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.

 

[Hawkk]

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 >_>

Neutral can be used as in

"User did a great job, but took very long to complete"

A +1 then -1 aspect

 

[Space]

Neutral can be used as in

"User did a great job, but took very long to complete"

I see more profile comments like this than neutral rep

 

[Space]

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.

 

[Mint]

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.

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 >_>

I think Justis idea would be ideal, I've met a lot of people who've been extremely unprofessional but I've been told that it's regarding deals only. I think that there would be a lot of negative rep if someone had too high prices in some people's opinions or if you won't give someone a full refund though your ToS states that you won't after the deal has been commenced.

If it was all about people's opinions, we wouldn't be able to dispute it, because as Justis said, there's no wrong opinion.

Neutral reputation to display the persons actions outside of trades or over all things they've done seems like a good alternative to the option of an uproar.

One thing that I think a lot of people forget is: If someone is acting professional but not doing a lot of trades, could they still get positive rep then? There might be a bunch of people who'd just positively rep someone because they're friends.

TLDR; If we allow it, friends could spam positive rep eachother or spam negative rep someone over beef. Neutral rep seems like an over all good option for general impressions.

 

[Mick]

This was the system we had in the past when rocket and Bosny were managing the site or around that time, however it was removed shortly after. It simply isn't possible to have a system where you have to have done a deal with someone to give reputation when all deals are done off-site.

The only way I can see to have a perfect reputation system for business sales only is to have a system built in to the site where you must do your deals through the site, which doesn't seem that people would like that very much.

 

[Mick]

Very simple. If a person leaves a rep on someone they have not done a deal with they will receive warning points. That will make ALOT of people not do it.

How do we determine whether they've done a deal or not? Do we have to require proof to be provided to give reputation?

It is _very_ easy to falsify all sorts of proof with skype, etc.

The point of reputation is for people to give you information of what they think of you as a part of the community, not just for the business deals they do. Justis is pretty good at explaining the purpose of reputation.

 

[James 1]

How do we determine whether they've done a deal or not? Do we have to require proof to be provided to give reputation?

It is _very_ easy to falsify all sorts of proof with skype, etc.

The point of reputation is for people to give you information of what they think of you as a part of the community, not just for the business deals they do. Justis is pretty good at explaining the purpose of reputation.

Then outline what can and can not be done. There is no clarity. And plus that's bull shit, why is configured so you must have to have had a deal with someone. Whether you like it or not Mick people are abusing it. Fix it.

 

[TechBanana]

What about a small box that you have to tick if you didn't make a deal?
Somewhat like when you leave a review on steam, you have to specify if you received the game for free or not (not the same thing, just where the idea came from)

Just so people are able to see where their good/bad behavior came from

 

[Hawkk]

How do we determine whether they've done a deal or not? Do we have to require proof to be provided to give reputation?

It is _very_ easy to falsify all sorts of proof with skype, etc.

The point of reputation is for people to give you information of what they think of you as a part of the community, not just for the business deals they do. Justis is pretty good at explaining the purpose of reputation.

Neutral rep seems like an over all good option for general impressions.

 

[Master]

I vote yes

 

[Mick]

This isn't possible at this time. Denied.

Thanks for the suggestion.