Change the Reputation System

[Landon]

Firstly- I know there's been tons of Reputation Suggestions the past few days. This thread is a mix of all the suggestions, to bring a unified solution to the obviously broken Reputation System on MC-Market. This contains previously denied suggestions, but I will go in-depth on my reasoning, and how it can fix MC-Market overall.

1. Change reputation.

Spoiler: Details

Right now, reputation is classified as 'user reviews'.
"User is very nice, wouldn't hesitate to deal with." That is considered valid reputation.
"User made me a custom plugin, works great." That is considered valid reputation.

I understand that reputation is how you are viewed on the forums, but it opens a gateway to rep boosting. I can get my friends to add a positive reputation to me, for the reasoning "User is very nice, trustworthy guy!" and you can't do anything about it.

I say we change the current reputation system to how vouches are supposed to work. Vouches on MC-Market are supposed to be product reviews ONLY. So, with this change:
"User is very nice, wouldn't hesitate to deal with." That is considered invalid reputation.
"User made me a custom plugin, works great." That is considered valid reputation.

This would make reputation strictly based on actual exchanges with users. Selling Bitcoin, making a plugin, or middlemanning. Talking to a user for an hour won't count as valid reputation because they said a funny joke in Discord.

2. Reputation Proof

Spoiler: Details

With our current system, proof isn't required when adding rep. (Positive or negative). I think the 'MCM link' box should be changed to a required link (Chatlogs, Imgur, etc) showing you and the user actually dealt with each other.

3. Revenge Rep

Spoiler: Details

We know this is the major issue with the current system. If we could solve this, there wouldn't be a need to make drastic changes to the current system. How do we solve revenge repping?

Rep Moderators - Denied
Rep Cooldowns - Denied

So, here's my idea. It goes along with Reputation Proof. If you leave a negative review on a user for "User is toxic", you need to provide a screenshot link to prove your claims. If you can't provide a screenshot of the user acting toxic towards you, then the reputation will be removed once reported.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Landon]

i'm prepared for this to get denied. but the system needs changing, and this is a step towards a better reputation system.

 

[1337]

Firstly- I know there's been tons of Reputation Suggestions the past few days. This thread is a mix of all the suggestions, to bring a unified solution to the obviously broken Reputation System on MC-Market. This contains previously denied suggestions, but I will go in-depth on my reasoning, and how it can fix MC-Market overall.

1. Change reputation.

Spoiler: Details

Right now, reputation is classified as 'user reviews'.
"User is very nice, wouldn't hesitate to deal with." That is considered valid reputation.
"User made me a custom plugin, works great." That is considered valid reputation.

I understand that reputation is how you are viewed on the forums, but it opens a gateway to rep boosting. I can get my friends to add a positive reputation to me, for the reasoning "User is very nice, trustworthy guy!" and you can't do anything about it.

I say we change the current reputation system to how vouches are supposed to work. Vouches on MC-Market are supposed to be product reviews ONLY. So, with this change:
"User is very nice, wouldn't hesitate to deal with." That is considered invalid reputation.
"User made me a custom plugin, works great." That is considered valid reputation.

This would make reputation strictly based on actual exchanges with users. Selling Bitcoin, making a plugin, or middlemanning. Talking to a user for an hour won't count as valid reputation because they said a funny joke in Discord.

2. Reputation Proof

Spoiler: Details

With our current system, proof isn't required when adding rep. (Positive or negative). I think the 'MCM link' box should be changed to a required link (Chatlogs, Imgur, etc) showing you and the user actually dealt with each other.

3. Revenge Rep

Spoiler: Details

We know this is the major issue with the current system. If we could solve this, there wouldn't be a need to make drastic changes to the current system. How do we solve revenge repping?

Rep Moderators - Denied
Rep Cooldowns - Denied

So, here's my idea. It goes along with Reputation Proof. If you leave a negative review on a user for "User is toxic", you need to provide a screenshot link to prove your claims. If you can't provide a screenshot of the user acting toxic towards you, then the reputation will be removed once reported.

Thanks for reading.

I agree with most points given here, with the exception of the "all reputation should only be product reviews". I believe people still should be able to give rep for toxicity, immaturity and personal experiences with a seller/buyer. someone can be the best service provider in the world but be extremely immature and toxic, but people still should have the right to know.

 

[Ivain]

1 is 100% gonna get denied. It is staff view that the system needs to be opinion-based as well as product-based. This is not gonna change however much we want it, unless someone goes on a total abusive rampage (and perhaps not even then).
The other 2 are plausible.

 

[Avery]

The sad fact of this is that no matter what you do to fix the reputation system it will always be broken.

If you require deals people are going to do $1 deals to rep farm.
If you make it based on experiences, people are going to rep farm for being nice and be trashed if their toxic.

There's no way to make a perfect reputation system unless you had 3-4 different systems for each category to be repped on. (ie. Deals, Experience, Legitimacy, etc.)

 

[MrNight]

I agree with most points given here, with the exception of the "all reputation should only be product reviews". I believe people still should be able to give rep for toxicity, immaturity and personal experiences with a seller/buyer. someone can be the best service provider in the world but be extremely immature and toxic, but people still should have the right to know.

What if you couldn't give negative rep, but only neutral rep for something like immaturity and toxicity? Not saying this would work but its a thought.

 

[Landon]

False. Those are not considered valid reputations. It's not informative whatsoever and breaks rule 9.1.



I just remembered a conversation that Justis R created with a user and I. I believe this is already put in place

I am not sure what this is meant to mean when you put Rep Moderators/Cooldowns - Denied. Could you explain?

Trust me, "user is very nice" is not valid. "User is very nice, helped me out." is valid. I can add just something that little to make it valid.

Regarding:
Rep Mods- Moderators who verify rep. Suggestion was denied by Mick.
Rep Cooldown- If you add -rep to someone, they can't -rep you back until 24/48H. Denied by Mick.

 

[Jerry]

The third option was actually one of the best solutions I've seen for the revenge rep/rep abuse problem. The other two parts I don't see anything happening with, unfortunately.

 

[SheepeyDarkness]

You can still rep boost as a friend. If "nice guy" is now banned from putting on user's rep, now they can change it to "Did a great deal with. Would deal with again." That would be worse ( because it most likely isn't true ). Also people could just look through the rep to see that half of it is "nice guy" Although, revenge repping needs to be fixed. You can't neg someone for being very rude without fear of getting a rep that would never be removed. Same with giving your opinion on something. If your opinion is different there could be some kid which doesn't agree and decides to neg rep. If it's removed they could just neg rep again with " User is very toxic. " and get away with it.
._.

Although I agree with your 3rd option's solution.

Also to note. In the rules it states that to get a rep removed you must change as a person.

After 1-3 months of the neg repping, if the user cannot find any examples of the person being toxic then the rep would be removed. This would allow people the chance to get rep removed. Lets be honest here. Some people have negative rep from a year ago for being toxic, are no longer toxic, and can't have it removed.

For example.

Jimmy is being very rude to Bobby. Bobby neg reps Jimmy for being rude. Jimmy improves as a person and appeals to get it removed 3 months later. Bobby can't find any evidence of Jimmy being rude. Therefore, the neg rep doesn't reflect accurately on Jimmy's image/attitude/personality and is now invalid. The rep is removed.

 

[RedStoned]

I agree 100%. Repuation should be about transactions. If the transaction was fast and easy then plus rep should be given to both the seller and buyer.

 

[Chearful]

i'm prepared for this to get denied. but the system needs changing, and this is a step towards a better reputation system.

Mick has already said in private he 100% disagrees with making the rep system deals only. IMO rep should be deals only.

 

[Landon]

Mick has already said in private he 100% disagrees with making the rep system deals only. IMO rep should be deals only.

There was a suggestion a while back stating the same thing, and it got denied. But like I said in my post, I expect it to get denied, but atleast it brings some light on potential solutions, and then we can work on a suggestion implementing everyones pro's and con's with current suggestions o/

(good try boys)

 

[sewonrock]

I agree, I just got a neg rep for not paying this guy, Hes telling me i wasted his time even tho i talked to him for 10 min

 

[Jerry]

I agree, I just got a neg rep for not paying this guy, Hes telling me i wasted his time even tho i talked to him for 10 min

If u say you're going to buy something and don't you should receive a neg rep.

 

[Choo]

If u say you're going to buy something and don't you should receive a neg rep.

Tbh 10 minutes would only deserve a neutral, if the guy says he has the money and then makes the seller wait for a week and then backs out saying he doesn't have money anymore, that's way more deserving for a neg.

As for the idea, #1 was denied by Mick himself many times if I'm certain, and said it will probably never change unless it spirals out of control of which it hasn't, likely because it is all positive rep and people would probably not want to report their own positive rep.

I agree with #2 and #3 though, if a user would to put a negative rep on me, he should at least provide proof of the thread or an imgur link where it shows that I deserve the rep given.

 

[Jerry]

Tbh 10 minutes would only deserve a neutral, if the guy says he has the money and then makes the seller wait for a week and then backs out saying he doesn't have money anymore, that's way more deserving for a neg.

That's another issue, people have different opinions on what deserves a neg rep. Makes it almost impossible to distinguish between what a good neg rep is and what is bad.

 

[Choo]

That's another issue, people have different opinions on what deserves a neg rep. Makes it almost impossible to distinguish between what a good neg rep is and what is bad.

Yea because some people get super triggered when you retract your bid four months after you've placed it and it was never noted(True story). Not sure if there is a rule about placing bids and not being able to backout, but people have TOS for a reason and if you break them it could result in a neg rep even if it's very minor and no harm was intended.
Are you suggesting that more rules need to be placed for these situations?

 

[sewonrock]

If u say you're going to buy something and don't you should receive a neg rep.

This guy gave me bad rep for wasting this guy time even tho i talked to him for 10min