Disallow reputation on Staff members regarding how they do their job

[Ghast]

Alright, we get it. Some staff members are maybe a little too insensitive and just can't bend to have more of a fair justice (cough cough Lotus), yet I talk regularly to some of these members and trust me they work their asses off.

When I see a reputation, usually negative, on a staff member for their work in that position, I wonder often "is this right". Well no, it isn't. Most staff members other than Administrator provide a free service of keeping a safe community to what they see in their point of view. Everyone is part of the point of view circle, yet some people will see something different than others. It is the case for staff members.

Instead, I think we should do a monthly/bimonthly (2 months) feedback on staff members, simple pole, to compensate the fact user can't provide their point of view that would improve their way of thinking as a staff member.

Bests;
Ghast.

 

[Ivain]

This was one of the reasons that prompted me to leave the second time. I was told users were free to negrep me for no other reason than their disagreement with decisions I made as a staff member. It effectively meant that every time I gave someone warning points, they theoretically had the right to negrep me in return. Only reason I dont still have the 2 negreps in question is because the members were banned or became inactive.

The alternative solution you've provided here is also a good option, because I believe the reason the staff team was hesitant to counter 'backlash-rep' was because they didnt want to appear to be shutting out community feedback.

 

[Justis]

Staff members are community members like any other. They are free to buy/sell items and services, including staffing/management services for another company, be it hosting, service teams, forum, etc.
Being a staff member on MC-Market is a service that team provides like any other, and how we handle our positions here easily translates into how we’d handle a position in any other similar staffing or management position on MCM.
Even if the staff member does not offer other services while in a position here, our staff members rarely remain on MCM’s staff team over the years. Some resign or are let go, and they do continue on with other services on this platform.
If they were professional, courteous, patient, and responsive as a staff member while offering their staffing services here, why should we restrict users from reflecting that in their feedback?
If they were unprofessional, rude, impatient, and shirked their job at our users expenses, why should we restrict users from reflecting that in their feedback?

In regards to Ivain. Had the users been active/not-banned, you’d have found the feedback removed anyways after the dispute process (which every user must go through, if they want their feedback reviewed by a staff member, staff themselves are no exception). Giving a user an earned warning is not a valid reason for feedback. See https://www.mc-market.org/wiki/reputation/ Staff members abiding by staff guidelines will never be a valid reason for feedback, and the staff member in question would win the dispute.
If a staff member’s actions stand in opposition of staff guidelines, however, and as consequence, they damage a user’s experience of the site, the staff member should be held responsible in their reputation on the site.

Granted, a majority of the negative feedback on our staff members at the moment is probably in violation of our reputation policies, and can be removed. However, the same can probably be said for any and all users of the site at the moment. The feedback report system is in a state of backlog, and a large number of disputes are pending.
The staff members with violating negative feedback can wait with the rest of the community whenever there’s feedback dispute backlog, for their dispute to be seen and handled.

 

[Candidates]

Staff members are community members like any other. They are free to buy/sell items and services, including staffing/management services for another company, be it hosting, service teams, forum, etc.
Being a staff member on MC-Market is a service that team provides like any other, and how we handle our positions here easily translates into how we’d handle a position in any other similar staffing or management position on MCM.
Even if the staff member does not offer other services while in a position here, our staff members rarely remain on MCM’s staff team over the years. Some resign or are let go, and they do continue on with other services on this platform.
If they were professional, courteous, patient, and responsive as a staff member while offering their staffing services here, why should we restrict users from reflecting that in their feedback?
If they were unprofessional, rude, impatient, and shirked their job at our users expenses, why should we restrict users from reflecting that in their feedback?

In regards to Ivain. Had the users been active/not-banned, you’d have found the feedback removed anyways after the dispute process (which every user must go through, if they want their feedback reviewed by a staff member, staff themselves are no exception). Giving a user an earned warning is not a valid reason for feedback. See https://www.mc-market.org/wiki/reputation/ Staff members abiding by staff guidelines will never be a valid reason for feedback, and the staff member in question would win the dispute.
If a staff member’s actions stand in opposition of staff guidelines, however, and as consequence, they damage a user’s experience of the site, the staff member should be held responsible in their reputation on the site.

Granted, a majority of the negative feedback on our staff members at the moment is probably in violation of our reputation policies, and can be removed. However, the same can probably be said for any and all users of the site at the moment. The feedback report system is in a state of backlog, and a large number of disputes are pending.
The staff members with violating negative feedback can wait with the rest of the community whenever there’s feedback dispute backlog, for their dispute to be seen and handled.

very well said

 

[Ivain]

I seem to recall that back when that rep was an issue for me, the dispute system did not yet exist, but good to know anyway.

 

[Ghast]

Staff members are community members like any other. They are free to buy/sell items and services, including staffing/management services for another company, be it hosting, service teams, forum, etc.
Being a staff member on MC-Market is a service that team provides like any other, and how we handle our positions here easily translates into how we’d handle a position in any other similar staffing or management position on MCM.
Even if the staff member does not offer other services while in a position here, our staff members rarely remain on MCM’s staff team over the years. Some resign or are let go, and they do continue on with other services on this platform.
If they were professional, courteous, patient, and responsive as a staff member while offering their staffing services here, why should we restrict users from reflecting that in their feedback?
If they were unprofessional, rude, impatient, and shirked their job at our user's expenses, why should we restrict users from reflecting that in their feedback?

In regards to Ivain. Had the users been active/not-banned, you’d have found the feedback removed anyways after the dispute process (which every user must go through, if they want their feedback reviewed by a staff member, staff themselves are no exception). Giving a user an earned warning is not a valid reason for feedback. See https://www.mc-market.org/wiki/reputation/ Staff members abiding by staff guidelines will never be a valid reason for feedback, and the staff member in question would win the dispute.
If a staff member’s actions stand in opposition of staff guidelines, however, and as consequence, they damage a user’s experience of the site, the staff member should be held responsible in their reputation on the site.

Granted, a majority of the negative feedback on our staff members at the moment is probably in violation of our reputation policies, and can be removed. However, the same can probably be said for any and all users of the site at the moment. The feedback report system is in a state of backlog, and a large number of disputes are pending.
The staff members with violating negative feedback can wait with the rest of the community whenever there’s feedback dispute backlog, for their dispute to be seen and handled.

There are valid points being said, but nonetheless, a majority of people can call a staff member 'bad' because they are butthurt about a certain situation which does not represent the staff member. Unless actually working with the staff member in question (reputations from other staff members), it is not appropriate for them to post a reputation. Take an example at a Minecraft server: only the employer/higher staff member add a reputation to the user as they had a direct relationship with him working there. A simple player that got muted on the server by this admin cannot blindly say "B4D ADMIN BOOOOOh".
Bests;
Ghast.

 

[Overlord]

When I see a reputation, usually negative, on a staff member for their work in that position, I wonder often "is this right". Well no, it isn't. Most staff members other than Administrator provide a free service of keeping a safe community to what they see in their point of view.

Instead, I think we should do a monthly/bimonthly (2 months) feedback on staff members, simple pole, to compensate the fact user can't provide their point of view that would improve their way of thinking as a staff member.

This is some backwards logic.

If I remember correctly, staff members are paid.

Even if we assume they aren't, and are indeed volunteers, whilst I'm sure the users in this community thank them for their service and in dedicating some of their time to ensuring smooth functioning of the community, their purpose is indeed that: to ensure smooth running of the community. Hence, censoring people in the community from having a view on how a staff member operates to protect said staff member's feelings is so backwards I can barely put it into words.

Staff should remember that most community members, even those with negative opinions of them, are acting in good faith and simply disagree with them, dislike them, or dislike a site policy. A person acting in bad faith should be banned. Someone leaving a reputation in a rather respectful manner stating their issues with a person or their actions is good faith involvement. Any real functioning community requires that people can enjoy the site's purpose.

Staff are not meant to be supreme: the site's point is to facilitate a marketplace. A marketplace exists because there are users. Staff are there to ensure the smooth running of the marketplace, not to be teachers and rule over kids. If you want to change the running of how this works and put them on a pedestal you have a dysfunctional community that won't be a community for very long.

If staff are unable to cope with people having a negative opinion of them they should probably step down, as they're unlikely to be suitable in the role. When you enter real life, as I'm sure you will one day, you'll realise people disagree on matters of policy or likeness all the time. You get over it.[DOUBLEPOST=1556997396][/DOUBLEPOST]

There are valid points being said, but nonetheless, a majority of people can call a staff member 'bad' because they are butthurt about a certain situation which does not represent the staff member. Unless actually working with the staff member in question (reputations from other staff members), it is not appropriate for them to post a reputation. Take an example at a Minecraft server: only the employer/higher staff member add a reputation to the user as they had a direct relationship with him working there. A simple player that got muted on the server by this admin cannot blindly say "B4D ADMIN BOOOOOh".
Bests;
Ghast.

You're not even staff, why do you care so much? If they have an issue, I'm sure they can bring it up internally or suggest it publicly themselves.

Looking at your own reputation, I can see a lot (most?) of this has nothing to do with actual trades either. If people can exercise positive trade-unrelated opinions, they can express negative trade-unrelated opinions. Either ask for the entire reputation system to be changed to trade relations only, or get over it. Your reasoning doesn't work because that's fundamentally not how the reputation system currently operates, hence the founding premise of your assumptions is false. Please take a logic 101 class before trying to do this again.

 

[Ghast]

This is some backwards logic.

If I remember correctly, staff members are paid.

Even if we assume they aren't, and are indeed volunteers, whilst I'm sure the users in this community thank them for their service and in dedicating some of their time to ensuring smooth functioning of the community, their purpose is indeed that: to ensure smooth running of the community. Hence, censoring people in the community from having a view on how a staff member operates to protect said staff member's feelings is so backwards I can barely put it into words.

Staff should remember that most community members, even those with negative opinions of them, are acting in good faith and simply disagree with them, dislike them, or dislike a site policy. A person acting in bad faith should be banned. Someone leaving a reputation in a rather respectful manner stating their issues with a person or their actions is good faith involvement. Any real functioning community requires that people can enjoy the site's purpose.

Staff are not meant to be supreme: the site's point is to facilitate a marketplace. A marketplace exists because there are users. Staff are there to ensure the smooth running of the marketplace, not to be teachers and rule over kids. If you want to change the running of how this works and put them on a pedestal you have a dysfunctional community that won't be a community for very long.

If staff are unable to cope with people having a negative opinion of them they should probably step down, as they're unlikely to be suitable in the role. When you enter real life, as I'm sure you will one day, you'll realise people disagree on matters of policy or likeness all the time. You get over it.[DOUBLEPOST=1556997396][/DOUBLEPOST]
You're not even staff, why do you care so much? If they have an issue, I'm sure they can bring it up internally or suggest it publicly themselves.

Looking at your own reputation, I can see a lot (most?) of this has nothing to do with actual trades either. If people can exercise positive trade-unrelated opinions, they can express negative trade-unrelated opinions. Either ask for the entire reputation system to be changed to trade relations only, or get over it. Your reasoning doesn't work because that's fundamentally not how the reputation system currently operates, hence the founding premise of your assumptions is false. Please take a logic 101 class before trying to do this again.

I see your point of view, but it seems you got off topic. I suggested an alternative for the user to express their opinion.

Even if we assume they aren't, and are indeed volunteers, whilst I'm sure the users in this community thank them for their service and in dedicating some of their time to ensuring smooth functioning of the community, their purpose is indeed that: to ensure smooth running of the community. Hence, censoring people in the community from having a view on how a staff member operates to protect said staff member's feelings is so backwards I can barely put it into words.

Once again, I suggested a more friendly alternative.

Staff are not meant to be supreme: the site's point is to facilitate a marketplace. A marketplace exists because there are users. Staff are there to ensure the smooth running of the marketplace, not to be teachers and rule over kids. If you want to change the running of how this works and put them on a pedestal you have a dysfunctional community that won't be a community for very long.

I don't see the correlation between a simple rule to limit this and replace it with an alternative and the basics of power. Staff members are members too, hence their reputation should not be stained due to their voluntary work. Once again I am not a staff member thus I do not see what happens in the backstage.

If staff are unable to cope with people having a negative opinion of them they should probably step down, as they're unlikely to be suitable in the role. When you enter real life, as I'm sure you will one day, you'll realise people disagree on matters of policy or likeness all the time. You get over it.[DOUBLEPOST=1556997396][/DOUBLEPOST]
You're not even staff, why do you care so much? If they have an issue, I'm sure they can bring it up internally or suggest it publicly themselves.

It is not a matter of having a negative opinion on them, it is just a matter of it being associated with the wrong section. Instead, once again, a new system should be implemented for Staff feedback as feedback = progression. I'm sure staff have brought this up internally but without having a community suggesting it and backing it up, you'll, without doubt, have an entire community calling staff abuse. As a matter of now, I have multiple staff member friends and the fact users are tearing their reputation's down is something I see as an issue, hence me suggesting a change to be made to it.

Looking at your own reputation, I can see a lot (most?) of this has nothing to do with actual trades either. If people can exercise positive trade-unrelated opinions, they can express negative trade-unrelated opinions. Either ask for the entire reputation system to be changed to trade relations only, or get over it. Your reasoning doesn't work because that's fundamentally not how the reputation system currently operates, hence the founding premise of your assumptions is false. Please take a logic 101 class before trying to do this again.

As for this, not entirely sure how to react. You seemed to have kept a solid argument until this point. I'll be attending logic 101 classes next year as it is part of my program.

Bests;
Ghast.

 

[Overlord]

Reputation is a number. Any legitimate customer will ignore pointless opinions and use your actual work to evaluate whether to deal with you or not. If someone is competent, I don't care how toxic or aggressive or socially awkward they are. Your work speaks for itself. And as for this community, in a place where people are willing to deal with known scammers just in the hopes of it not being a scam and getting a decent deal when the offer is too good to be true, I highly doubt a "I dislike how you staff the community" is going to cause any real harm to their trading. The harm of being unable to leave an opinion on a staff member, however, leads to a dysfunctional community where staff, who are meant to protect the interests of the community collectively, are instead held loosely accountable at best. Staff members are volunteer members, they should have no special exemptions to protect this artificial privilege you've cooked up for them. If they feel that being staff interferes with their "business" then they should resign, as they clearly cannot exercise the independence and rationality required to be a good staff member.

I'll be attending logic 101 classes next year as it is part of my program.

I'm glad to hear that. You definitely are in need of them.

 

[Ghast]

Reputation is a number. Any legitimate customer will ignore pointless opinions and use your actual work to evaluate whether to deal with you or not. If someone is competent, I don't care how toxic or aggressive or socially awkward they are. Your work speaks for itself. And as for this community, in a place where people are willing to deal with known scammers just in the hopes of it not being a scam and getting a decent deal when the offer is too good to be true, I highly doubt a "I dislike how you staff the community" is going to cause any real harm to their trading. The harm of being unable to leave an opinion on a staff member, however, leads to a dysfunctional community where staff, who are meant to protect the interests of the community collectively, are instead held loosely accountable at best. Staff members are volunteer members, they should have no special exemptions to protect this artificial privilege you've cooked up for them. If they feel that being staff interferes with their "business" then they should resign, as they clearly cannot exercise the independence and rationality required to be a good staff member.


I'm glad to hear that. You definitely are in need of them.

Any legitimate customer will ignore pointless opinions and use your actual work to evaluate whether to deal with you or not.

Surprisingly, it is not the case for this forum. Trust me I have lost the best of customers due to pointless reputations that were removed soon after.

Your work speaks for itself.

Yet the bests are always underrated.

"I dislike how you staff the community" is going to cause any real harm to their trading.

I have checked the reactions, it indeed wouldn't cause extraordinary damage but still is a very negative impact when it could just be solved.

The harm of being unable to leave an opinion on a staff member, however, leads to a dysfunctional community where staff, who are meant to protect the interests of the community collectively, are instead held loosely accountable at best.

Have you actually read my suggestion? I'm starting to believe you skimmed it as I more than three times referred to a better alternative.

Staff members are volunteer members, they should have no special exemptions to protect this artificial privilege you've cooked up for them. If they feel that being staff interferes with their "business" then they should resign, as they clearly cannot exercise the independence and rationality required to be a good staff member.

This is a very valid point, hence this being a suggestion as many solutions could rise up.

I'm glad to hear that. You definitely are in need of them.

Do you have a passion for aggression? I don't see where you are getting to at this point.

 

[Sloth]

Reputation is a number. Any legitimate customer will ignore pointless opinions and use your actual work to evaluate whether to deal with you or not. If someone is competent, I don't care how toxic or aggressive or socially awkward they are. Your work speaks for itself. And as for this community, in a place where people are willing to deal with known scammers just in the hopes of it not being a scam and getting a decent deal when the offer is too good to be true, I highly doubt a "I dislike how you staff the community" is going to cause any real harm to their trading. The harm of being unable to leave an opinion on a staff member, however, leads to a dysfunctional community where staff, who are meant to protect the interests of the community collectively, are instead held loosely accountable at best. Staff members are volunteer members, they should have no special exemptions to protect this artificial privilege you've cooked up for them. If they feel that being staff interferes with their "business" then they should resign, as they clearly cannot exercise the independence and rationality required to be a good staff member.


I'm glad to hear that. You definitely are in need of them.

While I agree staff shouldn’t be shielded from any potential negative criticism accumulated under their time staffing, there are countless people on here who believe that reputation is just a number. People go as far as to flaunt their high reputation number and belittle those with lower ones. I have a low reputation number because I don’t do business these days on here and I have members call me a scammer and say I’m untrustworthy without even knowing me.

 

[Lotus]

I don’t particularly believe there is any need changing the current system at all. Reputation works on equal terms for all members, including staff, and it can indeed represent us on the site for what actions we have done as well as what we have achieved. That’s the mark we leave on the site, allowed to be reflected upon by the reputation system.

We get positive reputation, we get negative reputation. Some are valid, some are invalid. If they’re invalid, we report them to get it removed in a dispute. If there is backlog, we suffer the same consequences as the rest of the community in wait times.

That is the same for every member in this community regardless of the context.

Reputation given as a consequence of issuing a warning is invalid if the warning was justifiable and according to our staff guidelines.

 

[DeletedUser372845]

Well, Also if staff can't get negative reps they should not be able to get positive reps? I think the system is fine how it is.

 

[Overlord]

Yet the bests are always underrated.

Give me some examples.

Your definition of "best" is probably flawed.

Have you actually read my suggestion? I'm starting to believe you skimmed it as I more than three times referred to a better alternative.

Your alternative is useless. If I have an opinion to express, I'm not going to hold onto it, remember it and wait 15 to 30 days for a thread to pop up to express it.

Why are you so concerned about something that literally does not concern you???? Spend time making suggestions that actually effect your interests. Both staff members that have posted here have disagreed with this. Why are you so concerned about getting a suggestion implemented that doesn't effect you, and the people it does effect don't even want it.

 

[Ghast]

Well, Also if staff can't get negative reps they should not be able to get positive reps? I think the system is fine how it is.

Same concept goes by. And if the system were to be fine we wouldn’t wait literally 5 months for a reputation report.

 

[DeletedUser372845]

Same concept goes by. And if the system were to be fine we wouldn’t wait literally 5 months for a reputation report.

What? This thread is about staff members not having neg reps? Anyways, The system for the reputation is fine, but the dispute/scam reports are needing to be fixed.

 

[EpicFooF]

Isn't it how it is right now?
Even with normal users, you can't just neg rep someone because you don't like his opinions. If it does happen to you, or to a staff member, you and he can appeal the reputation. If a staff member does a lazy job he fully deserves a negative reputation just like any other individual on here who offers a service.

 

[Sloth]

Isn't it how it is right now?
Even with normal users, you can't just neg rep someone because you don't like his opinions. If it does happen to you, or to a staff member, you and he can appeal the reputation. If a staff member does a lazy job he fully deserves a negative reputation just like any other individual on here who offers a service.

Unfortunately a lot of people do give out negative reputation for differing opinions because they genuinely get offended.

 

[EpicFooF]

Unfortunately a lot of people do give out negative reputation for differing opinions because they genuinely get offended.

They can all they want. Appeal the reputation.
If the staff team sees this is an ongoing issue, consider handing out temporary warning points for abusing the reputation system.

 

[Sloth]

They can all they want. Appeal the reputation.
If the staff team sees this is an ongoing issue, consider handing out temporary warning points for abusing the reputation system.

Oh I agree. People are just impatient and don’t want that negative reputation sitting in their profile. The staff team needs to start administering warning points for making false reputation claims so that people will stop doing it.