How is this violating of the reputation rules?

[nfdegreu3i23r22r]

How is this violating of the reputation rules? Recently I've been getting tons of private messages from staff members with a "Reputation Report" which the rule they say I completely did not violate it. Take this for an example TechBanana sent me private message removing one of my reputations.

This is the conversation I had with TechBanana where she says that I violated the rule 9.1
where I did not. There's legitimately proof that I sold him my name my name is currently nfdegreu3i23r22r which was bought off me for 30days for 6 USD.

I also sent proof in there that it is not false. Also could staff respond and see if this is on the protocol.

 

[Ivain]

"non-descriptive", most likely.

 

[nfdegreu3i23r22r]

"non-descriptive", most likely.

What else do you want me to tell it's easy as that I sold him my name. It is considered a deal He sent me money I did what he wanted me to do? In the staff handbook or whatever there is Is there something encouraging this?

 

[nfdegreu3i23r22r]

What was the reputation message?

It shows in the screenshot It was "Sold him my name rawrxd"

 

[nfdegreu3i23r22r]

I don't see anything wrong with that, I see hundreds of reps like that lol

Million* There's nothing wrong with it I'm pretty sure it's just a staff being bias

 

[nfdegreu3i23r22r]

Probs just being an asshole looking around to show some power he thinks he has lmfao

Co
Could just have a huge grudge on me

 

[dawn]

I don't see anything wrong with it, maybe a misunderstanding? Either way, have you responded to him in that PM with the autoresponse to ask any questions?

 

[nfdegreu3i23r22r]

I don't see anything wrong with it, maybe a misunderstanding? Either way, have you responded to him in that PM with the autoresponse to ask any questions?

Yeah I have but no response

 

[Choo]

I agree that this reputation is valid but I can also see how people would think this isnt valid.

 

[MTG]

the 'rawrxd' part is def not needed and this reputation isn't really informative and looked more like a joke so probably you should write 'Vouch - User bought my name for a month, nice guy".

 

[fawny]

They implemented a rule where rep has to be 70 characters [not words] long, and be descriptive in a way. Yours isn't 'wrong' but its just not useful. I think they prefer us to explain more how the deal went, just so people dont rep farm for their friends. So, if you readded it to be a longer and more...detailed rep? It'd be fine.

 

[fawny]

Dam.. Well there goes most peoples REP LOL

Yeah lol. I mean they knew a lot of old rep was like that but I guess they implemented it so they could “crack down” on bad rep.

 

[Ivain]

Because of the amount of reports on reputation we have to handle, there's no time to think every single report through in great detail. So we have to make fast decisions. Therefore, if a reputation is borderline, we need to decide whether it's something that's easily improved or not. If it is, it'll get removed. This is how I handle it. I cannot speak for other staff member's internal thought processes.
As to the reason we remove reputation instead of messaging you to change it, if we did the latter we'd have to check through every single reputation periodically to see if it's been changed yet. The gargantuan amount of extra work that involves makes it untenable, and the potential for mistakes or misunderstandings would be far greater.

Now, the most important part is that we MUST always notify a user if their reputation is removed. This is not something that's done without fail every single time yet, but we're getting closer to perfect.
The problem right now is the combination of a very high quantity of reports and the fact that there's apparently not enough clarity about what is and what isn't tolerated. Nor is it possible to make hard rules that perfectly define that, since the amount of possible ways to give reputation is enormous.

That's why the rules may seem like they're not enforced 'correctly'. Reputation is, and always will be, extremely subjective. Even interpretation of the more solid rules like "make it informative", "don't use it as punishment or deterrent" and "Don't hint at wanting to receive a specific reputation" are open to interpretation.
The only one that is absolutely solid is that scam accusations MUST ALWAYS include a link to a submitted scam report (processing status other than "closed" or "banned" being irrelevant).

To be honest, changing reputation so that it's more informative isn't difficult. Just summarize how the interaction with the user actually went, instead of saying "Vouch, cool guy, sold a thingy" in one of a dozen different ways, or "Devouch, user was a dick/sketchy person/toxic" etc.
That's far more useful, because it allows people to form their own conclusions.
If someone were to give another user the reputation "Toxic guy, DNDW" it would confuse a lot of users, since they might just straight up disagree. This might also fuel conflicts
On the other hand, if you said something like "User was constantly derogatory about thing X that I care about, and wouldn't stop when I asked them to", it would make far more sense. Of course, if it was factually incorrect it would still be removed, but it's just a guideline.

TLDR:
Reputation is subjective, and always will be. Thus, there's no way to enforce the rules perfectly consistently. It has to be up to specific wordings and/or context. This is also the reason why we remove a lot of reputation that we judge to be breaking the rules WITHOUT giving a warning for abuse of the reputation system, even though we could.
If we remove your reputation and tell you why, but do not give you warning points, don't treat it as a warning or as if you did something bad. Treat it as a learning experience, and improve your reputation