A rule regarding the reputation system.

[James 1]

Hi all,

I'm requesting a rule that should be set in stone. That users should not be allowed to post reputation on someone that you have not deals with. Apparently since the rule is not set in stone it does not apply. Currently when posting reputation you must fill in the fields saying you have had some form of deal with the user. So make this into a gosh darn rule so people cannot abuse the rating system.

Thanks James.

Let's not bash on my post okay.

 

[Luigical]

Is this not already a rule? I report any false rep and it is always removed.

 

[Struggle]

I understand, and it's fine honestly.
I personally would not want to deal with a toxic user, mainly because if something goes wrong between I and that user, I then have to deal with him being toxic and causing a bigger problem than needed, so I feel being able to make that clear on the site is good, mainly because I will deny working with the user to prevent any future problems.

Once again, that's how I feel, my opinion

Fair point, but I still feel you could use the reputation system in that situation.

 

[James 1]

Is this not already a rule? I report any false rep and it is always removed.

Nope, a staff member will absolutely not remove some reputation left by a certain member.

 

[Marth]

I'm not talking about removing insight I mean adding a rule so people can't abuse a system that's supposed to be based around transactions.

i have no idea what you're talking about. all i said was if you enforce the rule, you remove insight. it's just a "side effect" that i had to mention to contribute to my outlook upon this situation

 

[James 1]

What may be best is adding a two seperate Rating systems. One based on transactions on how it went. One on peoples thoughts around a person.

 

[James 1]

Well none the less something needs to be set in stone. Because right now it's still being abused.

 

[Justis]

I disagree completely, and here's why.

We've tried the whole "you must have done deals before" thing, and it worked our horribly. So bad, in fact, that we had to remove the system completely.
One of the biggest flaws in doing so is that we, as staff members, cannot confirm who has and has not done a deal.
The biggest flaw, I feel, however, is that this would not be a "Reputation" system, if we made it deals only.
People who are hated in the community, who are total jerks to everyone, could have a spotless so-called reputation, because they had some successful deals with their friends or the few people they happen to be nice to.
It's not accurate at all.

Look up any definition of reputation, and you will see it has nothing to do with business deals.
Reputation is what a community thinks of you. That is exactly it.

If you're not too well known on this site, you probably have very few reviews, and a pretty neutral reputation.
If you're well known, and well known in a positive way, you'll have a rather positive reputation score.
If you're well known, and well known in a negative way, you'll have a rather negative reputation score.

This is accurate, and it gives a lot of information about how you interact with people on MC-Market.
This is because people that care about their reputation will go to those who have given them negative reputation, and communicate, sort things out, and come to a mutual understanding, thus improving their actual reputation, and almost certainly getting the point removed, naturally.

Preventing people from leaving their opinions there, or removing them as staff members, though it may ensure everyone appears to be super reputable, and nobody dislikes them, will actually disbalance the honesty and informativeness of the reputation system. Not only that, it will remove all the encouragement for members to communicate with each other and come to that understanding, thus diminishing the quality of our intercommunal relationships.

Removing people's ability to express their opinions on people they haven't done deals with would also mean that users would have no place to express their negative feelings about another user, no place. Thus they'll obviously be frustrated, angry, and resort to actions which will only further tarnish the quality of our community, and their own actual, yet unmeasured reputation here.

We, as a very communicative and involved community, who form many opinions of each other due to that interaction, only have one option for a functioning reputation system, and that is to allow a place for everyone to express their opinion freely.

I AGREE COMPLETELY that the GUI for giving reputation is absurdly confusing, in that it suggests only those who have done deals may give reputation, and I want those either removed, or an additional option added, say "None", so that all this confusion and arguing over what reputation is valid or not can stop. I've been saying this needs to happen for a long time now.

If you want a place to store deal vouches only, your signature is a wonderful area for that; best part is, you can determine whose vouches you post or not. Otherwise, maybe suggest looking into a "Vouches" tab on our profiles.
However, the reputation system is and always should remain completely unbiased, with minimal interference.
This is one thing I know to be true beyond any doubt.

Hopefully, after I've explained this, you can see the flaws with the system you're suggesting, and realize the potential and importance of an honest reputation system for our community.

 

[asa]

Hello there mr Hypocrite!!

Please check the latest rep from ThePro on my rep page, he completely disregarded what he said himself.

 

[James 1]

Hello there mr Hypocrite!!

Please check the latest rep from ThePro on my rep page, he completely disregarded what he said himself.

Since this rule was more or less denied I decided to fuck it. Because if your bull shit rep won't get removed nor will mine.

 

[asa]

Since this rule was more or less denied I decided to fuck it. Because if your bull shit rep won't get removed nor will mine.

You have no reason to rep me, I can easily find the thread that I negative repped you for where you falsely accused me and Doge, silly pathetic child.

 

[Justis]

You have no reason to rep me, I can easily find the thread that I negative repped you for where you falsely accused me and Doge, silly pathetic child.

This is exactly what I mean, everyone. Two users who have beef and are not willing and capable of settling it between themselves like understanding and compassionate human beings have a -1 actual reputation in this community, and if their points reflect that, then that is an honest representation of the opinions our users have of them. An honest representation of their reputation.
Cutting that off for the sake of those who are not willing and able to resolve those negative conflicts and their points, to glorify everyone in a bias system like that is a sacrifice which would butcher this community's potential in all the ways which I've explained above.

 

[asa]

This is exactly what I mean, everyone. Two users who have beef and are not willing and capable of settling it between themselves like understanding and compassionate human beings have a -1 actual reputation in this community, and if their points reflect that, then that is an honest representation of the opinions our users have of them. An honest representation of their reputation.
Cutting that off for the sake of those who are not willing and able to resolve those negative conflicts and their points, to glorify everyone in a bias system like that is a sacrifice which would butcher this community's potential in all the ways which I've explained above.

http://www.mc-market.org/threads/166978/ Is the reason he has his neg rep, he's done exactly the opposite of this thread and given me false rep and admitted it was false 2 posts up. I have reported this.

 

[Justis]

http://www.mc-market.org/threads/166978/ Is the reason he has his neg rep, he's done exactly the opposite of this thread and given me false rep and admitted it was false 2 posts up. I have reported this.

Your reputation on him is rather harsh (calling him pathetic), and your first post on that thread:
"Why are you bringing me into shit when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about?
I've not talked to or heard from chump since AUGUST and I never had information then so please fuck off child."
You acted rather toxic, yourself. That is my opinion, and I don't care for excuses.
If he feels that you are a rude, and disrespectful user because of this, (as stated in his rep on you) the appropriate action would not be to report his opinion as "false", because there is no such thing as a false opinion.
The appropriate action would be to apologize for offending him, for crossing the line, and offer to rectify your actions in order to heal the relationship between the two of you.
This is the kind of system we should be aiming towards, not one in which everyone's constantly reporting each other's poor opinions of each other as false.
We need to respect each other as a community enough to be honest with each other, and receive their honesty.
Whether or not we do something about the negative opinions we receive on us, is up to us.

 

[Space]

I'm 50/50 on this but why isn't the "user is toxic, disrespectful and unprofessional" rep just put as neutral instead of negative so people don't get as butthurt? I rarely see neutral being used >_>