

---

Because it could prevent you from posting when you legitimately haven't received yet.

I don't like the fact that a trader has to send a request in order to be reviewed. Someone who is unsatisfied with a trade needs to be able to make that visible on their partner's references

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
Because it could prevent you from posting when you legitimately haven't received yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mulder:
I actually think the ref system is fine the way it is and no matter what you might change it 'll never be perfect anyways.

---

Maybe add a section that tracks number of refs from each person. For example, I personally have had 4 or more transactions with Slinga, but currently that isn't displayed at all. Not an entirely new ref, but a subsection under Slinga showing date, value, and rating/comment.

__________________
"He fights you not because you have wronged him, but because you are there."

[16:17] <@BrassMan> what do you need new tech for?
[16:18] <@BrassMan> gush is unrestricted

quote:

---

Originally posted by thror:
remove the 1-5 scale, positive neutral negative is fine. make refs mandatory. No ref edits.

Maybe add a section that tracks number of refs from each person. For example, I personally have had 4 or more transactions with Slinga, but currently that isn't displayed at all. Not an entirely new ref, but a subsection under Slinga showing date, value, and rating/comment.

---

The major thing is, I dont think you should overcomplicate it. Some of the stuff suggested about making it mandatory is fine, but I think it should be simple....having way too much stuff to fill out to confirm a trade is going to get confusing or irritating if you ask me.

Also, I think in order to make it mandatory, you have to change the rules a little. Basically, instead of exchange of address, the filling out of the inital ref form (or, could call it trade form, or deal form, or something) would be 100% confirmation of a deal. No party should be required to send until that form has been filled out by each person. Instead of having the exact deal in the form, possibly you could just have what type of deal it is (trade or buy/sell), sending first, second, or simul, and then a box to input your address as the official confirmation. Then the form goes out as "pending deal completion" and is filled in once the deal is complete for the reference portion.

The MTGS system allows for multiple trades with the same person, but it doesn't reflect in the numbers. I have like 80 something refs, but it only shows 68 because of duplicates. If you look at my profile though it shows everything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by stu55:
I kind of like it how it is, only part I could see a change is noting multiple deals with same person.

---

After party one has received his side, he ticks the box that he has received. When he does this, Party 1 gets an e-mail with confirmation of receipt.
Ticking the box of receipt means that Party 2 has to send out within 24 hours unless he/she mentions in a comment box being unable to. He/she has to mention when his/her side will be send in the same comment.

After receipt by Party 2, he/she ticks the box for receipt creating 2 notifications or e-mails to both parties to complete the trade by reffing one another. This will be Positive/Neutral/Negative style. When ticking another box than Positive you must put down why the trade was not Positive in a Comment box. It could be optional with Positive trades.
Most important of all: You can not see the ref the other one gave you until you fill out yours. Refs can not be adapted, just by Mods.
Other people can see deals that you've reffed, but not have been reffed for.

The ref system currently on MOTL works for like 65-70%. As stated by someone before me, if you give anything less than 5 people start whining. Refs can be edited afterwards. Sometimes you work your butt off in a trade to make it work and they don't leave a comment, or give you a low rating (3 or lower) without commenting on it.

EDIT:

Multiple trades with multiple people should be visible. If they should count as extra refs, don't think so, but the above should still work the same.

Visibly you could see:

Ref---Trade party---Traded----Rating---Comments
1-----Aether Storm--1-1-2012--Positive---He rules
---------------------5-8-2012--Positive---He still rules
2-----BoltBait-------6-9-2012--Positive---Dude

EDIT 2: The above still needs other boxes like value for instance)
EDIT 3: Spelling. Sjeez.
__________________
/Thunder in the wind/No rain/Peace mourns its passing/

Here are my thoughts:

I think either keeping the 1-5 or changing to E-bay style (Positive/Neutral/Negative) is fine.

I do like the concept of multiple refs basd on mutliple trades or at least a way to let it be tracked, if not counted fully.

I am not in favor of mandatory refs, especially when 90% of what I do on here is selling. Many times, I don't get an e-mail or message confirmation that a package has arrived. Mostly likely, these people also won't come to MOTL to fill out this mandatory ref things either. I could have all the proof in the world that a package arrived, but if MOTL doesn't have it listed as complete because of another person's laziness, it hurts the seller (or one trader in a trade scenario).

One other thing I have seen that I agree with:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LemonMeringue:
I think the dollar value brackets should be increased, instead of 100 being the highest, have 100-500, 500-1000, 1000-5000, 5000+ or something? Or at least 1000+

---

Overall, I don't think the system needs an overhaul or huge changes. The other thing to consider is how would our current refs and structure by updated if we made some of these changes. For example, if we go to the 3 choice method instead of 5, what makes up the 3 groups?

__________________
My 2008 Nationals

The Official Tower Magic Facebook Page

quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:
I like JayC's proposition. It would be ideal to have everything in a monitor kind of system. It would reduce BTA cases and everyone would use the same system in the same way.

After party one has received his side, he ticks the box that he has received. When he does this, Party 1 gets an e-mail with confirmation of receipt.
Ticking the box of receipt means that Party 2 has to send out within 24 hours unless he/she mentions in a comment box being unable to. He/she has to mention when his/her side will be send in the same comment.

After receipt by Party 2, he/she ticks the box for receipt creating 2 notifications or e-mails to both parties to complete the trade by reffing one another. This will be Positive/Neutral/Negative style. When ticking another box than Positive you must put down why the trade was not Positive in a Comment box. It could be optional with Positive trades.
Most important of all: You can not see the ref the other one gave you until you fill out yours. Refs can not be adapted, just by Mods.
Other people can see deals that you've reffed, but not have been reffed for.

The ref system currently on MOTL works for like 65-70%. As stated by someone before me, if you give anything less than 5 people start whining. Refs can be edited afterwards. Sometimes you work your butt off in a trade to make it work and they don't leave a comment, or give you a low rating (3 or lower) without commenting on it.

EDIT:

Multiple trades with multiple people should be visible. If they should count as extra refs, don't think so, but the above should still work the same.

Visibly you could see:

Ref---Trade party---Traded----Rating---Comments
1-----Aether Storm--1-1-2012--Positive---He rules
---------------------5-8-2012--Positive---He still rules
2-----BoltBait-------6-9-2012--Positive---Dude

EDIT 2: The above still needs other boxes like value for instance)
EDIT 3: Spelling. Sjeez.

---

i actually trade on a site that uses the above forementioned system to a certain extent.

The site is gametz

each trader of the deal has a sent and receive box

then another element is wether to grade the deal

positive,neutral or negative

but here's the devil's argument

if you were to vote negative some details should be required if marking that box

personally i was never a fan of value of trade portion of the ref checker. However there should be some representation in terms of whether a transaction was a sale or trade

But, just to be clear:

A new reference system is a LONG term goal. We will be taking our time in designing the system and implementing it. So, don't hold your breath waiting for the new system.

You've probably seen the main site changes that have been implemented so far. More changes are coming and will be rolled out in stages. A new ref system is WAY down the line. We'd really like to put a ton of thought into a system, implement it well, and have it last for YEARS. That won't happen over night. So, please be patient and keep giving us your great ideas!

Thanks.

im a reference to a bunch of peo0ple, who arent my reference.

of course that because im lazy, but also it makes no sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagixDK:
a reference should only exist, once both persons have rated each other imo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AGO:
All the above wrapped into one

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dfitzg88:
actually this would probably fix everything

---

I do't think it would. I have a lot of ppl I send a ref checker out who fill them out but don't send them back. Why should I be penalized for it?

The layout is awfully outdated so that would have to get a overall make-over.

__________________
''Jesus never existed.... I never had a son.''