HF Reputation System

[Tulip]

There should be a reputation system like HF's:

Premium members can give +1/+0 reputations, and like 5 a day,
Supreme members can give +3/+0/-3 reputations, and also 5 a day.

You can report false reputations, certain sections you maybe must have a positive reputation to post in (e.g accounts)

 

[Ajdin]

I feel like we shouldn't experiment with that anymore.

I honestly think a system like that would work if it was here from the start.

 

[Tulip]

I feel like we shouldn't experiment with that anymore.

I honestly think a system like that would work if it was here from the start.

the 5/day thing would prevent abuse. I think it wouldn't be bad.

 

[XHostFire LLC]

I agree it wouldn't be so bad. The system works there why would it not here? That's another perk for upgraded members.

 

[Ajdin]

The system works there why would it not here?

Because it was there from the start.

A reputation system can't really be considered here since it would only be a matter of who begs the most for reputation.

 

[tjrgg]

I feel like we shouldn't experiment with that anymore.

I honestly think a system like that would work if it was here from the start.

Then don't experiment. Find a system and keep it. Don't go back once it's implemented.

A marketplace forum should have some form of a reputation system. I don't even really care what it looks like at this point. But, this is a marketplace forum website, for Pete's sake. It should have some form of a reputation system. Why it didn't have one from the start will always be a mystery, but I feel that isn't a reason to not implement one now.

 

[Devon]

I think that starring now will cause what heppened last time, people sending mass pms and asking everyone that they have done a deal with to leave positive reputation. Currently reactions give a pretty good idea of whether or not the user is trustable.

 

[tjrgg]

I think that starring now will cause what heppened last time, people sending mass pms and asking everyone that they have done a deal with to leave positive reputation. Currently reactions give a pretty good idea of whether or not the user is trustable.

No, they don't. It's a false sense of reliability, trustability, and reputation, in all reality. It's the closest thing to a reputation system that MC-Market has though, which is why it's developed that false sense of a reputation system, which I see as very unfortunate.

 

[thebaum64]

I honestly don't this we should mess with it, not now at least. Due to failed past attempts. Not to mention, we should not be trying to "copy" other forums or their ideas.

 

[tjrgg]

I would argue that we shouldn't be afraid of what's happened in the past. If someone from the community is suggesting that we implement something, then we can get ideas from them and find out what they want and what would make them happy. If they are more aware of what's going on, there won't be as much (if any) backlash when it's later implemented.

This is the time to be talking about what we should have in the system, not whether or not we should be messing with it. Obviously, some people believe otherwise. So, let's talk about it, not shut it down because we're "afraid". That's stupid.

 

[Sloth]

We've tried in the past to edit/change the reputation system and ratings system. The community knows the outcome of this, drama. People complained, it didn't work, implementing a new system in will only lead to more drama and people leaving.

 

[tjrgg]

We've tried in the past to edit/change the reputation system and ratings system. The community knows the outcome of this, drama. People complained, it didn't work, implementing a new system in will only lead to more drama and people leaving.

I completely disagree. If a new approach is taken in how it's implemented, it would work out. There would be much more community involvement, so not as many people would complain.

 

[Sloth]

I completely disagree. If a new approach is taken in how it's implemented, it would work out. There would be much more community involvement, so not as many people would complain.

Well going off the sites previous changes and their outcomes, this probably wouldn't work out. Simply changing ratings to reactions and counting them neutral incited riots? Changing the entire system as a whole? That can't be good.

 

[tjrgg]

Well going off the sites previous changes and their outcomes, this probably wouldn't work out. Simply changing ratings to reactions and counting them neutral incited riots? Changing the entire system as a whole? That can't be good.

It's all about execution.

 

[Tulip]

I don't see how this would cause problems. If we limited it to 5 a day it wouldn't be abused as much.

 

[OG]

Like Ajdin said, this would have been best if it was implemented first.
The trade system didn't work as much, as it all depends on who asks for it (people just spammed sb with "if I've done a deal with you vouch")

 

[Zeiyon]

1. No...just no...
2. Supreme's shouldn't get more "rep" because they are rich? If they scam, they will be rich-"er".
3. This has failed many times.
4. So, this "rep" is based on how many of your "donator" friends click this special button.

 

[Ivain]

I feel you can tell who is trusted by peoples Reactions. I like how it is now. Either way people are gonna find a way to farm rep if they really want it.

gonna have to disagree with this. it's true that people that just joined the site are more likely to be scammers, but that's also because they're more likely to be alts of previously banned scammers.
But really, getting 500 reactions is NOT going to make me at all reliable. I could spend months in the general discussion section, or just go around saying things that get easy likes and agrees. Then I'd have 500 reactions, and I could post in a marketplace section. going by the 'reactions', people would then trust me. and it would be quite easy to scam for quite a lot, and preferably several people at once. by the time I'd be discovered and banned, I could have scammed half a dozen people for hundreds. and after getting banned I could just get a VPN and do the same method, since I could just do useless stuff in forums to gain reactions.

However, if we go by actual vouches, that requires having dealt with people. It's unfortunate people vouch for people they haven't dealt with, but as long as they've known each other for a while it still has some value.