quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
Again, if he'd said anything about him having an issue with the recent ref issue, there wouldn't have been a problem.

I've very plainly laid out the logic behind my argument, that at a certain point it should be obvious that a person is trustworthy and going to send their end of the deal. Having a lower number doesn't change that. Your logic is incredibly flawed (higher number=higher trustworthiness, which, in my last post, I point out doesn't ACTUALLY exist), but no ones calling you out on your "Don't ask me to send first" post. (Which, again, I find hilarious given the context of your replies.)

---

I actually simu-send in all my trades, and pay first in all my purchases on MOTL. The "I don't send first" is there so people would stop asking me to send first because I am not from US, which happens VERY often.

As for different degree in trustworthiness, that is a very real thing, which is equivalent to risk assessment. The risk of getting ripped off by a member with 300 refs is definitely much lower than a member with only 30 refs.

__________________
****Attention****

quote:

---

Originally posted by junichi:
I actually simu-send in all my trades, and pay first in all my purchases on MOTL. The "I don't send first" is there so people would stop asking me to send first because I am not from US, which happens VERY often.

As for different degree in trustworthiness, that is a very real thing, which is equivalent to risk assessment. The risk of getting ripped off by a member with 300 refs is definitely much lower than a member with only 30 refs.

---

Risk assessment and trustworthiness are two different things. Risk asssessment DETERMINES trustworthiness in a person; if your assessment is that there is a chance you could get ripped off, then you don't TRUST me, thus in your opinion I am not trustworthy.

My argument was that I felt I had enough to establish this. It seems that the people on this site need infinite proof before they trust someone (but requiring others to trust in their references all the same, even in cases like yours where your ref number isn't even above 100 and yet you refuse to send first and require simulsend on all trades).

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
Risk assessment and trustworthiness are two different things. Risk asssessment DETERMINES trustworthiness in a person; if your assessment is that there is a chance you could get ripped off, then you don't TRUST me, thus in your opinion I am not trustworthy.

My argument was that I felt I had enough to establish this. It seems that the people on this site need infinite proof before they trust someone (but requiring others to trust in their references all the same, even in cases like yours where your ref number isn't even above 100 and yet you refuse to send first and require simulsend on all trades).

---

Try and justify it however you want, but the fact remains that refs absolutely count, and higher numbers definitely do show an increased amount of trustworthiness. Just because in your mind trust is binary, in the real world, it's a sliding scale.

In other news, 27 refs is actually a pretty small amount on this site, and definitely not one that most people would consider a sufficient amount to have proven someone as a good trader.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
Try and justify it however you want, but the fact remains that refs absolutely count, and higher numbers definitely do show an increased amount of trustworthiness. Just because in your mind trust is binary, in the real world, it's a sliding scale.

In other news, 27 refs is actually a pretty small amount on this site, and definitely not one that most people would consider a sufficient amount to have proven someone as a good trader.

---

This is completely false; either you trust someone or you don't. Its a very clear answer: do you trust that I'll send you the cards we agreed that I'll send. If there is even an ounce of doubt, then the answer is no.

The sliding scale has more to do with the amount of positive feedback necessary to determine whether you trust that person or not. Trust is the end of the line; up to that, you're building a reputation. Once you've reached the point where you're to be trusted, what else is there to be gained by a higher number of references? Like, for instance, I very much trust that someone with 50 references will send. My confidence in them doesn't change when that number hits 100, regardless of your attempts to make your point look logical.

***edit***
Again, if 27 is a "small number on this site", you're comparing me with other users, not trying to determine if I'm good on my word when it comes to sending cards, which again, is ridiculously flawed. References determine reputation and credibility, they shouldn't be a comparison to see "ooh, he has more, you have less." What does it matter who has more if someone establishes that they're good on their word?

None of this makes sense, though the fact that the people with higher number of refs like this system (because they can essentially control it) makes sense. Once credibility and trustworthiness is established, I see no reason why the common courtesy of sending simultaneously isn't just natural and normal. Saying "your refs are low when compared to others on this site" is very indicative of flawed logic and basically repeating what you've heard/done countless times because, simply, its what you're used to and now that you benefit from the system, you want it to stay in place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
This is completely false; either you trust someone or you don't. Its a very clear answer: do you trust that I'll send you the cards we agreed that I'll send. If there is even an ounce of doubt, then the answer is no.

The sliding scale has more to do with the amount of positive feedback necessary to determine whether you trust that person or not. Trust is the end of the line; up to that, you're building a reputation. Once you've reached the point where you're to be trusted, what else is there to be gained by a higher number of references? Like, for instance, I very much trust that someone with 50 references will send. My confidence in them doesn't change when that number hits 100, regardless of your attempts to make your point look logical.

---

There absolutely are various levels of trust. I trust my neighbor to borrow a tool. I don't trust my neighbor to borrow a million dollars. I trust my dog to not crap on the carpet. I don't trust my dog to not bite the kid who keeps poking him with a stick.

At any rate, I'm done. You're clearly blinded by your need to be right, and ignoring every ounce of logic pointing out why you're wrong. I'll go have a more productive discussion with a brick wall.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
This is completely false; either you trust someone or you don't. Its a very clear answer: do you trust that I'll send you the cards we agreed that I'll send. If there is even an ounce of doubt, then the answer is no.

The sliding scale has more to do with the amount of positive feedback necessary to determine whether you trust that person or not. Trust is the end of the line; up to that, you're building a reputation. Once you've reached the point where you're to be trusted, what else is there to be gained by a higher number of references? Like, for instance, I very much trust that someone with 50 references will send. My confidence in them doesn't change when that number hits 100, regardless of your attempts to make your point look logical.

---

I will talk to Nouveaux and ask him to set a reference cap at 27, since everyone with 27 refs is definitely trustworthy, so anything beyond 27 is moot.

__________________
****Attention****

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrazyBones:
The same logic is applied to a credit report. The more payments you make on time, the higher your credit score is and the more trustworthy you're viewed to be by a lender.
Like it or not, if you've ever had a loan you're already living by this logic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
Again, this is flawed. There is a point where you can't gain anymore score on your credit. If you've had a perfect record for an extended period of time, your credit is at its max. Similarly, if someone else has been perfect as well, just longer (say, 10 years longer than you), you both are understood to be perfect (creditwise) with the exact same score.

---

Actually, that is not true on both ends. While you might have "perfect" credit, there is still only a reasonable limit that people will lend you because on how much debt you have already have, current job status, marital status, etc...

Likewise, here at MOTL, it's not just having a perfect score. You have to look at all the variables including recent activity, value of the trades, etc...

Now, I'm not going to label you a jerk or anything, but you don't seem to clearly understand what is being said. There is no real magic bullet of number of references that makes a person trustworthy. However, if you read the rules of this site, it could give some idea of what a decent guideline would be:

12.Selling MODO tix is only allowed for members who have been on MOTL for at least one year and have at least 40 MOTL references.

By this definition, I would say that your references do not warrant the additional trust nor the right to complain about it, regardless of your time on the boards.

This is just my two cents worth on a slight time crunch. I will say that I don't think anyone is "out to get you", just trying to make you understand the correct view for this site is the one that is different than yours.

__________________
My 2008 Nationals
MOTL's Pro-Tour Winner 2007-2009
Tower Magic Facebook

Usually that'd mean simulsend if over 100 or something, as it's not until that range you can establish that a person is honest enough, I think.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
There absolutely are various levels of trust. I trust my neighbor to borrow a tool. I don't trust my neighbor to borrow a million dollars. I trust my dog to not crap on the carpet. I don't trust my dog to not bite the kid who keeps poking him with a stick.

At any rate, I'm done. You're clearly blinded by your need to be right, and ignoring every ounce of logic pointing out why you're wrong. I'll go have a more productive discussion with a brick wall.

---

The same could be said of you and your blindness to logic and need to be right.

Look, we're not discussing differing levels of trust-required (which, borrowing a tool vs. a million dollars is); we're discussing level of trust in that you'll do the same thing every time, in this case send cards. If someone has a ton of people that can vouch for him about borrowing your tools, you'll feel confident in lending them to him. No one said anything about the million dollars, so you wouldn't on that front. Trying to shift the argument from being a 1 axis argument to then adding in another axis of varying transaction types is logically flawed, though after making a statement like that I could definitely see the need to excuse one's self from any future posts as, at least it seems to me, you hate being showed your error in logic and would hate to see the replies.

I'm sure I'm about to hit a different threshold though, and that is the one where the mods get ornery enough and just block me/ban me, which I wouldn't be surprised by, even if this is all my opinion and one that I'm not forcing on anyone else. I never required anyone to send first and/or simulsend with me, so expressing my opinion about the flawed logic of references seems to not be as big of a deal as people are making it. Then again, I'm making a big deal about my responses, so I guess its deserved.

I just don't see how no one else notices the flawed logic here...

***edit to avoid double post****

quote:

---

Originally posted by MAB_Rapper:
Actually, that is not true on both ends. While you might have "perfect" credit, there is still only a reasonable limit that people will lend you because on how much debt you have already have, current job status, marital status, etc...

Likewise, here at MOTL, it's not just having a perfect score. You have to look at all the variables including recent activity, value of the trades, etc...

Now, I'm not going to label you a jerk or anything, but you don't seem to clearly understand what is being said. There is no real magic bullet of number of references that makes a person trustworthy. However, if you read the rules of this site, it could give some idea of what a decent guideline would be:

12.Selling MODO tix is only allowed for members who have been on MOTL for at least one year and have at least 40 MOTL references.

By this definition, I would say that your references do not warrant the additional trust nor the right to complain about it, regardless of your time on the boards.

This is just my two cents worth on a slight time crunch. I will say that I don't think anyone is "out to get you", just trying to make you understand the correct view for this site is the one that is different than yours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:

I'm sure I'm about to hit a different threshold though, and that is the one where the mods get ornery enough and just block me/ban me, which I wouldn't be surprised by, even if this is all my opinion and one that I'm not forcing on anyone else.

---

If we can ban whoever we want just because there is a disagreement, then Marlo would've been gone in a heartbeat.

__________________
****Attention****

quote:

---

Originally posted by junichi:
If we can ban whoever we want just because there is a disagreement, then Marlo would've been gone in a heartbeat.

---

lol fair enough.

Look, I'm not trying to shift into some new world order. Honestly, the way I read it this morning seemed condescending to me when he asked that I send first, and I could have just read into it incorrectly. I honestly believe that the disparity between the ref numbers, in this case with the relatively low value of the trade (I would put it in the 40s unless we're talking SCG pricing; its not like we're trading duals or power here), wasn't such that it required any "sending first", as it seemed there was enough trust established.

If you go to the local flea market, that guy in the corner booth that you shop at every week may trust you to take a $100 item home and bring him the money next week if you forgot your wallet, while the person in the next stall wouldn't loan you $1 for a drink. I've had users with 100 refs adamant that I send first while users with 500 more than happy to simul-send.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eXtremeEagle:
The way I see it, MOTL isn't one big shop. It's more like a flea market where every user runs their own booth. There is no hard and fast rule for where trustworthy-ness is decided, it's up to each individual person to decide for themselves on their thread.

If you go to the local flea market, that guy in the corner booth that you shop at every week may trust you to take a $100 item home and bring him the money next week if you forgot your wallet, while the person in the next stall wouldn't loan you $1 for a drink. I've had users with 100 refs adamant that I send first while users with 500 more than happy to simul-send.

---

I get that; by that same analogy, that guy in the next stall would probably be more open to loaning you that dollar if 27 of the other vendors that he saw every day were like "he's good, he was prompt in giving me my money back, he's good on his word".

/grabs popcorn

What I want to know is whether the Clique is actually "pack fresh NM."

__________________
Wisconsin - smells like dairy air!

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
Risk assessment and trustworthiness are two different things. Risk asssessment DETERMINES trustworthiness in a person; if your assessment is that there is a chance you could get ripped off, then you don't TRUST me, thus in your opinion I am not trustworthy.

My argument was that I felt I had enough to establish this. It seems that the people on this site need infinite proof before they trust someone (but requiring others to trust in their references all the same, even in cases like yours where your ref number isn't even above 100 and yet you refuse to send first and require simulsend on all trades).

---

You don't have enough refs to establish much credibility in my opinion. Additionally the lack of recent refs further exacerbates the situation. This is simply my subjective view which we are all entitled to (including you)

I don't think crazy was being condescending at all, he asked you if you would send first and he even apologized.

Ref count
How many current refs
Value of trades completed
Value of the trade in question
Who you traded with
Post count
How long you have been a member
Have we traded before
If you trade on other forums

I've certainly canceled trades because someone asked me to send first. And I've asked people with 50+ refs to send first. I don't think there's a set method, it depends on the situation and the trader.

Remember, in the end, both parties have to agree to make the trade. No one forces anyone to make any trade.

If I am trading you my Thragtusk then your 15 refs is fine.
If I am trading you my Underground Sea, you better have 100+ or I am not shipping til your cards are in my possession.
I know its not a golden rule but at least gives some real numbers

Like it or not to alot of people the number of times you have shown yourself faithful in the past is a good measure of how likely you are to continue that behavior.

quote:

---

Originally posted by paragondave:
Threads like these make it easy to know who NOT to bother dealing with.

Silver lining found...

---

Ditto, thanks. If having an opinion means I'm not worth bothering with to you, then I'm more than happy to avoid trading with you as well my friend.

Also, people who keep bringing up "you haven't had any refs in 1.5 years" and declaring that the issue is resolved, I should have to send first and that I shouldn't be even having this discussion apparently missed the point. If the issue was with the length since my last ref, i would have accepted that. I've stated that multiple times, as well as stating that sending first isn't the issue, and that there is a good chance I misread when it seemed condescending at first. The entire concept of a "hierarchy of trustworthiness" just seems ridiculous when you consider the thought that once someone is considered trustworthy, that means you know that they'll send their side of the deal, which is the only point of the reference system. Once you deem someone trustworthy, what the h*ll does it matter if their number is less than yours. That seems beyond petty and ridiculous to me. If my number isn't enough to be trustworthy, I guess then what is? Sure, people have over 10k refs on here, but is that really necessary to establish a positive reputation? I have to accept that his 70 refs mean something, but he doesn't have to accept that my 30 do?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
Ditto, thanks. If having an opinion means I'm not worth bothering with to you, then I'm more than happy to avoid trading with you as well my friend.

Also, people who keep bringing up "you haven't had any refs in 1.5 years" and declaring that the issue is resolved, I should have to send first and that I shouldn't be even having this discussion apparently missed the point. If the issue was with the length since my last ref, i would have accepted that. I've stated that multiple times, as well as stating that sending first isn't the issue, and that there is a good chance I misread when it seemed condescending at first. The entire concept of a "hierarchy of trustworthiness" just seems ridiculous when you consider the thought that once someone is considered trustworthy, that means you know that they'll send their side of the deal, which is the only point of the reference system. Once you deem someone trustworthy, what the h*ll does it matter if their number is less than yours. That seems beyond petty and ridiculous to me. If my number isn't enough to be trustworthy, I guess then what is? Sure, people have over 10k refs on here, but is that really necessary to establish a positive reputation? I have to accept that his 70 refs mean something, but he doesn't have to accept that my 30 do?

Anywho, its obvious that logic isn't going to win anything here, as the "this is how its done" crowd is out in force at this point. I'm going to admit my error in assumign the original post was condescending... but I very much feel my point is beyond valid. I am glad for this post, as I'll never have to deal with Paragondave...

---

Don't take it personally, you don't even know if he was referring to you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
The same could be said of you and your blindness to logic and need to be right.

Look, we're not discussing differing levels of trust-required (which, borrowing a tool vs. a million dollars is); we're discussing level of trust in that you'll do the same thing every time, in this case send cards. If someone has a ton of people that can vouch for him about borrowing your tools, you'll feel confident in lending them to him. No one said anything about the million dollars, so you wouldn't on that front. Trying to shift the argument from being a 1 axis argument to then adding in another axis of varying transaction types is logically flawed, though after making a statement like that I could definitely see the need to excuse one's self from any future posts as, at least it seems to me, you hate being showed your error in logic and would hate to see the replies.

I'm sure I'm about to hit a different threshold though, and that is the one where the mods get ornery enough and just block me/ban me, which I wouldn't be surprised by, even if this is all my opinion and one that I'm not forcing on anyone else. I never required anyone to send first and/or simulsend with me, so expressing my opinion about the flawed logic of references seems to not be as big of a deal as people are making it. Then again, I'm making a big deal about my responses, so I guess its deserved.

I just don't see how no one else notices the flawed logic here...

***edit to avoid double post****

Thanks. No sarcasm at all, I mean it, thanks... I hadn't hadn't seen that rule, and that is a decent threshold. I also know this isn't some hard threshold that I would expect people to adhere to either, but using some logic I could see 40 being a number where, once its reached, people could assume I'd be good on my word. I could accept that. But once its obvious I'm good on my word, why then is a "pecking order" required? If two people who are obviously good on their word want to trade through the mail, why not just send the cards at the same time? reference BS aside, how does that logically not make sense?!

---