Community Forum

@aaronjw76_PSN hey man, let's not do this. It's completely reasonable not to penalize people for making a mistake. The function could return without hurting others. Preventing that is a reasonable ask.

@SchnauzerFace_MLBTS that is fair. I was pretty bummed out about it because I've also used this to try to help out new players who don't know how to invest over the years, so I was a bit bummed yesterday. It is what it is, I suppose. I won't lose sleep over it, but I am still disappointed.

@SchnauzerFace_MLBTS to be fair, that's why I've been trying really hard to be respectful about it, speak my piece and try to come to fair compromises that help both parties. Sorry it's come across as an argument. I felt as though I was being attacked pretty aggressively at first when I believe there is fair reason to retain back orders.

@theBlindRhino_PSN Ha! I had a buddy who told me it'd get confused with the Always Sunny reference. It's from Psych though. XBox doesn't allow apostrophes, so it's supposed to read Sh'Dynasty, but it doesn't. That's a good catch!

@theBlindRhino_PSN I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.

@theBlindRhino_PSN you're right that there are a ton of ways. I personally use a lot of them too, so no worries.

I've already suggested a way that prevents people who make that mistake from losing out, so that is a moot point.

I would argue also that this change would mean that SDS doesn't lose out, as they retain good will among their NMS userbase who used this method over the years while also fixing the problem it caused.

It would be more work, but I believe it would be worth it so no one has to lose out.

Oh and on the risk, I've seen buy orders dry up fast enough that it's easy to miss the window to cancel. But you are right that it is pretty low risk.

@theBlindRhino_PSN again, that protection can be had without stopping the buyer from making profit.

@mietha_PSN I mean... I'm not quitting over this by any means lol. But there is a middle ground that would prevent the selling user from losing out and not taking away the revenue stream that has been allowed for so long. SDS does a great job of making their market user friendly. Why not make it moreso?

@YOSHI24_XBL This has been a thing for years at this point and I've never seen back orders be a sole source of market inflation. Have you? I am asking honestly here, because usually I see that associated with stub sales or, yes, regular investments, but not with back orders that trickle in over weeks or even months. If there were hard evidence on that, I could go with you and retract my request, but I've not seen evidence of that personally.

@mietha_PSN I am slightly confused on this argument, admittedly. There is still speculation at hand. There was an incident with Lance Lynn I don't know how many years back where I had this happen. He seemed like a sure thing, orders filled, he didn't go and I don't think he did all year. That is a risk. I will grant you that it's a small risk, but it is a risk nonetheless.

@LHUBison58_XBL I have done both for years, so no worries there!

@PAinPA_PSN oh... kay? I am being 100 percent honest here. I've already said multiple times that compensating the seller who makes a mistake via the full quick sell while still honoring the investor sounds like a perfect compromise. Why keep attacking?

@PAinPA_PSN once again, I feel you're being unfair as to my position. I think a compromise to compensate those who make that slip would be a great idea.

@PAinPA_PSN I am disappointed. I was hoping for more honest discourse. I'm absolutely willing to meet it in the middle. Both parties can still win if that's an issue (and I agree it is.)

@PAinPA_PSN I have to say that I feel like this is a horribly unfair assumption to make. As noted, anyone can do this, even those who make the mistake later on down the line. Even I've made that slip once or twice! It does happen.

Perhaps there's a way to meet this in the middle, where the seller gets full quick sell value as compensation, but the patient investor gets the card at a discount in exchange for the patience. Feels like a fair solution for all involved, no?

I am here to request that SDS reconsider their "patch" to back orders. This mechanic has been in the game as long as I can remember and has been a very useful investment tool for those who are savvy enough (and patient enough) to use it. There are drawbacks for those investing: stubs are tied up fairly long term and those buy orders can always slow down if the card goes up even further, but patience leads to long term gain.

I must say that I personally see no good reason to take away this investment method. It is just as speculative as regular investment and you may be left holding the bag on an eventual crash if the card doesn't hit.

I am humbly asking that this decision be reconsidered and that back orders be returned.

To clarify a point that has been brought up: I completely agree that the seller should not be short changed in this scenario either. I believe the better solution to the problem would be to continue to honor these investments, but simply either a) connect all Quick Sells for these cards to the next buy order available or b) simply compensate the seller for the difference to quick sell. While I realize this could get complicated, I believe it would better honor this investment strategy that has been around a long time while still solving the issue of the seller being short changed because of their mistake. Both parties can benefit!