Automatically delete banned users' reputation and resources

[Justis]

Heya,

I suggested the resource section of this suggestion a while back to Bebos in private conversation; however, I'll repeat it now, to the community as well as our new administration.

Resources by banned members are deleted when found by resource moderators.
This is a poor system, and should simply be automated, since the criteria is so obvious, in order to improve consistency in our resources, and avoid having to look back constantly, or rely on user reports to get these removed in a decent time frame.

A schedule should be made which will go through all of the resources of each user who has been banned for; let's say two weeks, and delete them.
This gives users who's accounts have been compromised a chance to get access to their account back before their resources get removed and they have to contact a resource mod to restore them.

As I said, we already remove resources by banned members manually; but in case it's not obvious as to why, it's because downloaders cannot receive product support from them via our website anymore, and since our resources serve only as a platform for other people's business, we cannot 'take the reigns'. Therefore, for our active users' safety, the resources are removed.

Reputation by banned members should also be removed.
Reputation is supposed to be a representation of the community's attitude towards a certain member.
Banned members are no longer any part of our community; and are often removed because of an issue with their attitude.
Clearing the reputation they've given from our community's profiles will result in a more accurate gauge of our current community's feelings towards a certain member; and limit abuse by alts and butt-buddy rep gangs on other members.

Thanks for your time and consideration; happy holidays.

 

[Ivain]

The reputation bit worries me, since if I deal a lot with members that then proceed to exit scam, I lose all that reputation through no fault of my own. I still did a successful deal with them, whether or not they scammed the shit out of someone else.

 

[Justis]

The reputation bit worries me, since if I deal a lot with members that then proceed to exit scam, I lose all that reputation through no fault of my own. I still did a successful deal with them, whether or not they scammed the shit out of someone else.

I disagree with your worries and think that removing all reputation by all banned members is important for maintaining a correct reflection of the current community's views on a member, and not our community + a cess pool of banned members that won't ever be able to use our site again.
However, for the sake of exploring options, would you feel more comfortable if banned member's rep would only be removed for being by a banned member when reported by the user of the account the reputation was left on?

 

[Ivain]

I disagree with your worries and think that removing all reputation by all banned members is important for maintaining a correct reflection of the current community's views on a member, and not our community + a cess pool of banned members that won't ever be able to use our site again.
However, for the sake of exploring options, would you feel more comfortable if banned member's rep would only be removed for being by a banned member when reported by the user of the account the reputation was left on?

Ah yes, I forgot that reputation is supposed to be based on superlative opinion, as opposed to how factually reliable a person is to deal with. My bad.
The latter would be nice, but I feel like that would be too strongly the opposite of this suggestion. I still see your concerns, but the reason I was worried is because I disagree with the basic vision of reputation being based pretty much on subjective opinion instead of objective fact. If it's Opinions, then removing the opinions of people who are no longer relevant makes sense. If it's based on fact, then a successful deal in the past has nothing to do with the behavior of that member later on.
This next thing is probably far too complex/custom to implement, but perhaps there would be an option to mark reputation as being 'opinion' or 'review'. Opinions get removed when the user that gave them is banned. Reviews are only removed if the person the rep was left for reports them.

 

[Justis]

Ah yes, I forgot that reputation is supposed to be based on superlative opinion, as opposed to how factually reliable a person is to deal with. My bad.
The latter would be nice, but I feel like that would be too strongly the opposite of this suggestion. I still see your concerns, but the reason I was worried is because I disagree with the basic vision of reputation being based pretty much on subjective opinion instead of objective fact. If it's Opinions, then removing the opinions of people who are no longer relevant makes sense. If it's based on fact, then a successful deal in the past has nothing to do with the behavior of that member later on.
This next thing is probably far too complex/custom to implement, but perhaps there would be an option to mark reputation as being 'opinion' or 'review'. Opinions get removed when the user that gave them is banned. Reviews are only removed if the person the rep was left for reports them.

If we split reputation to make one type have a greater weight and benefit to the user than the other, then users will always resort to the type that has a greater benefit on themselves wherever and whenever possible.
Often that will mean faking deals, or making a glancing exchange out to be more than it is for the sake of seeming like a significant transaction and therefore mean more within reputation than one members' word about another member, which, no matter what, is all reputation can and ever will be until we are able to implement a means of actually tracking deals and dollar figures ourselves. Which won't be an option any time soon. This was especially an issue relating to vouch copies or low quality "product" like that Microsoft paint "art" for example, remember that?
To compensate for this grotesque misuse of reputation to grow what-in-a-perfect-world-could-be-considered-factual-reliability, reputation was reduced to the more generic meaning which is the community's opinions, where yes, the few genuine reputation that are for significant deals don't get a super spotlight significance, but more importantly neither does the overwhelming majority of near meaningless garble that floods reputation and will always flood reputation until, as I said, it can be automated for deals.
I believe this a better option given the unfortunate circumstances.

 

[Ivain]

The problem right now is that there is a lot of negative reputation being given for equally trivial reasons. Sure, in the past people faked deals. Now they don't need to fake deals, they can just shout whatever. it's made the entire reputation system become a farce, and I STRONGLY dislike site policy being "work it out with the user" by default. As you probably know all too painfully well, this site contains a lot of members that could not under any circumstances be described as rational. As such, any attempts to 'work it out' with them will fail.
In addition, I feel like people still have difficulty predicting if reputation will be judged as legit or not. Even I have difficulty advising others of that. Considering how strongly having even 1 negative reputation can affect a deal, I feel like it would help a lot for the currently extremely negative community view on reputation if there was a defined set of 'rules' or a 'checklist' you guys went through.
I see the difficulty here as well, though I can't quite define it. But the current status quo is definitely not a good one, and if people's positive reputation starts disappearing all of a sudden because the people that gave it are banned, there WILL be another strong dose of outrage (nobody gives a damn if their negative rep suddenly vanishes). In addition, people will likely revert back to 'vouches', since those are basically posts, and will not be automated as such.

I guess I'll just have to accept reputation will never function the way I want. No matter what you implement, the community will still abuse the shit out of it.

 

[Devon]

I said it once earlier, and I'll say it again here. If someone is banned for say, "Account Compromised" or something should they have all their stuff cleared? This is definitely one of the stupider suggestions here.

Also remove their reputation? Someone may have done successful deals before they went rogue and exit scammed. How would that be fair to anyone to lose rep just because someone they successfully dealt with exit scammed months later?

Justis I don't know what came across you when you made this but hopefully your nonsense stays away from the rest of the site.

Mick do you agree with this? It's pretty ridiculous in my opinion. It's in pending so I suggest you give us your opinion.

Most people don't even have resources, stop being a lazy ass and just delete them manually if needed Justis

 

[Justis]

I said it once earlier, and I'll say it again here. If someone is banned for say, "Account Compromised" or something should they have all their stuff cleared? This is definitely one of the stupider suggestions here.

Also remove their reputation? Someone may have done successful deals before they went rogue and exit scammed. How would that be fair to anyone to lose rep just because someone they successfully dealt with exit scammed months later?

Justis I don't know what came across you when you made this but hopefully your nonsense stays away from the rest of the site.

Mick do you agree with this? It's pretty ridiculous in my opinion. It's in pending so I suggest you give us your opinion.

Most people don't even have resources, stop being a lazy ass and just delete them manually if needed Justis

Resources are never completely deleted. Ever. They are as easy to restore as simply saying "Hey Justis, can you restore my resources". There's no starting from square one.
The reason this suggestion is in pending is because the reputation system does not yet have a way to restore/view deleted reputation, so automatically deleting it whenever someone is banned for something that could potentially have been false is not possible. Buffing up the moderation capabilities of the reputation system is one of our top priorities, and then this suggestion can be fully implemented without anyone having to worry about bans being any more of a burden to them than the fact that they were banned in the first place.

And might I say on a more personal note, your attitude is disgusting.

 

[adamawesome135]

I like this idea but not the part for deleting resource because if a person buys his resource then he wont be able to download it no more (Just make a way to disable purchasing it)

 

[Mick]

This suggestion has been implemented for quite a while now.

I'll move this to accepted, thank you Justis and everyone else for your feedback