Good luck in your dealings. I hope they go well for you.

----- ME -----
I'm game. Can you confirm your Clique is pack fresh NM? I'm picky.

I would ask you to send first. This is a decent sized trade and your refs aren't high enough for my liking. If you were 40/50+ I wouldn't have a problem with it. Sorry.

----- HIM -----
You posted your 2 snapcasters for a V. clique; I can do this if you're still willing.

Would Simulsend be ok?

_________________________________

Hey everyone.

I'd like people to weigh in on the discussion above that I had this morning with another trader.

The trade is $50 in value and I have almost 3 times the references (73 vs 27). 27 doesn't seem that high to me and I asked him to send first which resulted in the PM above.

As you can see, he feels 27 is more than enough to verify he is an honarable trader and shouldn't be required to send first.

I realize everyone has a right to their own opinion but I'd like to hear from the rest of the community on their own sending requirements.

Am I being unreasonable in my reqest?

Now you don't have to trade with that jerk.

__________________
****Attention****

Obviously I am the other party and I have no issue with that being known, though I do appreciate crazy for redacting my name to give me that option.

References should not be a ranking system, and me feeling that way, in my opinion, doesn't make me a "jerk". References are meant to establish that you are a reputable trader, and if someone has enough to establish a perfect trading history across a decent amount of time, with no issues (ie BTA threads), then I see no reason why "more references=more important/able to dictate the terms of trade".

Seriously, at what level does this end? At 50 references, do my references now hold more weight? But what does the 50th "5" ranking I receive do that the 27th didn't? Does that happen at 100?

The problem with this system is that it seems to forget that there are two people involved in each trade. Two living, breathing humans who both have (presumably) the same amount of value going out by faith, and by that I mean faith in the reference system that the cards will in fact be sent back.

In this scenario, I'm required to have faith that the references crazy has are sufficient to know that I'll receive my cards back. However, apparently due to the fact that he's simply had more occurrences than I have, he's not required to have that same faith. That makes no sense, and not being open to simul sending when both sides have immaculate trade histories seems almost condescending to me.

Not quite as condescending as a mod who calls people names, but I suppose you get the point.

****Edit****

Hilariously enough, Junichi has as his first "rule":

quote:

---

[foil] Don't ask me to send first. [/foil]

---

I presume this means people who have more refs than him (because if you have less, I doubt you'd ask that); so apparently Junichi feels he has enough refs to establish credibility, but me feeling the same makes me said "jerk".

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
Awesome when you see the people who are supposed to be moderating these forums calling others "jerks" for having an opinion.

Obviously I am the other party and I have no issue with that being known, though I do appreciate crazy for redacting my name to give me that option.

References should not be a ranking system, and me feeling that way, in my opinion, doesn't make me a "jerk". References are meant to establish that you are a reputable trader, and if someone has enough to establish a perfect trading history across a decent amount of time, with no issues (ie BTA threads), then I see no reason why "more references=more important/able to dictate the terms of trade".

Seriously, at what level does this end? At 50 references, do my references now hold more weight? But what does the 50th "5" ranking I receive do that the 27th didn't? Does that happen at 100?

The problem with this system is that it seems to forget that there are two people involved in each trade. Two living, breathing humans who both have (presumably) the same amount of value going out by faith, and by that I mean faith in the reference system that the cards will in fact be sent back.

In this scenario, I'm required to have faith that the references crazy has are sufficient to know that I'll receive my cards back. However, apparently due to the fact that he's simply had more occurrences than I have, he's not required to have that same faith. That makes no sense, and not being open to simul sending when both sides have immaculate trade histories seems almost condescending to me.

Not quite as condescending as a mod who calls people names, but I suppose you get the point.

****Edit****

Hilariously enough, Junichi has as his first "rule":
I presume this means people who have more refs than him (because if you have less, I doubt you'd ask that); so apparently Junichi feels he has enough refs to establish credibility, but me feeling the same makes me said "jerk".

Amazing... great to see these forums in good, logical hands.

---

You realize you have 0 recent refs, right? Your last reference was from 2011.

__________________
****Attention****

quote:

---

Originally posted by junichi:
You realize you have 0 recent refs, right? Your last reference was from 2011.

---

I sure do. And if that was stated, I would have actually had no issue in sending first. Declaring "i have more, i make the rules" feels quite condescending.

I have trades that I haven't sent out references for recently actually, but I would have fully accepted that response. My issue wasn't with being asked to send first, it was the reasoning, which in my opinion, makes no sense. Funny enough, the one issue I could see with having around 30 refs is "you could be someone who is trying to build refs to then rip people off" gets dispelled by the fact that I've been trading here since 2009, which would make that one of the longest buildups to a rip I've ever seen. 4 years? And if that isn't your complaint (the number being low enough that it could mean that you are just trying to build refs to establish credibility to ultimately rip people off), then seriously, what is the issue then? 30 refs is plenty to establish that I am going to send my end.

quote:

---

Originally posted by junichi:
It's a blessing in disguise.

Now you don't have to trade with that jerk.

---

Is this a serious post or troll post? The trader with 27 Ref's feels that he's established a history of positive trading and doesn't feel that he should have to send first and so he declined to trade with CrazyBones. So he's a jerk for not wanting to send first? I'm confused by your post.

[Adding info based on now we know who the trader with 27 Ref's is]

Sorry now I'm going to have to agree with CrazyBones that since you haven't had a Ref since 2011 I'd ask that you send first as well. Still no reason to call you a jerk but I can understand why someone would want you to send first.

quote:

---

Originally posted by marvinc023:
Is this a serious post or troll post? The trader with 27 Ref's feels that he's established a history of positive trading and doesn't feel that he should have to send first and so he declined to trade with CrazyBones. So he's a jerk for not wanting to send first? I'm confused by your post.

[Adding info based on now we know who the trader with 27 Ref's is]

Sorry now I'm going to have to agree with CrazyBones that since you haven't had a Ref since 2011 I'd ask that you send first as well. Still no reason to call you a jerk but I can understand why someone would want you to send first.

---

No, the word jerk is definitely a wrong call by me. I was trying to make light of the situation, but I guess it wasn't viewed as such. Either way, because everyone has a different standard of what is a respectable amount of refs, the consensus has always been "refs determine sending".

Honestly, even Troll & Toad sent first when they were still low in refs, and I am sure they are more reputable than a lot of us here.

__________________
****Attention****

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
References should not be a ranking system, and me feeling that way, in my opinion, doesn't make me a "jerk".

---

So what you're really saying is that just because someone else has put significantly more time into trading and proving that they are trustworthy doesn't mean that they should reap the benefits of that earned trust and ask people with a pretty low number of refs to not send first? You demanded to get equal treatment when the refs are very not-equal. How exactly is that not being a jerk?

__________________
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 marvinc023:
Is this a serious post or troll post? The trader with 27 Ref's feels that he's established a history of positive trading and doesn't feel that he should have to send first and so he declined to trade with CrazyBones. So he's a jerk for not wanting to send first? I'm confused by your post.

[Adding info based on now we know who the trader with 27 Ref's is]

Sorry now I'm going to have to agree with CrazyBones that since you haven't had a Ref since 2011 I'd ask that you send first as well. Still no reason to call you a jerk but I can understand why someone would want you to send first.

---

Again, if the issue had been the time since last ref, there would have been no issue. My issue was solely with the flawed logic that "I have more refs, by default you send first" even though, logically, it makes no sense that one person is "more trustworthy" because of a higher number. I mean, is there a direct translation of # of refs to trustworthiness? At what point do you reach "max trustworthiness"? And if you reach that point, why then would you need to ever send first again if we're to believe references are legitimate measures of credibility?

If crazybones had ever pointed out the time between references, I wouldn't have argued, as sending first was never the actual issue (I think thats the misconception here, but I assure you that sending first isn't actually the issue). The issue is with the flawed logic behind the belief that refs are hierarchical and are equivalent to a ranking system when, in reality, references simply show that "this one time, he kept his word". How many times should it take to establish that I'm good on my word? And why then should someone who had more occurrences not have to adhere to the faith-based system of references (in that, I have to have faith in references that this person is in fact good on their word) that I have to when I send?

It makes no sense to me, and seems condescending when I get "I have more, you must send first".

quote:

---

Originally posted by junichi:
No, the word jerk is definitely a wrong call by me. I was trying to make light of the situation, but I guess it wasn't viewed as such. Either way, because everyone has a different standard of what is a respectable amount of refs, the consensus has always been "refs determine sending".

Honestly, even Troll & Toad sent first when they were still low in refs, and I am sure they are more reputable than a lot of us here.

---

And I have no issue with someone who refuses to trade with me based on reference disparity (and issues therewithin); I just find the system flawed (logically) and condescending in these cases. I know why it occurs (when people first join the site and have no refs, others made them send first, and now that they "have the power" to request the same thing, they exercise it, because its "how things work"), doesn't mean it isn't flawed.

Pertaining to your last point, you say "even troll and toad sends first when they have less references" to somehow prove your point, yet again, you have the very explicit instructions on your page that no one should ever ask you to send first. Very hypocritical of you (especially in light of you declaring members of the site in which you're expected to maintain order on "jerks" for the same opinion).

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
Again, if the issue had been the time since last ref, there would have been no issue. My issue was solely with the flawed logic that "I have more refs, by default you send first" even though, logically, it makes no sense that one person is "more trustworthy" because of a higher number. I mean, is there a direct translation of # of refs to trustworthiness? At what point do you reach "max trustworthiness"? And if you reach that point, why then would you need to ever send first again if we're to believe references are legitimate measures of credibility?

If crazybones had ever pointed out the time between references, I wouldn't have argued, as sending first was never the actual issue (I think thats the misconception here, but I assure you that sending first isn't actually the issue). The issue is with the flawed logic behind the belief that refs are hierarchical and are equivalent to a ranking system when, in reality, references simply show that "this one time, he kept his word". How many times should it take to establish that I'm good on my word? And why then should someone who had more occurrences not have to adhere to the faith-based system of references (in that, I have to have faith in references that this person is in fact good on their word) that I have to when I send?

It makes no sense to me, and seems condescending when I get "I have more, you must send first".

And I have no issue with someone who refuses to trade with me based on reference disparity (and issues therewithin); I just find the system flawed (logically) and condescending in these cases. I know why it occurs (when people first join the site and have no refs, others made them send first, and now that they "have the power" to request the same thing, they exercise it, because its "how things work"), doesn't mean it isn't flawed.

Pertaining to your last point, you say "even troll and toad sends first when they have less references" to somehow prove your point, yet again, you have the very explicit instructions on your page that no one should ever ask you to send first. Very hypocritical of you (especially in light of you declaring members of the site in which you're expected to maintain order on "jerks" for the same opinion).

Also, nice backpedaling. Very impressive.

---

It's unfortunate that our 13 years old reference system doesn't cater to your need.

__________________
****Attention****

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
So what you're really saying is that just because someone else has put significantly more time into trading and proving that they are trustworthy doesn't mean that they should reap the benefits of that earned trust and ask people with a pretty low number of refs to not send first? You demanded to get equal treatment when the refs are very not-equal. How exactly is that not being a jerk?

---

Significantly more time? I think thats an assumption based on a number that is inaccurate. I've been on this site for years, and simply due to the fact that I haven't come to agree to as many trades then I've got less time invested in this?

And again, at what level do you "earn trust"? Is there some arbitrary number where thats the case? If someone had 500 references, could they then tell crazy that he's untrustworthy and must send first due to the disparity in number? If someone else has the ability to determine how much they buy into references and how much they value their own, how is it that me doing the same makes me a "jerk"?

Also, I'd like to know how having an opinion about ANYTHING makes me a jerk. I'm not requiring crazy to trade with me, I'm simply stating that applying some ridiculous arbitrary ranking system based solely on total number of agreed trades is rather ridiculous. Again, at what point is "credibility" established? I believe, strongly, that a perfect record across multiple years with upwards of 30 confirmed references establishes that I am good on my word.

My question is, would you disagree with this statement? and if so, what threshold do I need to reach, in your book, to establish that I am good on my word?

Here's the deal, it does make them more trustworthy. But this is a business, it's not personal. No one here knows you. No one here knows me, or the original poster for that matter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by junichi:
It's unfortunate that our 13 years old reference system doesn't cater to your need.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
Its also quite unfortunate that millions of years of human evolution (to the point that we now understand very basic logic) doesn't cater to yours. Apparently trying to apply logic=jerk, disagreeing with mods=jerk, and honestly, thats rather depressing. I've actually had nothing but positive interactions with the mods on this site over the years, even going out of my way to try to report people I think may be returning banned members and/or rippers (ask Jaz, I recently helped discover John Strickland's latest attempts to rip), but this has shown that even the moderator staff on MOTL isn't immune to lackoflogicitis.

---

You mean the logic of not sending first while having very few total refs, and 0 recent refs? Yes, I honestly don't get that logic.

__________________
****Attention****

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aprilsrain:
The OP was not comfortable for a high value trade with simulsend for your references. Yes, in the 20s-30s you'll get that. Heck, I've even gotten that recently at around 50, but yes, the guy in question did have over 200 refs.

Here's the deal, it does make them more trustworthy. But this is a business, it's not personal. No one here knows you. No one here knows me, or the original poster for that matter.

There's a trade involved. The question is: are you comfortable sending first in trusting that he'll send back? If the answer is yes, do the trade. If the answer is no, don't. Anything else said is moot and is just stirring up argument for the sake of argument (incidentally which is why you've stirred up forum posters in opposition). The system here for the most part works. If you don't like it, don't trade.

---

What exactly does "more trustworthy" mean!? Either someone is credible and trustworthy or they're not. Does the fact that he has a higher number mean he has a 0% chance of ripping while my lower number means I'll rip, maybe, 25% of the time? There's literally no such thing as "more trustworthy"; you either are or you aren't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:

And I have no issue with someone who refuses to trade with me based on reference disparity (and issues therewithin); I just find the system flawed (logically) and condescending in these cases. I know why it occurs (when people first join the site and have no refs, others made them send first, and now that they "have the power" to request the same thing, they exercise it, because its "how things work"), doesn't mean it isn't flawed.

---

Are you seriously jealous/butthurt over somebody's ref total?

I plan to post a new thread in non-mtg soon. Here will be my rules:

1. 0-20 refs, you send first.
2. 20-50 refs, simul.
3. 50+, I'll send first.
4. If cash is involved, you will send first unless you have 50+ refs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by junichi:
You mean the logic of not sending first while having very few total refs, and 0 recent refs? Yes, I honestly don't get that logic.

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
Significantly more time? I think thats an assumption based on a number that is inaccurate. I've been on this site for years, and simply due to the fact that I haven't come to agree to as many trades then I've got less time invested in this?

---

Read, comprehend, THEN post. Note that I said more time TRADING. My wife has been a member for years, but she only has 13 refs. I don't for a minute expect people with 30 or 40 refs to not ask her to send first. She hasn't put in the time doing trades to earn a reputation here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
And again, at what level do you "earn trust"? Is there some arbitrary number where thats the case? If someone had 500 references, could they then tell crazy that he's untrustworthy and must send first due to the disparity in number? If someone else has the ability to determine how much they buy into references and how much they value their own, how is it that me doing the same makes me a "jerk"?

---

It entirely depends on the number of refs that the other party has. If I made a deal with Slinga, I'd absolutely send first, he has for more refs. There is no magical number of refs where suddenly you're a trading god and everyone must respect you. Those who have put in the effort into a lot of trades have earned the right to expect those who have significantly fewer refs send first if they wish. It's just common sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
I believe, strongly, that a perfect record across multiple years with upwards of 30 confirmed references establishes that I am good on my word.

---

Good for you. Just don't expect others with 50, 100, 200, 500 refs to feel the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
Also, please explain to me exactly how me having an opinion on this subject (even if it doesn't mesh with yours)equates to me being a jerk.

---

Having an opinion doesn't make you a jerk. Acting like you are too good to send first because you've supposedly put in your time and are too good to send first with a measley 27 refs makes you a jerk.

__________________
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 hilikuS:
Are you seriously jealous/butthurt over somebody's ref total?

The ref system wasn't built so someday in the future it could insult you. It's built the way it is because it works. By the same argument, if I have 207 refs and you have 27 refs... why make a scoff about sending to me first? It's not flawed, and it's not unfair. Now you're legit picking fights with mods over it. You demand respect for minimal work put in. That kind of does make you a jerk.

---

I don't recall ever "demanding respect". I simply stated that I've established that I'm going to send my side. If my amount isn't enough, then what is? Or will there always been someone with more and I'll always be required to send first? So if i reach 5000, and the guy with 12000 agrees to a trade with me, him asking me to send first based on ref numbers seems absolutely ridiculous. I'm fairly certain you'd agree.

I'm saying hte same thing, however, I'm simply stating that I see no reason why the number has to be so d*mn large. How many times do I need to trade before it becomes apparent I'm going to send. I mean, seriously, someone give me a number here. Or are we really all insane enough to buy into the notion that "more refs = send last" for the rest of time? Logically, it makes no sense... you build refs to establish credibility. I've established credibility over YEARS of trading on here. If the issue was time since last ref, fine, I can see that. But saying "my number is higher, I'm more trustworthy, YOU must accept my references as a record of my credibility but I will do no such thing for you" is rather ridiculous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
I don't recall ever "demanding respect". I simply stated that I've established that I'm going to send my side. If my amount isn't enough, then what is? Or will there always been someone with more and I'll always be required to send first? So if i reach 5000, and the guy with 12000 agrees to a trade with me, him asking me to send first based on ref numbers seems absolutely ridiculous. I'm fairly certain you'd agree.

---

No actually I disagree. If somebody's got 7,000 more refs than me. I got no problem sending first. At thousands of refs I might request that we simul-send, but if he doesn't want to, that's his right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:

I'm saying hte same thing, however, I'm simply stating that I see no reason why the number has to be so d*mn large. How many times do I need to trade before it becomes apparent I'm going to send. I mean, seriously, someone give me a number here. Or are we really all insane enough to buy into the notion that "more refs = send last" for the rest of time? Logically, it makes no sense... you build refs to establish credibility. I've established credibility over YEARS of trading on here. If the issue was time since last ref, fine, I can see that. But saying "my number is higher, I'm more trustworthy, YOU must accept my references as a record of my credibility but I will do no such thing for you" is rather ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
Read, comprehend, THEN post. Note that I said more time TRADING. My wife has been a member for years, but she only has 13 refs. I don't for a minute expect people with 30 or 40 refs to not ask her to send first. She hasn't put in the time doing trades to earn a reputation here.

It entirely depends on the number of refs that the other party has. If I made a deal with Slinga, I'd absolutely send first, he has for more refs. There is no magical number of refs where suddenly you're a trading god and everyone must respect you. Those who have put in the effort into a lot of trades have earned the right to expect those who have significantly fewer refs send first if they wish. It's just common sense.

Good for you. Just don't expect others with 50, 100, 200, 500 refs to feel the same.

Having an opinion doesn't make you a jerk. Acting like you are too good to send first because you've supposedly put in your time and are too good to send first with a measley 27 refs makes you a jerk.

---

You said "more time trading", which is a process. I've discussed trades for years on here but rarely go through with it due to postage costs. Thus why I responded in that manner to the "more time" claim. I would expect that you could comprehend that.

Also, I've had dealings with people with significantly more refs who don't mind simulsending; when you tell me to not expect it, thats fine, but understand that by no means am I required to send first without a simulsend either.

And I don't recall ever saying anything about being a trading god or demanding respect, though I can definitely appreciate the negative tone in which you present my side to make yours seem more legit. And no, I don't buy into the "common sense" comment, as no, it is the opposite of common sense to say "yes, we've both had enough references to build a positive reputation that confirms we'll send our side of the deal but since my number is higher, I'm going to now say that you are untrustworthy and must send first". Trustworthiness is an absolute thing. You either have it or you don't. There isn't any such thing as "more trustworthiness"; you're either trustable or you're not. To say anything to the contrary isn't common sense, and it seems odd that you would buy into that notion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikemartinlfs:
I'm not requiring crazy to trade with me, I'm simply stating that applying some ridiculous arbitrary ranking system based solely on total number of agreed trades is rather ridiculous.

---

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 hilikuS:
No actually I disagree. If somebody's got 7,000 more refs than me. I got no problem sending first. At thousands of refs I might request that we simul-send, but if he doesn't want to, that's his right.

There's not just refs either. I know many traders have more credentials than I, but I've dealt with multiple users several times and only received one ref for it. I've done large deals, overseas deals. Some people I've sold over $1000 to over the course of my stay on MOTL. I do this actively and daily. I send stuff out as promptly as I can. That all factors in to your refs as well. I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, but I know my ****, and I think my refs reflect that. With 27 I feel like you're probably going to send your stuff out, but I'm still going to ask for the send first. Especially if you make a stink out of it.

---

"I feel you're going to send your stuff out, but I'm still going to ask you to send first."

Logically, how does that make any sense whatsoever? Also, how can you defend that as anything other than some sort of power trip, doing it because "you can"? Also, I never made a big stink about sending, simply asking "Simulsend ok?"

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.

---

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.