AutoRemove reputation Given by banned members
- Thread starter katana2
- Start date
- Status
PebbleHost
High performance, consistent uptime and fast support. Minecraft hosting that just works.
Well, this is a really bad idea..
I did a 150$ deal with this banevading kid.
Never opened a chargeback or tried to scam me.
Should the rep for the deal be removed?
Hell no! It's important to have rep from deals you made, that the user got banned doesnt have anything to do with the deal you made.. I mean there's plenty of exitscammers who did a ton of legit deals, and because he scammed 1 person, does that mean your deal with that person was invalid?
Hell no! Why would you even suggest this, if you actually think that you have a invalid rep, and you cant argue with the banned user anymore, then just open a support request and let it get solved.
And dont say support requests take to much time, since you have 20 reps..
getting 1 or 2 deleted doesnt take that long lol
This suggestion is just unfair for people who did legit deals..
I did a 150$ deal with this banevading kid.
Never opened a chargeback or tried to scam me.
Should the rep for the deal be removed?
Hell no! It's important to have rep from deals you made, that the user got banned doesnt have anything to do with the deal you made.. I mean there's plenty of exitscammers who did a ton of legit deals, and because he scammed 1 person, does that mean your deal with that person was invalid?
Hell no! Why would you even suggest this, if you actually think that you have a invalid rep, and you cant argue with the banned user anymore, then just open a support request and let it get solved.
And dont say support requests take to much time, since you have 20 reps..
getting 1 or 2 deleted doesnt take that long lol
This suggestion is just unfair for people who did legit deals..
If an user doesn't belong anymore to the community. Why should we care about His opinion on someone?
Banned forever. Reason: Rules violations
I think you missed his point
I dont want to waste my Time opening Support Requests or disputes, it should be automatic. Both positive and negative
Banned forever. Reason: Rules violations
Don't think this would be fair. I mean having positive reputation removed seems excessive? Like not every deal a ban member does is bad or illegitimate. Negative I understand in the case that it does seem likely for a banned user to try and abuse it. But why would a person like that abuse the positive reputation? That would be benefiting someone else not harming them?
I think if this was implemented it would be best to include only negative reputation being auto-removed or stick to the manual review process.
I think if this was implemented it would be best to include only negative reputation being auto-removed or stick to the manual review process.
Them having a banned tag doesn't make there opinions any less true though. The point of reputation is to be able to determine a users trust worthiness and ability to do business. Regardless of who that reputation came from.[DOUBLEPOST=1550434935][/DOUBLEPOST]Especially with the new reputation system, with the amount of proof a user must provide and explanation of the deal. It still doesn't change what happened as described in the reputation, as long the proof is there to support it, I don't believe it matters if they are banned or not.
Last edited:
Doesn't make it any less true, but they are no longer a part of the community.
Again though? Does it matter if they are apart of the community or not? Facts are facts. What happened happened. When you think about the purpose of the reputation system, what do you think of? Personally I think of it as a gauge as to the users trust worthiness to complete deals. I don't consider it to be some social memento of being apart of the community. I mean think of it this way, if a user had legitimate proof as to a user being a scammer or being a bad business person in general, wouldn't you want to know that? Even if they are banned, and may I add they could be banned for a wide range of reasons, that would still be useful information to have.
Why? Just saying Yes it does doesn't provide a sufficient rebuttal to my argument here.
a banned member is no longer part of the community and hence we would view it to be irrelevant.
Banned forever. Reason: Rules violations
Did you even read what I said? Just doesn't stating that something is irrelevant doesn't make it so.
Sorry but if u think someone who broke a rule and isn't a MCM member anymore Is trusted that's Ur opinion
Banned forever. Reason: Rules violations
The whole point of the reputation revamp was so that ALL reputation had to be legitimately supported with proof and supporting facts. So I don't understand how trust comes into play here? At the end of the day it is up to you, as a user, to consider how much you want to care about the reputation a user has. However I don't see why factually supported reputation should be removed.
What about all the old reputation prior the update? Would you consider purging that all considering 99.5% of them are not factually supported?
You can’t change the rules of the past. I wouldn’t be against it however. Not sure if I would be for it though. Ultimately I think it would probably be best to just stick to the manual review system.
Technically speaking, almost all old reputation violates rule 9.1.1 which requires evidence to be posted in the reputation post. We can’t change the rules of the past, but we can enforce our new rules on them.
Effectively, a purge would be the solution to that. However, that’s an extremely controversial move.
maybe have an edited version of this? like, people who got banned for evading get their reps removed, same with scammers, but people that got banned for like ddos/pedo/dox/excessive warnings don't. Like, ban evaders can rep the same guy on multiple accounts, which is obviously not fair. Scammers may help other scammers to get rep, or put false neg rep to make themselves seem better. Both of those actually matter in terms of the market. However, if a user deals with you that doxs someone a year later, I don't see why that rep should be removed. If someone is consistently rude to other users, but pos repped you for being a legitimate dealer, I don't see why that should be removed. If you dealt with, say, Max P or Neil before they got banned for pedophilia, that shouldn't affect a deal-related rep (although it's disgusting).
that's kinda a rant, oof
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that banned members only should get rep removed if it's related to their ban reason.
that's kinda a rant, oof
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that banned members only should get rep removed if it's related to their ban reason.
You are right about that. Like I said though doing that would be me charging you of a crime that you commuted month ago when a new act was only introduced today to make it illegal. I’m not going to say I would not be against purging old rep, but I’m not going to particularly say I’m for it either.
- Status
