False Reputation

[Mr. Smile More]

Semi-Related Suggestion Threads:
http://www.mc-market.org/threads/240870/
http://www.mc-market.org/threads/224291/

I won't list a long paragraph as way this rule isn't even concerned to MCM Staff, all I will say is, remove the rule quoted below, and all of the False Reps will clearly be dealt with afterwards with reports, and decision made by Mods.

If someone has a negative opinion of you, and you wish to improve your reputation, it is your responsibility to improve their opinion of you and therefore your reputation via communication with the reputation author.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

[Kennedy]

I'm so confused, what are you even suggesting?

 

[Mick]

Semi-Related Suggestion Threads:
http://www.mc-market.org/threads/240870/
http://www.mc-market.org/threads/224291/

I won't list a long paragraph as way this rule isn't even concerned to MCM Staff, all I will say is, remove the rule quoted below, and all of the False Reps will clearly be dealt with afterwards with reports, and decision made by Mods.

Thanks for your understanding.

Why would we remove it? What do you propose we change it to instead? Staff don't just randomly remove peoples opinions they have on you in the reputation system.

Also I removed the poll you created. Strawpolls can be easily cheated, so if people want to agree or disagree with you they can use the agree and disagree reactions we have in this forum.

 

[TylBur]

I'm so confused, what are you even suggesting?

I believe what they are saying is that currently, any false reputations are expected to be resolved between the two parties without any interference from the staff team, and this person is requesting for it to be a responsibility of the staff to help negate this occurrence.

 

[Mr. Smile More]

I'm so confused, what are you even suggesting?

Why would we remove it? What do you propose we change it to instead? Staff don't just randomly remove peoples opinions they have on you in the reputation system.

Also I removed the poll you created. Strawpolls can be easily cheated, so if people want to agree or disagree with you they can use the agree and disagree reactions we have in this forum.

I'm suggesting that we remove that part of the rule, It's completely and literally ridiculous that people can give reputation, without proof or substantial reason to anybody, just cause they feel like it..

Staff should have a part in this procedure, It should NOT be just the User's responsibility to get it removed, 95% of the time, the User did nothing wrong and the other person is just being toxic and/or rude.. How can we change that.. We cant.

I'm proposing you remove the section of the rule, revise it.. And ensure staff will have a say in the reputation and any actual false reputation will be removed.. Instead of ignored like it currently is being.

Thanks,

 

[Mick]

I'm suggesting that we remove that part of the rule, It's completely and literally ridiculous that people can give reputation, without proof or substantial reason to anybody, just cause they feel like it..

Staff should have a part in this procedure, It should NOT be just the User's responsibility to get it removed, 95% of the time, the User did nothing wrong and the other person is just being toxic and/or rude.. How can we change that.. We cant.

I'm proposing you remove the section of the rule, revise it.. And ensure staff will have a say in the reputation and any actual false reputation will be removed.. Instead of ignored like it currently is being.

Thanks,

Sometimes it's simply not possible to give proof of your opinion on a user, and we are not able to make the reputation system deal-related only like it was in the past; it just doesn't work.

You claim 95% of the time the user did nothing wrong but I can guarantee that is not the case. If my opinion on a user is that he's annoying and unprofessional, where else should I say it other than the reputation system?

 

[Dragonfly]

Sometimes it's simply not possible to give proof of your opinion on a user, and we are not able to make the reputation system deal-related only like it was in the past; it just doesn't work.

You claim 95% of the time the user did nothing wrong but I can guarantee that is not the case. If my opinion on a user is that he's annoying and unprofessional, where else should I say it other than the reputation system?

Shoutbox, on their profile, on your profile. The original point of the reputation system was to establish who was trustworthy to do business with and who was pleasant to do business with. It's become a joke because it doesn't accurately reflect if one should do business with you, so long as anyone with an unpleasant opinion of you can slander your name in a forum in which you have virtually zero chance of correcting. How about allowing a challenge? If my opinion of someone's unprofessional-ism is so severe, I should be able to point to something they did or said that was unprofessional, correct?

 

[Taiga]

There has been loads of better threads about the reputation system that says how the reputation system can be improved alongside the needed changes.
Even if they removed that sentence, "false reputation" is still whatever that breaks the reputation rules, which 90% of reported reputation doesnt actually do

 

[Ivain]

The basic premise of the rule is fair enough, but it has one big flaw. It forces you to suck up to people who might not have a rational reason for hating you. You can't change someone's opinion of you if they have no rational reason, or if they're just straight up jealous.

I would like to see a slight amendment of this rule, where if you have made all reasonable attempts to make peace with the user, and their responses have been irrational or otherwise completely impossible to overcome, you can still have it removed. Why? Because without that it turns reputation into little more than a popularity/bribing contest (I assure you, there'll be a point where people ask for bribes to remove negative rep, even if it's against the rules, which it is not explicitly yet).


In addition (I don't know if this is a rule yet, but) it should not be allowed to give negative reputation for something intangible. "user is an asshole all the time, just dont bother with him" should not be allowed under any circumstances, or the reputation system becomes a true joke. "user constantly thrashes my threads for no apparent reason and slanders me all the time" would be allowed, since it's connected to a tangible event.
I'm sure one of the rules sortof half covers this already, but I'd like to see an explicit rule for this, to avoid the confusion that's everywhere. In the past, I found this sufficiently covered by the requirement for reputation to be 'constructive'. The new 'relevant and informative' rule is not clear enough about something like this, in my opinion.

Then again, that could just be because there are too few examples. I guess I have to get my ass in gear to finish that reputation guide thingy.

 

[Mick]

The basic premise of the rule is fair enough, but it has one big flaw. It forces you to suck up to people who might not have a rational reason for hating you. You can't change someone's opinion of you if they have no rational reason, or if they're just straight up jealous.

I would like to see a slight amendment of this rule, where if you have made all reasonable attempts to make peace with the user, and their responses have been irrational or otherwise completely impossible to overcome, you can still have it removed. Why? Because without that it turns reputation into little more than a popularity/bribing contest (I assure you, there'll be a point where people ask for bribes to remove negative rep, even if it's against the rules, which it is not explicitly yet).


In addition (I don't know if this is a rule yet, but) it should not be allowed to give negative reputation for something intangible. "user is an asshole all the time, just dont bother with him" should not be allowed under any circumstances, or the reputation system becomes a true joke. "user constantly thrashes my threads for no apparent reason and slanders me all the time" would be allowed, since it's connected to a tangible event.
I'm sure one of the rules sortof half covers this already, but I'd like to see an explicit rule for this, to avoid the confusion that's everywhere. In the past, I found this sufficiently covered by the requirement for reputation to be 'constructive'. The new 'relevant and informative' rule is not clear enough about something like this, in my opinion.

Then again, that could just be because there are too few examples. I guess I have to get my ass in gear to finish that reputation guide thingy.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Mick]

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.

Oops, I didn't close this the first time.

Lets try this again:

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.