the difference is this:
1. if others have sent me cards, i have gotten them, and then sent them the cards i had promised to send them, i am trustworthy. and trading with me could be assumed safe.
2. if i have sent first in all my trades, then there is no real proof of my being trustworthy. i've not been in a situation of keeping someone else's cards without giving them anything for it. if in any of my trades i had decided not to send out my cards after agreeing to the trade, i could be a bad trader, but no a ripper (cause the other person, never getting the cards from me would never send me cards).

i thought about suggesting that the "total refs" only include refs for when the person sent cards second, but that would be harsh.
so i'm just suggesting putting the field into the ref form so that atleast if someone is considering doing a $200 trade with me, they will know that even though i've had 3 trades even bigger then that, i have sent first every time, and that trusting me with getting those cards might not be as safe as the current system might make him think.

I like this suggestion.

*thumbsup!*

__________________
GøÐÐ맧

D≡P≡CH≡ MOD≡

370HSSV-0773H

CRIKEY!

It`s general behaviour (and also the worth of the trade) which influences whether he sends first or we simulend (Or well, that is how it goes with me)

Don`t forget what references stand for, everybody can see that if a person has 20 references and he/she sent first that the trader sent first with 20 of his/her trades he/she has performed. It doesn`t nullify new people to such an extent that they can`t build up references. It merely shows his/her creditbility (sp?) for his/her onlinetrading with MOTL. It`s not bad, might be able to possibly spot possible rippers with it. (the ones which aren`t the smartest ones, won`t go into details how)

having though about the potential downsides to my proposal, i now realize what's wrong with it:
it assumes a much higher percentage of rippers on the site then there realy are... as the faq and guide say, "most people are trustworthy traders", and my suggestion was based more on the assumption of "there are rippers everywhere, watch out".
doing this might make the whole atmosphere of the site more distrustfull. and while it may prevent a couple rippers from being successful, it might not be worth the general damage to the comunity.

maybe if we simplified it only to include a single checkbox for every feedback of "i got other person's cards before i sent mine to him" then it would make it tougher to quickly spot the realy trusting souls among us (because you would have to look at the references of everyone he's traded with to notice the patern) because it would not difirentiate between simul sends and send firsts.

frankly i dont think there is a difference between simulsends and sendfirsts... i mean in both cases you're sending your cards away without having gotten anything in return, and trusting your tradepartner to send you your cards (or to have already sent them, which is same thing).
in a simulsend, basicaly both sides are "sending first" and trusting the other side not to rip them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeb:
Doesn't it also allow rippers to identify trustworthy high-ref users? Ie, a ripper could see that 300RefGuy has sent simul for the last year or so--and know that they will be able to scam them with little effort.

It lets the bad guys find their targets much easier.

---

have to agree with you here. I tend to simul with new people so they get some refs that people can email and get an honest ref check from, don't want to be targetted by every idiot thief that happens to swing by here.

Refs exist so they can be checked. It's part of the responsibility of a trader to verify references before they make a trade. The more automated you make the process, the less apt people are to actually do the things that ensure a high level of security in their trades.