DNDW

[Jerry]

Restrict the use of the term DNDW in reputation ratings. Been thinking of making this for a while and just found a prime example of someone abusing the term that would imply that a user can't be trusted enough to deal with at all.

 

[Tristen]

This is true tbh. Just because someone is "toxic" or trashes threads doesn't mean he's untrustworthy and shouldn't buy/sell items to him

 

[MTG]

i agree could u link me the users who gang repped that dude wanna see who's dick they are sucking

 

[Jerry]

i agree could u link me the users who gang repped that dude wanna see who's dick they are sucking

It was some kid who was repping people.

nice job writing overtop of ASA I completely agree though because I constantly have newish users with barely any reputation bash on me with DNDW not knowing the true meaning.

Shhhhhhh, I didn't want the guy to feel targeted only reason I did that.

 

[Choo]

I agree
I feel like the term "DNDW" can be used for when a person is scamming/exit-scamming or ban evading (prime examples).

 

[utaninja]

Edit: Toxic shouldn’t mean untrustworthy and possible scammers.


The actual idea of DNDW is a good idea. There’s problems with it though. Who decides who’s dndw? What if they get negative reputation and they seem that they are exit scamming? How long would it last? This is an extra job that’s pointless. It’s not the staffs job to decide who’s untrustworthy. It should be the buyers job to look into the user and found of if he’s trustworthy and won’t scam. This could cause toxic and unpopular people to get DNDW for unfair reasons. This will also take a big chunk of time as people who don’t deserve dndw will try to get it removed. That’s my opinion.

 

[Ivain]

I feel like this most definitely falls under 'non-constructive reputation'.

 

[Jerry]

The actual idea of DNDW is a good idea. There’s problems with it though. Who decides who’s dndw? What if they get negative reputation and they seem that they are exit scamming? How long would it last? This is an extra job that’s pointless. It’s not the staffs job to decide who’s untrustworthy. It should be the buyers job to look into the user and found of if he’s trustworthy and won’t scam. This could cause toxic and unpopular people to get DNDW for unfair reasons. This will also take a big chunk of time as people who don’t deserve dndw will try to get it removed. That’s my opinion.

If you looked at the examples I gave, the user gave someone a neg rep with a 'DNDW' because he was commenting stupid shit in the OG section. New users don't know how to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate rep which is why I feel as though DNDW should not be used in regards to actions on the forums but instead in regards to actual ability to be trusted. I've only ever had one issue with one of the users that received those reps and I would still consider dealing with them because they have products that I would use. Also, it's the internet. You should get over a bit of toxicity.

 

[Ivain]

It's constructive in the sense that it lets people know the user is toxic, but saying "DNDW" basically states that "this guy is mean, which means he's a scammer"
So adding "DNDW" wouldn't necessarily render the reputation non-constructive, it's just false.

So saying you're an idiot in your reputation would be constructive because it lets people know you're an idiot?
nope, I strongly disagree there.

 

[Ivain]

No. I know reputation like mentioned in this thread isn’t invalid because I see plenty of it. If someone’s being toxic i.e “ur a nigger” “fuck you go kys” then you have the right to let people know that they’re toxic in their reputation. If it was invalid why have I seen so much of those not removed by mods?

It's invalid because it says nothing about their actual behaviour. people being 'toxic' could mean anything. Some kid could even think our discussion on this matter is toxic.
If the reputation described one or more of the things that the person did, it would become constructive.
As for why staff haven't removed it, that's a good question. But staff not removing it does not mean that they're correct. Staff are human too, and therefore subject to bias and misinterpretation like the rest of us.
I'll continue to insist that both 'is toxic, DNDW' and 'this guy's cool/nice, defs deal with' are not valid reputation, and if staff disagrees that's their loss.[DOUBLEPOST=1520611273][/DOUBLEPOST]To give context on what WOULD be valid versions of those examples, "this guy calls people idiots for no reason / this guy uses racial slurs constantly, don't interact with them" would be a valid version of the first, and "Is really helpful/nice, will answer questions and/or help you solve problems" would be a valid version of the second.

 

[Ery]

come on asa, how could you???[DOUBLEPOST=1520636792][/DOUBLEPOST]Jerry was any of this thread inspired by shoutbox in the morning yesterday

 

[FenceGateTrap]

the first one is asa nice covering out

 

[asa]

come on asa, how could you???[DOUBLEPOST=1520636792][/DOUBLEPOST]Jerry was any of this thread inspired by shoutbox in the morning yesterday

@ Glove and I next time

 

[Ery]

@ Glove and I next time

couldn't tell it was glove until i saw the rep xd

 

[Zyger]

Next time use a filled rectangle to cover the names