NTPP the final frontier [Archive] - Diablo 3 & Diablo 2 Forums

Thyiad

09-08-2008, 23:17

Please read and post before voting - Poll roulette, where it stops no one knows!

Two years ago (ish) NTPP was introduced following consultation with the members as a way to try and get a post/item history from people instead of them turning up with Grief/Mangs and a smile only to be caught with something dodgy two months later.

Poops and I have been talking and we're not convinced NTPP is working the way it was intended. It penalizes "minority" players for example, HC and vanilla. NTPP trades consisting of a PGem aren't exactly descriptive either although we know many have stopped doing that. :)

We thought it would be nice to have a view from the floor before proceeding. Please take the time to think about this for a couple of minutes and at least click the poll, because it's an important part of the SPF and we want the SPTF to be both safe and enjoyable. :wave:

The rules in the SPTF are there because they aim to get everyone playing to a similar standard of ethics. The fewer rules, the more possibility of an issue later. So please be honest and realistic with yourself - how much background checking will you do, how much risk will you accept? Can you accept responsibility and repurcussions of a restart because of trading a Zod from a person with one post? This is not the place to discuss 'taint rules' but be aware of the potential before voting, please.

There are a few options below although you're welcome to post an alternative. If you do, please remember KISS (keep it simple stupid) because simple is more likely to work. :)

We reserve the right not to do anything, to do something else or to create a whole new acronym with which to confuse you. << joke :whistling:

Poll coming shortly! Stay tuned.

EDIT:
NTPP was NEVER designed to replace a trader checking their trade partner. If you are using it that way, beware.

pugbert

09-08-2008, 23:51

Hey Thyiad,

Thanks for giving us this opportunity for feedback on the NPPP..err NOPE, no wait, NTTP -I think that's it- system. :p As a NTPP myself, I like that you make us earn our way into FTS status. However, maybe having us active on SPTF for three months in addition to 15 trades is a little much, especially for those of us who have huge stashes of excellent runes and TC 84+ stuff. Maybe no time limit and increasing the number of trades to 20 or 25 would be better.

Thanks again for the feedback,
Pug

P.S. Oh, one more thing, maybe get rid of the crazy acronyms and use "Probation Status" and "Trader Status" instead. :) Thanks! :thumbup:

Dseed

09-08-2008, 23:51

I purpose a more.. flexible rule

you start out as needing as say... 50 (made up on the spot) trades to gain FTS.
but for every month you spend in the SPF, that number decreases a bit. (5-10?)
untill it reaches the minium required. (10-15) so nobody just registers and let it sit for months and wait for FTS.

this way. i feel like it is more verteran friendly. while keeping the newly registered accounts away from FTS (for reasons we are too "confused" to know) as was the intention for the current NTPP/FTS

forbidenorc

09-08-2008, 23:52

Well having recently joined the SPTF I am bothered by having to wait 3 months because most of the items that I want to trade for are NTPP restricted, but I do understand that the more established members want to trust the new people they trade with. I was thinking that there should be no time restriction but instead have the number of trades raised to something around 30. This would make it easier for traders to determine if the person they are trading with is trustworthy because there would be more feedback to base an opinion on. Just my 2ct.

Edit: Wow 2 people already beat me to it. Was no post when I started writing.

Xdeathfire

10-08-2008, 00:04

I am for keeping the 3 months limit, but removing the 15 trades thing.

While removing the time limit and simply increasing the trade number might be to the convenience of some, that, I fear will simply increase the difficulty for HC or Vanilla players to gain Full Trade Status. Furthermore, it might simply increase the frustration of new people to the SPTF who already have well established wealth since it will force them to make lots of "cheap" trades that do not do much for them.

The time limit should be kept since it allows the community to know the traders more easily and thus allows for more trust to be earned.

As for those who say that 3 months is too long since there is nothing for them to trade; everyone will need charms and jewels, even the NTPP tradeable ones. Even those who are very established in the community and have substantial wealth often needs to trade for charms or jewels simply because it is almost near impossible, IMHO, to obtain enough good charms/jewels for any potential character that you're building.

Oh, and just a misc thing: that poll issue is really bothering me....almost posted this in the wrong thread after voting

lionheartthebrave

10-08-2008, 00:09

Sorry guys but I'm the opposite

I'd be in favour of a longer NTPP and evidence of some trade activity/IFT posts (just as you used to let old timers get FTS if they had previously displayed items in the IFT)

A number of trades is meaningless, though a large number (say 80+) is a good thing(shows a trusted trader), 15 trades means nothing

The longer NTPP period would allow people to get to know the person by his/her posts in the SP(T)F

@Thy: been watching Star Trek?

Zefru

10-08-2008, 00:11

I like the idea of keeping the 3 months and losing the 15 trades. I've only been here a month and I feel like I'm getting to know people and hopefully visa versa but I'd rahter people had to wait 3 months so people are more established.

The 15 trades was a decent idea but it really fosters the 1 pgem trades and other minor trades just to establish the 15 needed. Not that these 15 can't help establish a reputation but being an active member of the community is more important.

I'd almost think about putting in a minimum number of posts needed but that would probably just lead to worthless posts just to get enough. Quality over quantity.

Z

Rummski

10-08-2008, 01:17

I think the NTPP is very necessary, as it limits folks from coming in and trading for the elite items without any interaction in the forum. It is frustrating not being able to trade for some items, but we've all chosen to trade in this forum and not elsewhere and we need to become part of the community before offering hard to find items.

I think 1 pgem trades should not count to NTPP status. They should be allowed as many "rich" traders may not need much of anything, but they should not count to NTPP status. I would make the minimum 3 Pgems or Common Runes (El-Ral).

I also think there should be a slippery slope for trades/time.

Everyone starts at 15/3, but as you do more trades the time decreases. Say 5 trades is 2 weeks. So if you can complete 35 trades in a month you garner FTS.

I'm cool with whatever, and look forward to making more trades!

Jaedhann

10-08-2008, 01:35

Sorry guys but I'm the opposite

I'd be in favour of a longer NTPP and evidence of some trade activity/IFT posts (just as you used to let old timers get FTS if they had previously displayed items in the IFT)

The longer NTPP period would allow people to get to know the person by his/her posts in the SP(T)F

What he said.:thumbsup:

Greebo

10-08-2008, 02:41

Alright, I will try to KISS: as with every set of rules this is a 'live' system. Every action from the mods forces reaction from the members.

(1) minimum limit on trades; issues:
- 1PGem trades;
- more trades which wouldn't happen if the limit did not exist.

(2) time limit; issues:
- 6 months is a long time, one can build a lot of wealth in that much; I consider this excessive, then again I am NTPP...
- people can just register, post a profile, make 1 trade and wait 3-6 months doing nothing and come back to trade with FTS - not good.

(3) minimum count of posts/posts in the IFT; issues:
- some people spam
- if you do min posts in IFT you will get way more posts like 'I found a Hel rune!' or 'Another Shako dropped from Meph'... Do you really want to turn IFT into this?

Personally I like both the time limit and trade limit on 1.12a SC RRM/RWM. It's totally unfair on other combinations of versions/mods. But, as my posts in a certain infamous thread tell, there are exceptions. 1PGem trades seemed to have subsided for now, but I feel that might be temporary.

Abolishing the trade limit only for some mods, not others, cannot work, since some of us trade many versions and both SC & HC. I think that respecting minorities is important here, so I say let's abolish the min trade limit altogether.

Make the following time limit:
"3 months of active participation in SPTF. Interpretation of 'active' is up to the moderators."
Leave yourselves some space to act against something I described above in (2).

In my opinion, there should be a 3rd tier for TC87 uniques, and Runes Lo+. But that makes the whole system more complicated.

--Greebo

Fast Eddie

10-08-2008, 03:17

colony

10-08-2008, 03:27

I would like to agree with what Greebo said. I am very tired at the minute and I hope this make sense: If one or both NTPP restrictions are to be reduced or one to be removed then perhaps we should increase the range/amount of items that require FTS.

I hope that it make sense and isn't a direct repeat of above posts.
The thing is the range of items covered by the probation period is quite big already - if you've run Meph for an hour or two a day for a month you'll have most of what you'd be allowed to trade. I hadn't actually realised just how much more restricted it had got until just now as I'd only skimmed through the rules thread once in the last few months. There are also a few oddities, like how skillers are on the restricted list, but there's no mention at all of rare, magic or crafted items that can be far more valuable (items like circlets with +3 to a skill tree, 20FCR and 2 sockets, good caster amulets, triple resist boots, or even Stormlash not being on the list). I know it's hard to define what should be on those lists with such a huge range of mods available though, and there probably isn't much that can be done about it.

Tanksaabas

10-08-2008, 03:32

Even when I'm NTPP and the stuff I really want to trade is NTPP stuff I think the three months rule and 15 trades is fine. If the minimun trade bit is lowerd it's ok , but do keep the three months rule.

TopHatCat64

10-08-2008, 03:36

Maybe 3 months of active participation in both the trade forum and the SPF required, without the trade limit would be better? I've always tended to find out much more aobut people from their SPF posts, a thread in the trade forum tells you absolutely nothing apart from what items they have most of the time.

I would agree with Colony on this point. The "15 trades" milestone does tend to lend itself to the mindset of "let me make a lot of minor trades of little consequence".

I am much more likely to trust a trader based on their participation in the Single Player Community rather then merely their actions in the SPTF. It's difficult to "know" someone on these forums if they don't make an effort to add something to the general flow of knowledge that makes up the SP forum.

EDIT: And as secondary benefit, the more posts you see from a person outside the trade forum, the easier it is to see their general mindset on playing. If I see a new member of SPF regularly recommending folks use Infinity or Last Wish as a realistic end-game option in the Paladin forum...warning bells.

Cygnus

10-08-2008, 03:43

Current rules work just fine for 1.12 SC RRM/RWM. Why mess with it? HC/vanilla/earlier versions don't affect me, so I won't comment on that.

As for a minimum limit on pgems in trades, it's trivial to overcome. Instead of trading something for 1 pgem, you could trade it for 3 or 5 or whatever. If a regular is trading an item for a pgem just to get around the no-giveaway-in-24-hours rule, chances are the pgem is going to go into a quarantine stash anyway. Such a person is likely to be in FTS. As for the person receiving an item for a pgem, they'll just offer more than what was asked so it would count as a trade. Not sure what that achieves ...

Ohomemgrande

10-08-2008, 08:26

I think the 3 month requirement is vitally important. If you want the community to invest in you, you should invest in the community. It's been quite a while since we've had a good "dupe-induced-restart-frenzy" but for those of you unfamiliar with them, they're not pretty. I attribute that to the NTTP rules and the 3 month "waiting period".

I like the idea of requiring SPF activity in addition to SPTF activity. Not sure how you measure a "useful" requirement though so it's probably not a practical requirement. However, I do think there should be some posts in IFT or something that would provide some more information to traders and I do think that is a requirement already.

I think the 15 trade requirement is merely a hoop that needs to be jumped through the way it is now. The intention of the rule was good, however, in practice it only penalized minority traders or less active traders. For example, it took me about 7 months to make 15 trades as a vanilla player to get out of NTTP and according to my records, only 2 of those trades were with an actual vanilla trader for vanilla items. In essence, the only value of the trade that I got out of it was another notch on the belt on my way to 15.

I would be in favor of keeping the 3 months (or even extending it up to 6) and removing/decreasing the 15 trades to something like 5 at the most. I think if you decrease the required number of trades, there is less need to have to make the token 1 Pgem trade.

bassen

10-08-2008, 09:37

darn I missed the only highlight text xD *slap myself*

This is my opinion:

FTS should be so much more than just being a member for an amount of time and getting a amount of trades. I think the activity shall play a big part to.
I have a visitor now. So I post again later with more.

to be continue...

Callador

10-08-2008, 10:16

The issue with the barrier between FTS/NTPP traders is quite complicated as noticed...

I think the 3 months/15 trades-requiremenst for FTS worked well (for the 1.11b/1.12a SC RWM/RRM trade pool at least) until those "token PGem" trades got more frequent.

I'd like to keep the 3 months (or even increase it) NTPP, but with the required trades I'm not so sure...
It would be fair to reduce the required number of trades for Vanilla and HC players to ensure they don't have to do as Ohomemgrande did to get the FTS.
For 1.11b/1.12a RRM/RWM SC players I can't say much what haven't already been said...

One option would be to add a rule that the 3 months/15 trades won't necessary give you FTS. Thy and poops could make the final decision whether the trader has "earned" the Full Trader Status or not. For example if someone had made 15 of those 1 PGem trades and had a little or no other activity besides trading at forums during those 3 months and after getting FTS he would trade lots of runes for highend gear - some suspicion would definetely raise.
At this situation mods could decide that the trader in question does not "deserve" the FTS yet. Then mods could tell that they will consider the decision again after a month or so.
I know that this would definetely increase Thy's and poops work here at SPTF so it probably wouldn't be rational. It is just a thought, after all...

Greebo

10-08-2008, 10:23

I just wanted to give my perspective on the 'active in SPF' thing.

I agree: I would like people to become more connected to the community, post their finds in IFT, play MP if they can, answer questions of less experienced players ask, etc.

However: there is no quantitative way of measuring that. Let me put it this way: I'm a teacher (partially at least). I like my students to participate in classes and I think they should come, cause they will learn more if they do. So I tried making class participation and/or attendance part of their grade. The first option resulted in people raising their hands and saying nonsense for 2 minutes straight, wasting my time and the time of other students. The latter resulted in more students coming, and some of them ended up talking in the back distracting others, whilst others slept, read the paper, just to show me that they only reason they come is because they have to. And I'm a good teacher, if teaching evaluations say anything, and I love what I do.

What I'm trying to say: Yes, we should encourage participation and integration with community. But writing a set of rules based on that cannot be done without shooting ourselves in the foot.

--Greebo

bassen

10-08-2008, 11:36

I agree with Callador a bit. After 3 months and 15 trades we could let mods (Thy and SirP) decide if they have earned FTS. Since this is a lot (I mena a really lot extra work) for mods we could instate/elect/choose some kind of committee/council that will do this job. The "group" will of course work under a mod who is the supervisor.

I'm well aware this will be criticized but before think of the possibilities. The group won't fully act on it's own since they are work under Thy/SirP.

wintryfields

10-08-2008, 11:44

I would find the number of trades to not be of that much important, sure if someone trades more and gets lots of positive feedback, it is 'easier' to trust the other person. But thats what the trade forum rating in itself is for right?

I've just started here at the SPF, so I'm probably a lot less accustomed to the rules etc.. But fact is that I probably won't be trading all that much, and 15 trades is quite a lot, especially if you're not allowed to trade for higher thatn TC84 items. The ones that are not in that category are freely available in give-aways.

I think someone's trade status should not be decided at all. If you want to trade, its your responsibility to check how long someone's been registered / postcounts / overall ettiquette of the person / how past trades have gone. Sure it would take a little more time, but for as far as i've read, almost everyone checks out who they're trading with..

Anyway, what I mean to say is with the current rule, it could well be 3-4 years before I would reach FTS.. Which of course tempts me into asking for items in giveaways if i need something, but simply can't trade for it..

Just my 2 cents =)

SiTro

10-08-2008, 12:11

Been around since NTPP was introduced, still NTPP. :grin:

I like it. The number of trades I feel is needed but the actual number is less important. Maybe increase the current value a little, say to about 20-25. The three months waiting time is a good thing in my eyes though, a new trader still here at the end of it will hopefully have had more than a look into the SPF at that time, and hence it's possible to start getting a feel for them as a player, as others have said.

I'd be against introducing a FTS-verifying system. To my mind it'd be easy to misunderstand (people might jump straight into a FTS trade anyway), less simple, and more intimidating to a new user. Even as a group there'd need to be some checks on them from time to time, and the only real people who could do that would be the mods. And we're back to increasing the mod's workload with this scheme.

BobTheWarrior

10-08-2008, 13:50

I see the SPTF not as it's own entity, but as a sub-forum of the SPF, created as a benefit to SPF members to benefit SPF members. As such, I echo that SPF participation should be an important factor in determining FTS status. New members should be encouraged to contribute in the SPF to better the community and earn trust.

Regarding the current rules, I think the 15 trades is too much. I have just recently attained FTS status, and I did so with a minimum of token item trades, but they were part of my journey to FTS. I would like to see the minimum time increased slightly, to say 4 months or 6 months, but the number of required trades lowered to around 5. This way, someone can't just join and sit idle to wait out the timeframe. Five trades isn't much, but since giveaways doin't count and token item trades are being discouraged by the community as a whole, attaining five good trades should not be hard for a motivated trader.

I really like the idea proposed by Bassen, a group of experienced and trusted SPF members who are allowed to review members for FTS status. I had the same idea myself a few days back, just haven't had the time to post it.

As Greebo pointed out in his profession, many people observe the rules only because they have to, not in the spirit for which the rules were created. Each of us is different and no one set of rules can be written that will give us a clear picture of every new member to the community. New members have to want to be here, and to want to play the way we play to be a good fit. Having someone (or a group of someones) check to see if new members really do fit in is the best, easiest to implement, and most effective way of ensuring all members play the way the community intends them to play.

maxgerin

10-08-2008, 14:35

Didn't read most of the comments, but I'm giving out my opinion:

(1) I am against removing the required waiting period. Sure, three months might seem long, but at least that gives an impression of the NTPP-member, even though it is somewhat hazy. I'm not saying this because I won't be burdened since I'm already FTS, but because in the long run I think it allows prudent members some opportunity to analyze the NTPP-member (sounds like we're going to dissect them :P ). And honestly, who in the right mind would trade a Zod with a 3-day-long member... If someone's not in the right mind, at least the rule will protect them, to some extent. :D

(2) Although the 15-rated-trades rule have been bypassed for quite sometime with the token-pgem trades and whatnot (I'm guilty, though unintentionally), I think the rule must stand. And I think we'll have to encourage prudence in giving away trade rating. I'm sure it would be impractical to set rules of what item trades to be rated and to actually enforce it, however, I think it is best not to rate pgem trades (unless the item traded for is rare). Look at jae's pgem auction (http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=682944) for some example of rare items for pgems trade. Same goes with lower runes for item trades. Basically, my point here is that fingerprinted item <=> non-fingerprinted item is not a good basis, specifically if it's a "common" item.

--SUMMARY FOR THE ABOVE POINTS--
Keep the system as it is, but with some discretion on how/when to rate a trade.
The waiting period can be adjusted, but only upward (longer).
The number of trades can be adjusted, either way if we'll apply the rating prudence I'm suggesting, otherwise the number should remain, or even go higher.

EDIT: I inhibit myself from putting forward opinions/suggestions regarding HC and/or Vanilla trades. As far as I'm concerned, they can do whatever they like, and I mean that with all the <3.
Seriously, I can't see a good compromise between SC and/or Modded trades vis-a-vis HC and/or Vanilla trades. I think they should have their own sticky thread and/or rules.

(3) SUGGESTION: along with the introduction post, would others feel that it makes sense for new members wishing to join the trade pool to post all their items' readouts/ATMA dumps, and summary of their runes/pgems as well. I know, I know, that sounds scary as giving away your Social Security number or whatnot, but really...what have you to hide if you're clean, right? It's not like you're putting up your stash for download. I know it won't be a guarantee either, but it gives us some idea of what this new trader has in his/her stash and would hopefully help in the decision process.
--I'm sure others will find that a scary thought--

(4) CONCLUSION: No matter how long/all-encompassing/strict/redundant we make the trading rules, there is still that BIG chance that legit players will be muddied by haxXxored/tainted/duped warez. That's the simple reality of trading within such a diverse and open community (not saying that it won't happen in a close community, but it's somewhat minimized). If you can't handle that, then don't trade. But if you choose to take the risk, at least be responsible enough to do some background check. As with all things in life that deals with other people, the importance of prudence cannot be neglected. Cause in the end, no matter how it happened and how you place it, you (we) are the ones who are directly affected by such an unfortunate event. But if you can't be bothered, then don't cry over your spilt milk, if and when it happens, cause you'll just be adding insult to your injury. :rolleyes:

--maxgerin

Smips

10-08-2008, 19:34

Personally, I like having the whole NTPP and FTS thing for the SPTF. The only thing that bothers me is that you need to be active in the SPTF for 3 months before you can have FTS. I've been visiting the SPF and have been playing for about a year now(I think it's been that long anyways), however I just started trading last month. I have quite a few items on the NTPP list, but they just sit in ATMA stashes and collect dust because I have no personal use for them. I don't know what a good solution would be for this and I'm probably a bit biased because I am NTPP, but that's the only problem I see with it. Perhaps whether you gain FTS shouldn't be some set method, there should be some kind of committee to which you can apply for FTS to(I think bassen suggested this).

edit:
I forgot to mention this. I think that lengthening the amount of time one must wait before gaining FTS may simply segregate the trade community. Sure, this sounds great for those of you that already have FTS(less taint and you can probably still trade for whatever you need), but I don't think it's right to make people wait half a year before they can trade for higher up items. If you want added protection from taint on high class items, why not make another "level" to the system? Maybe go from NTPP -> New Level(allow all jewelry, TC 84's, and charms maybe?) -> FTS

maxicek

10-08-2008, 21:13

Jaedhann

10-08-2008, 22:13

I voted three months only, I think that time alone will suffice.

I'd lie to see the NTPP restricted items relaxed a bit. The current restrictions have made almost all set items and several EUs worthless. By the time you are allowed to trade for them, you already have three.

I personaly like to encourage people to find their own items. At least a decent base pool. If the probation period prevents people from trading higer end items right away i think thats good. I personally love to trade people specific items for specific builds. It makes me go through all my stashes to see if i have stuff that fits their exact need. Most of the time i'm willing to let go of that stuff cheap as well.

dryzalizer

10-08-2008, 22:28

Echoing what some others have said, I would like to eliminate feedback ratings from token pgem trades. I also don't think token pgem trades should count toward the 15 required for FTS. Concerning HC/Vanilla, I don't play these but it seems that 15 trades is too many and unfair for them. Perhaps the number of trades could be lowered to 5 for FTS, but I'd still be in favor of the 3-month rule. Obviously quality participation in the SPF over time would be an ideal requirement, but I think this is too much work for the mods. I say leave it up to individual traders to research their potential trade partners.

xduckster

10-08-2008, 22:34

I agree with the sentiment that the SPTF is just a subset of the general forum. I think that becoming a FTS should entail some sort of participation in the regular forum. Maybe a minimum number of posts in the IFT etc.

The 3 months I agree with, but I think 15 trades is too much. Reducing the required number to 5 trades would be better. That way the new traders can learn how the system works, and get accepted by the community by participating in the main forum.

Low Key

10-08-2008, 22:41

I've really no major gripes about the current system, but nonetheless, I voted for 3 months, no required amount of trades. Just because getting 15 different people to trade is unfortunately very difficult for hardcore, vanilla and other such smaller trading groups.

FantomFang

11-08-2008, 01:12

Busy today, so sorry if I repeat someone else's response.

As a newbie to the SP(T)F, I do think the system we currently have is good. While it can be restrictive at times, it does help me to know who I can trust. The feedback system is definitely awesome. That being said, if we wanted to make any changes, I think leaving some sort of mixed requirement is a good idea. Maybe leave it at 3 months, as that seems a fair amount of time (would leave me with 2.5 more months, but oh well), but reduce the amount of trades needed for NTPP status.

The main thing, to me, is that regardless of your status or wealth upon entering the community, you should have to take some time to establish yourself so everyone in the community can get a "read" on you, so to speak. Also, maybe some sort of "activity" requirement within the forums during the three months, nothing too large, like requiring 100 posts over the months (to be more conducive to getting a good opinion of the forumite). I do think the trade requirement could be lowered, because at least in the amount of time I've been here I see it less as the number of trades performed, but the quality of the trades and the member that participated. For example, If I see someone has traded with Thyiad a number of times in meaningful trades, I might leave my background search at that. But that's just me.

Regardless, its just great having the opportunity to trade like this whatsoever :yes:

I apologize ahead of time if I interrupted my own train of thought at all up there. :wink: I have a habit of mixing two trains of thought together and confusing everyone around me. Heh.

TempestTenor

12-08-2008, 07:38

I only started playing Single Player again a couple of months ago and joined DII.net a short while after starting. I'm content on finding most loot myself, but there are certain items that will simply take me too long to find by myself (Tal Rasha's Guardianship! AHHH!)

I have no desire to trade for anything other than Tal Rasha's Guardianship (TC84 and therefore restricted during probation) at the moment and I don't really want to spend the time/energy to make 15 random trades for stuff I'm not looking for.

I voted for "3 months wait, no trade minimum." Perhaps there should be multiple ways to gain full trade access. While we can keep the current "3 month and 15 trades" system, perhaps we can implement another mechanism where one can gain full trade access through quality posts to the forum. Once a member has attained some minimum number of posts, he or she can PM the mods to request full trade access. The mods at the point can review that person's posts and subjectively decide whether or not the person has been making quality posts. The mods can then grant trade access on a case-by-case bases at their own discretion.

nepeta

12-08-2008, 11:02

Remove the NTTP entirely.

I don't give a rat's hind part about someone's trade status, if I think I can trust a person I will trade with him/her, otherwise no. Requiring an elaborate system of trade states only makes work for the moderators while it will never be watertight.

This said, I still adhere to the rules as they are, because up till now I am self-found. When I do decide to trade it will be with people I know, that excludes a good lot of people and the only reason they might not have 'full trade status' would be that they didn't trade or report trade since the silliness was implemented.

Swiller

12-08-2008, 15:43

I voted to keep things as they are...3 months and 15 trades.

I think if somebody is using "illegal" methods like hacking, they are usually caught relatively quickly. Sure, there's been some cases of people who were here a long time before cheating (janita, Chains of Strength) but for the most part I feel the three months gives the mods time to weed out the bad from the good. When I first came to these forums (2006), it seemed like people were being banned left and right for cheating, and I can honestly say that the NTPP restriction has changed this. Or at least, it has lessened the possibility of good traders being burned by taint.

That's why I support the three month rule. As for the 15 trades, I support that because I see it as a chance for a trader to establish a reputation. Not simply as a "legit" trader, but also as a fair, honorable business person. Those 15 trades give them an opportunity to learn the ropes and establish at least some trust among the community. It also gives them time to establish a solid customer base. For example, when I was on NTPP I made certain to be exceptionally efficient, fair, and generous in all my trades. I still do; but my aim was to make a name for myself on the trade forums as somebody that others would gladly trade with in the future.

While I support the current rule, I agree that it is not meant to save us the trouble of conducting a little background search on a future trader. I have always checked out a person before trading with them, and I always will. But no matter what rules are in place (as nepeta said) I still won't trade if I don't trust a person.

I hope that was clear. I've only had one cup of coffee. :coffee:

Thyiad

13-08-2008, 01:03

Thanks for everyones comments so far. :) Sirpoops and I are going through them in detail but one thing that did surprise me is the very small number wanting abolition of FTS/NTPP. I honestly thought that would be the first choice of everyone. Please let me say again though that it is NOT a method to quick-check your partners. It was never designed to be that.

One thing I am going to mention again is first and foremost; it is traders' responsibility to be happy with their trade partners. At the risk of upsetting everyone ... we can't legislate for stupidity. Cough. (http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6230741&postcount=46)

Just a quick round up of the ideas here:

Removing trade number requirements
Basically what Poops and I were thinking because it is a hardship on the HC and Vanilla players.

Including ITF/SPF posts as requirements
Ideally people do become part of the Community as a whole and not just the SPTF. However, this - in my opinion - fails the KISS test. This is something that traders should be able to monitor themselves because if they are reading the SPF they recognize members who post there. If you aren't comfortable that a trader is not 'community minded', then reconsider your trade.

Committee approval system
No. This was proposed way back when and I know many of you won't realize that, but with respect while it is acceptable and encouraged that individual traders make decisions about with whom they trade, it is not acceptable to have 'trial by committees'. :)

NTPP and FTS and WTF or OMG huh?
Yes this is a valid point and "Probation" and "Full" should be fine. I think the acronyms came up for the less gifted typists. :D

Ideally, we'd like to get rid of all trade rules, but that is never a genuine option because we also want to maintain a 'certain standard'.

Keep the comments and ideas coming and feel free to expand a bit if you wish but again I will urge everyone to THINK before they trade. :)

Thanks for the contributions so far.:thumbup:

Greebo

13-08-2008, 01:56

It seems that the solution most likely to be implemented is the abolition of the 15 minimum trades limit. I like it, I voted for it, since it's the only solution I can see which is simple to implement and fair towards minorities. (As in vanilla, etc. And I don't mean that kind of vanilla.)

That should remove the 'demand' for 1PGem trades, as they won't be necessary to achieve FTS. Which is a good thing.

However I think we should provide some sort of trading guidelines for new and experienced members of the trade forum. Perhaps it's not clear what I mean here, but essentially I would like to see (or help to create) something similar to Wikipedia Guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines), such as the one about etiquette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette).

For example, I'd like it to become a standard behavior, that undervalued trades and giveaways (e.g. someone asks for a Guilliame's Face and has only 2PGems) should not provide positive feedback (neutral or none is fine). That's independent of the 15 trades limit thing. I think it is in the best interest of this forum that the feedback system is used to be as informative as possible. And should the community agree with such an idea, it could go into the guideline, which would be stuck at the top of the trade forum.

----
As far as other things go, I agree with no-committee-to-judge-people thing. I just don't trust it to work. I disagree that the ideal situation is to get rid off all the rules. That could work only if everybody was trustworthy and honest. You might as well say that in a perfect world there would be no laws, countries, rules, etc. Nice ideas, don't work in practice.

--Greebo

bassen

13-08-2008, 09:31

I'm against abolish the trade numbers for one major reason. To get FTS you should have been active in the SPTF under the three months you were NTTP and by that I mean active trading.

By abolish trade numbers we invite people to become members here (creating a trader profile) and after that they don't even have to be here, trade or nothing. After a while when they come back, yeey only a few days left to FTS. That's not accepable in my opinion.

I wanna suggest that a becoming FTS member shoould do at least 5 trades/month the three months he/she are NTTP. 1-pgem-token-trades do not count.

Greebo

13-08-2008, 09:52

Again, that's a nice idea, but it really punishes vanilla and HC players.

And you cannot exclude them, since some people trade many versions and SC&HC (myself included).

I suggest above that 'active participation' is something that the mods should be able to judge on case by case basis. Should you point out that person X does not deserve to be FTS, since he/she wasn't active enough, the mods would look at post/trade history, versions played and make a decision. I see no simpler solution that does not punish vanilla and HC players.

--Greebo

bassen

13-08-2008, 12:21

the trade number could vary by the version you played. I have mention this before.

15 for SC & SC/HC (5/month)
7-8 for HC which (2-3/month)

BobTheWarrior

13-08-2008, 13:26

If the trade limits are reduced/removed, and attaining FTS is as easy as posting a profile and waiting X months, that still doesn't mean you have to trade with them. As Thyiad has said over and over, check your trade partners, think, and don't trade if you're not comfortable. If someone wants to throw a fit because they're FTS and you don't want to sell your Godly item of Godliness to them, they aren't a good fit for the community anyway.

I would like to see some additional guidelines, not rules, posted for new members to view. Things to enourage participation in the community. Maybe explain about the dailies, the EMB, the DooL, and the IFT, (and all the abbreviations :)). I know there is information about most or all of these in the SPF stickies, but I'd like to see something catered to the SPTF and being something more than a list of things to see and do in the SPF. By something more, I'm thinking along the lines of encouraging and coaching new SPTF members on how to be a good fit, and gain trust in the community.

Someone suggested (max?) asking new traders to post their ATMA stash readouts. I have no problem with this. If you have nothing to hide, and want people to know that, why not post it? I'll post mine, no problem.

bassen

13-08-2008, 17:14

I know that checking your trade partner is a fact but there's a catch here. Some people here have less than 15 trades (at least they had when I was NTTP) and still had the FTS status.

At least the trader profiles should be developed in a way that makes it much more comfort to trade if you are gonna abolish the trade number.

This have I also mentioned before in another thread or maybe this to. Why not expand the trader profiles so they give your more information about the trader?

I only require two things more than the info that already are there.
- Join date of the SPTF (date when they first posted their trader profiler) - my was the 22th of Feb-08 IIRC.
- Date when becoming FTS (22th or 23rd of may did I update mine)

I know only mods can see the first thing (about join date) but that could be useful for any who trade with the member.

The 2nd, isn't that obvious? By that you can count number of trades your self and se how much the member had traded before becomin FTS and how many of those were 1-pgem-token-trades?

to be continue...(got visitors..again)

TopHatCat64

13-08-2008, 17:35

I know that checking your trade partner is a fact but there's a catch here. Some people here have less than 15 trades (at least they had when I was NTTP) and still had the FTS status.

When I rejoined the forums after a couple of years, I had to ask Cattleya if I was FTS or NTPP. She determined that I was FTS based on my posting/trading history and the Old Timers exception.

So if you see someone with FTS and less then 15 trades, they've been cleared by the mods. Doesn't mean you shouldn't do your own check but it's not like they got it for no reason.

Jaedhann

13-08-2008, 18:24

I also got out of NTPP by a mod. I just missed the cut-off point for the old-timers rule by a few weeks and was posting in the IFT for about a year. Hrus gave me FTS then.

Rummski

13-08-2008, 18:44

Someone suggested (max?) asking new traders to post their ATMA stash readouts. I have no problem with this. If you have nothing to hide, and want people to know that, why not post it? I'll post mine, no problem.

Or maybe make a Flavie part of the trader profile. I know that leaves out Rares and Charms, but posting Full ATMA dumps would be like reading encyclopedias for many folks. I know I currently have 3 stashes with around 1000 items each, and I would probably be on the low end for the forum. I have no problem posting mine, but also feel that Flavie does a decent job showing a players "wealth" so to speak.

Both of those options are merely stop gaps though, as everyone has said before you need to do your due diligence on your trade partners. I'm sure I've had my tires/shins kicked a couple times :)

-EDIT - OT - Thy, that has to be 1000+ Isenhart Cases and Cathan's Seals :)

EDIT - @ BOB - I do agree that hosting the .txt of the readout is a very easy, doable option.

Thyiad

13-08-2008, 18:58

Just as an aside; I have approximately 17k items (I pruned), there is no way in hell I'm posting that lot! Remember not everyone comes to this forum new. :)

Feel free to continue bouncing ideas and expand from the initial post if you like. It's really interesting seeing these different points of view.

BobTheWarrior

13-08-2008, 19:49

Just as an aside; I have approximately 17k items (I pruned), there is no way in hell I'm posting that lot! Remember not everyone comes to this forum new. :)

Which is exactly why posting readouts of all items is a vaild suggestion. If everyone came here new, there'd be no need, as they wouldn't be bringing any hacked items with them.

Many people here have other websites we use to host Flavie readouts, no reason why we couldn't put a .txt file with ATMA readouts on the same webpage and have it available for all to see. I will do that for my items when I have time. Keeping it up-to-date will not be easy, but I see no reason why it can't be updated on demand if requested by a trading partner and if refused the trade does not have to go through.

@Rummski - Although posting Flavie's is convenient, it doesn't provide the item-level detail that ATMA readouts do. Fingerprints and ilvl's are not included in Flavie readouts.

I like Bassen's idea of expanding the trader profiles to include date joined and date moved from probation to full. I know it's a lot of work to go back through the hundreds of profiles to add the information, but I see a benefit if the mods are up to the work.

Greebo

13-08-2008, 20:29

Low Key

13-08-2008, 20:44

That depends on how you organize your stashes. I have over 100 .d2x files. I really really don't want to keep those up-to-date online. It'd take hours of my time, I'd rather pat/mat some character. --Greebo

Ditto.

Posting full Atma readouts is a nice idea and all, but isnt really that practical to do. With tens of stashes and thousands of items it will be a chore to post the readouts and to check them. Who would honestly want to read a list of hunderds or thousand items?

And Flavie reports really dont do much either. You get a pretty list of items, but it doesnt have fingerprints, etc, making it essentially useless unless somebody is stupid enough to post a Flavie with 17 Zod's and 67 Tyraels.

luskan

13-08-2008, 20:57

I voted to keep it the same. I'm NTPP, haven't upgraded from 1.11b yet, been around off and on for years as mostly a lurker.
One thing I've noticed is that it's harder to trade in 1.11b now, so it could take me a while to get my 15 trades in. Increasing that could make it impossible for others who are playing in even older versions make FTS.
As for security, honestly just use your best judgement. Nothing is forcing you to trade with someone, if you don't feel comfortable (because of posts, trades, create date, whatever your reason) then don't trade with the person.

EDIT: err, I would vote to keep it the same, but I'm getting the message the poll is closed. Oh well.
BTW ATMA readouts or any other computer readout can be edited, excluded, etc. Better to look at the person's posts to see what kind of person they are if you're that paranoid.

bassen

14-08-2008, 10:45

@ jae & thc64 - That's similar what I mean. For now it's easy cause everyone who's FTS with less than 15 trades is an old timer. But how do I know this when we abolish trade numbers and everyone can seem to be an old timer?

General:
I'm get a bit worried the way the forum is going. I've heard people say this but now I really starting to feel it myself. We have rules that have been created for our own security. Then why shall we change them into something that result in less security? Why not develop them instead, adjust them and keep the security we have or raise the security a bit further.

Since I joined here there have been "situations" were members have taken damage, both when it comes in the trust of other member and their own game playing. So if we lower the security what will happen? Will there be more incidents? How many hacked items will we find in the trade pool after that? - Those are retorical questions...

Nagisa, forgive me for using your thread (http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=664727&highlight=giveaway) as an example but I think it's important for people to know the consequence of lowering the security.

There will never be 100% security but why lowering it?

maxgerin

14-08-2008, 17:19

That depends on how you organize your stashes. I have over 100 .d2x files. I really really don't want to keep those up-to-date online. It'd take hours of my time, I'd rather pat/mat some character. --Greebo

I don't know how Bob interpreted my suggestion, but as for me, I never intended it to be constantly updated.
My point was for new members to give us an idea of what they have.
It also gives them a chance to slip with their crap, hence forewarning us.
At least we won't be surprised if someone claims to have an "Enigma" or "Last Wish" cause we already know that from the start...and it's up to you to trade with someone who have those items.
Something like that.

--maxgerin

omgmir

18-08-2008, 21:26

Whichever poll option makes more HC players trade.. i'm all for that one. :coffee:

zerth

19-08-2008, 01:35

I voted Require more than three months on the SPTF for FTS (no trade number) (I don't see a huge difference of this one with the 2nd option btw). I started SP in the beginning of 2008 (iirc) after I got bored of Bnet ladder and intended to stay self found at the time. But the Godly X of Godliness doesn't seem to drop, while I already have 3-4 of Pwning Y of Pwnage. You get the picture.

Anyway, I fully support a probation period in order to discourage people messing with the SPF economy. It's just that having to perform 15 trades concerning items that I am by now not interested in seems like a mountain of posting and emailing

Just my 2c.

colony

19-08-2008, 02:30

@ jae & thc64 - That's similar what I mean. For now it's easy cause everyone who's FTS with less than 15 trades is an old timer. But how do I know this when we abolish trade numbers and everyone can seem to be an old timer?
Surely it's as easy as looking at their profile page and seeing what threads they've posted and over what period of time?

I don't look at the feedback numbers at all when I'm trading, I don't care if you have FTS or not, it's whether I recognise someone from the SPF and MP games that decides if I'll trade something very rare with them or not. Once or twice a while back I did organise trades outside the forum just so I could trade something with someone in the probation period, and I doubt I'm alone in that. I am quite relaxed about who I trade with though, even for some reasonably valuable stuff, but I've never had any big problems. MP games are actually a very important one for me, you learn far more about someone watching them play for half an hour or so, than by reading a few of their posts.

General:
I'm get a bit worried the way the forum is going. I've heard people say this but now I really starting to feel it myself. We have rules that have been created for our own security. Then why shall we change them into something that result in less security? Why not develop them instead, adjust them and keep the security we have or raise the security a bit further. Because ATM it's so much hassle to get to the position where you're allowed to trade anything that is reasonably hard to find. As I posted earlier the items covered by the probation period seem to have been decided quite arbitrarily. Using an extreme example I'd value a crafted +2 skill/20FCR amulet much higher than nearly all TC87s, and I very much doubt I'm the only one that would. Maybe there were reasons for putting the items on the list on there at the time, but if I joined the forum now and had a few week's worth of items from running Meph I don't think I'd bother trading anything, as what I really wanted I wouldn't be allowed to trade for. Either that or I'd just be likely to sell common uniques for PGems.

Having written all this I'm starting to change my mind slightly, getting rid of the probation period completely is very tempting, but there is a reason it's there. I'd rather make the prohibited items list much shorter, as it used to be, covering only very high end items (CoA, Griffon's, Fathoms, 30+ life skillers, godly rares etc.) and not encroaching on mid range items (I really don't understand why you can't trade any skillers in the probation period, that seems to be completely over the top to me) if the trade limit is going to remain in place. However, the restricted non-skill charms list does seem quite reasonable to me, at least in relation to small charms, as does the jewels section. Maybe my perception of what's valuable and what isn't is slightly skewed because I've been playing for so long; apart from a few very rare uniques, everything I consider to be very valuable is either a charm, a jewel or a rare/magic item with very specific mods.

Lyndar

20-08-2008, 01:08

I voted to keep the rules the same. The rules don't impact me greatly - I'm currently playing self-found and I don't multi-play. I've traded some items for pgems, both because pgems are always useful and because I may want to do some trading eventually. (I'm not enough of a purist to consider pgems contradictory to my self-found declaration).

I feel that the greatest benefit of the xx trade limit + the wait period is that it prevents casual taint. Someone who uses illegitimate items must work at becoming a member. Honestly, in single player, if you're cheating already its a lot easier to get your items by cheating than it is to work up to FTS and trade for them.

The rules are annoying sometimes - I can't trade for anything other than pgems that I would actually use - but that very annoyance is the only kind of protection that any set of rules can provide. A delay. A sufficiently dishonest (in the sense of deceiving the people they trade with, not in the sense of any actual immorality in modding items), motivated, careful trader can not be distinguished from a legitimate trader.

An extension of either the time or the number of trades doesn't really matter to me, as long as the time / number of trades doesn't become ridiculous.

When a person joins the forum, they may have no wealth or characters, or they may have many mats/pats and thousands of items. In the first case, all they have will be a 'token' number of pgems, and in the latter case they will have no need to do any NTTP trading.

In the worse case, a requirement to do, say, 25 trades, for a person who has considerable wealth already, is just an exercise in tedium. It doesn't prove anything about their honesty, all it says is that they are sufficiently motivated to hunt for and complete 25 trades involving items they don't care about.