How To (Possibly) Fix Reputation

[MisfitNerd]

If this has been suggested and denied before, my apologies in advance.

So currently we seem to have a HUGE community-wide problem of misuse of the negative side of the reputation system. I'll show a very good example down below currently on Kim's profile for everyone to view.

Reputation Left for Kim:

Reputation Left by Kim:

As you can see, this is all within the last week or so roughly. To me, this looks like a problem. People clearly not knowing the proper way to use this system, which is getting to become worse and worse. Especially when you can't easily get this reputation removed as it may be considered "valid".

So, here's what I propose. Currently people have thought that all reputation posted (positive/neutral/negative) should be all approved by staff before being shown on a person's reputation tab. What I think we need, is only have negative reputation need to be preapproved. Here's how it would work.

To provide negative reputation, you'd have to give the message you'd want shown, provide a short explanation to staff as to why you believe this person should be given the negative reputation, and have a box for them to provide any/all proof of the incident at hand (deal, shoutbox conversation, PM's, etc). This way, users can't just neg rep each other because they may not like each other. Yes, this would be more work to do. But realize this: If we had this currently for all the reputation going in on Kim's profile alone, most would have probably just been instantly denied as it's pretty obviously stupid (on both sides). It shouldn't have to take TOO much time for staff to deal with these, as again, if the proof is really dumb/fake/etc. it could just get denied, whereas if it's actually valid it just gets accepted.

I know I may get some disagrees here, just please give an explanation of why you may not like the idea. I personally believe this could help stop the worst part of the misuse of the reputation system, to where we can still keep it, yet make bad reputation valid and public for the community without having to be spammed with crap like what I provided.

Thanks for reading and please provide explanations/opinions. If you agree, just remember to use the agree button and don't just type "+1" or Mick may kill you.

I'm still noticing users disagreeing but not talking about it. Help me out a bit here guys... explain why you disagree. Don't just disagree and leave... Let this be a community discussion.

 

[MisfitNerd]

he deserved it no offence he;s not that nice a person

Then people should have to provide proof to ensure someone doesn't get victimized by negative reputation. I've seen good people get tons just because one person didn't like the other so they got their friends to gang up on them. That's not how the system is designed to work. We both know that.

 

[ethansuda]

Kim deserves this suspension. However, I do see this as a problem. When we give Kim bad reputation he gives us a bad reputation, I can see what this is coming from. This isn't really a bad idea, but many probably will not agree with it.

 

[MisfitNerd]

Kim deserves this suspension. However, I do see this as a problem. When we give Kim bad reputation he gives us a bad reputation, I can see what this is coming from. This isn't really a bad idea, but many probably will not agree with it.

Well consider this. 9/10 users who get any negative reputation will just report it anyways, so in the end the staff will basically do the same amount of work anyways... and plenty of it also already gets deleted. This would just help people from not getting unnecessary negative reputation ever put on their profiles to begin with.

 

[MisfitNerd]

It's already been proven, where have you been. He had a lsrge ddos & doxing rant which brung him too where he is now (suspended for 1 month). He flames the fire even more by tollerating the false rep snd backfiring too make him look even more of a target. But don't get me wrong he is my friends it's just the stuff he has done in the last.[DOUBLEPOST=1497818084][/DOUBLEPOST]
It's already been proven, where have you been. He had a lsrge ddos & doxing rant which brung him too where he is now (suspended for 1 month). He flames the fire even more by tollerating the false rep snd backfiring too make him look even more of a target. But don't get me wrong he is my friends it's just the stuff he has done in the last.

I'm not only talking about Kim, I'm saying this should be a general thing. Yes there was proof of him, but a lot of users not even involved got into it and gave negative reputation solely because they could. That's where the problem is...

 

[MisfitNerd]

It's already been proven, where have you been. He had a lsrge ddos & doxing rant which brung him too where he is now (suspended for 1 month). He flames the fire even more by tollerating the false rep snd backfiring too make him look even more of a target. But don't get me wrong he is my friends it's just the stuff he has done in the past.[DOUBLEPOST=1497818084][/DOUBLEPOST]
It's already been proven, where have you been. He had a lsrge ddos & doxing rant which brung him too where he is now (suspended for 1 month). He flames the fire even more by tollerating the false rep snd backfiring too make him look even more of a target. But don't get me wrong he is my friends it's just the stuff he has done in the past.

The thing to also notice is while he did actually deserve his negative reputation, he turned around and handed it all right back out for no valid reason beyond "False neg reps, DNDW!". THAT is where the hugest issue with it is, people clashing together by trying to ruin each other's reputation here. I know you don't want that to be enabled here, right?[DOUBLEPOST=1497818307][/DOUBLEPOST]

Ahhh I see what you meam, but I sadly disagree as alot of staff can just ignore or disapprove rep even tho it may be the truth or needed. People must be able to have public reputation for others too see how they truly are or act.

Well it shouldn't get denied if there is actual proof of it. That's the point of my suggestion. It would only get denied if it wasn't sufficient enough, which it would have to basically not even be evidence for that to happen.

 

[MisfitNerd]

We could even enable it to where approved negative reputation could include a button which would allow the user to see all the proof which was provided, so that can still be all public. I know at times it would be nice to know why some people have negative reputation, and right now it's so hard to tell what's valid and what isn't anymore.[DOUBLEPOST=1497818456][/DOUBLEPOST]

I don't want that too happen as alot of good people can be mis-judged but at the same time i don't know. Some people just deserve the rep they get, I believe every member of this forums should step-up be more responsible and handle the correct situationd responsible and not over-react or flame the fire even more.

But with the system working as it does, they will use it however they can to get what they want. If we stop that, the system becomes fair to everyone. That way you can't get negative reputation without valid proof, and you can't do it to other people.

 

[Justis]

If we were to require manual approval of negative reputation, Kim's profile would look no different.
Reputation gets reported, and staff remove that which is in violation of our rules, and leave that which is not.

What you're really suggesting is that the staff team be harsher on the information required in order to give a negative reputation point.
However, you want to increase the amount of information/proof/reasoning required to leave reputation, I believe the same thing should be applied to positive reputation, lest our system become biasedly 'positive', (but in reality just misleading).

I've always believed reputation should be open with very few restrictions, so that everyone has a place to express their opinion of a member, regaurdless of the situation they may be in.
Though perhaps those who are unfortunate enough not to have proof just need to suck it up and shut up?

 

[MisfitNerd]

If we were to require manual approval of negative reputation, Kim's profile would look no different.
Reputation gets reported, and staff remove that which is in violation of our rules, and leave that which is not.

What you're really suggesting is that the staff team be harsher on the information required in order to give a negative reputation point.
However, you want to increase the amount of information/proof/reasoning required to leave reputation, I believe the same thing should be applied to positive reputation, lest our system become biasedly 'positive', (but in reality just misleading).

I've always believed reputation should be open with very few restrictions, so that everyone has a place to express their opinion of a member, regaurdless of the situation they may be in.
Though perhaps those who are unfortunate enough not to have proof just need to suck it up and shut up?

I understand your point there. The only thing I think is that it can't be THAT hard to get the proof needed for the negative reputation to be proven as valid. If they were rude in PM's in a deal attempt, screenshot it. If they were rude in shoutbox and threatened you, screenshot it. Heck take a video of a whole conversation... My point here simply being it can't be that difficult for one to gather up evidence. Plus they'll probably do it if it's a big enough issue.

I didn't bother suggesting an approval system for positive/neutral reputation as that would simply be too much work for staff. It's always the negative reputation which gets abused, hardly ever is it the positive. And even if it is, a user can report what's clearly a rep for rep bullcrap or mods can just delete it instantly. The biggest issue is just watching people destroy each other with negative reputation. Especially in Kim's case where some of those users were not involved or victims of any of the threats...[DOUBLEPOST=1497818820][/DOUBLEPOST]Another point to make here. Currently yes we accept every and all opinions on a user, but how can you be certain it's even true? Considering how often people gang up and attack a user, you can never know which negative reps are actually valid/true and which are just attempts to be a dick to the other person. If we ask for proof, it allows for real problems with users to be shown to the public while not forcing others who are victimized by it to be stuck with the negative rep because there isn't proof...

 

[Justis]

I understand your point there. The only thing I think is that it can't be THAT hard to get the proof needed for the negative reputation to be proven as valid. If they were rude in PM's in a deal attempt, screenshot it. If they were rude in shoutbox and threatened you, screenshot it. Heck take a video of a whole conversation... My point here simply being it can't be that difficult for one to gather up evidence. Plus they'll probably do it if it's a big enough issue.

I didn't bother suggesting an approval system for positive/neutral reputation as that would simply be too much work for staff. It's always the negative reputation which gets abused, hardly ever is it the positive. And even if it is, a user can report what's clearly a rep for rep bullcrap or mods can just delete it instantly. The biggest issue is just watching people destroy each other with negative reputation. Especially in Kim's case where some of those users were not involved or victims of any of the threats...

Kim showed everyone that he is capable of threatening users with a DDoS. (among other things)
Their reputation on him is not abuse, it's an accurate reflection of what he did to his reputation in the community by committing such an offense.

I hate to use comparisons like this, but let's say scamming wasn't a bannable offense.
If someone scammed, their reputation would be ruined. Everyone who knew he scammed wouldn't want to deal with them or recomend dealing with them. Hence the validity of them giving them a negative reputation. It is completely accurate.
Enforcing that only the user who got scammed could give the negative reputation would not leave them an accurate representation of their reputation on site.

If someone DDoSes or threatens to DDoS another member, it is reasonable to assume that those who know about it wouldn't recomend them to other users, or would in fact, go so far as to recomend that others do not deal with them. As they are known to be capable of threatening to perform illegal actions against them.

The reputation system is very lax in the amount of proof it requires, that not always being necessary, but it is not lacking in accuracy.
Again, the reputation you're quoting is not abuse, and Kim's reputation being destroyed was a result of his own actions, and our reputation system accurately reflecting his now current genuine reputation in the community.
Reputation is an accumulation of everyone's feelings/trust/relevant-knowledge about another member. It's not a log of transactions. A log of transactions would not perform the functions of reputation. It would be a log.

 

[MisfitNerd]

Kim showed everyone that he is capable of threatening users with a DDoS. (among other things)
Their reputation on him is not abuse, it's an accurate reflection of what he did to his reputation in the community by committing such an offense.

I hate to use comparisons like this, but let's say scamming wasn't a bannable offense.
If someone scammed, their reputation would be ruined. Everyone who knew he scammed wouldn't want to deal with them or recomend dealing with them. Hence the validity of them giving them a negative reputation. It is completely accurate.
Enforcing that only the user who got scammed could give the negative reputation would not leave them an accurate representation of their reputation on site.

If someone DDoSes or threatens to DDoS another member, it is reasonable to assume that those who know about it wouldn't recomend them to other users, or would in fact, go so far as to recomend that others do not deal with them. As they are known to be capable of threatening to perform illegal actions against them.

The reputation system is very lax in the amount of proof it requires, but it is not lacking in accuracy.
Again, the reputation you're quoting is not abuse, and Kim's reputation being destroyed was a result of his own actions, and our reputation system accurately reflecting his now current reputation in the community.
Reputation is an accumulation of everyone's feelings/trust/relevant-knowledge about another member. It's not a log of transactions. A log of transactions would not perform the functions of reputation. It would be a log.

By all means I'm not saying Kim in any way was victimized here. He made his own choices and deserves the reputation given to him. But notice how he dishes it right back out to everyone else. Do you honestly think that's fair? That's where the problem lies is how easily someone can just misuse it and get away with it with no way of having it removed if totally false. And personally, in your example of scamming, I think it would be silly for 10 people who were not scammed to go say "Oh you're a scammer neg rep" when they weren't the one affected. That reputation should be left there, but left with proof of the incident for the community members to determine for themselves if they want to bother dealing with them or staying away. We don't need to all piggyback onto one member just because we don't like something they did, even if it had nothing to do with us. Right?

Let's say I promise someone some service and later can't deliver and thus get a negative reputation, but don't scam or anything. It isn't fair to say everyone else who wasn't involved can all of a sudden hop on in and say "Oh yeah big neg rep he couldn't do work for someone else". NO. That's not how it works either. Negative reputation should be left to deals/problems which occur between the 2 parties, that's it. Again, look how easily it CAN be misused. Not that in Kim's case his was false, just as a general statement of how easily it can be.

 

[MisfitNerd]

These toxic false reputation is what everyone understands. Like let's be honest here.

People should know EXACLY why they false repped. Plus its pretty funny ngl. Like Rypeo made some funny ass false reps and it's pretty much true shit that he leaves.

I don't really like the professional false reps cause then you have to contact them on what exactly they did that got them that rep.

Then again I'm a person that likes honesty and toxic behavior but I disagree because of these reasons.

But see I'm not saying you can't report someone with neg rep for being toxic... I'm just saying you basically need to have proof upfront for it to go public. That way when attempting to deal with someone you can literally see all that proof gathered up on one's profile. This is to ensure neg rep is valid while also preventing the misuse of it, which I'm sure you've seen in ways which were not funny. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if all of a sudden you got 10 neg rep because someone says you're toxic without having any valid proof upfront.

 

[MisfitNerd]

Question is how will staff manage this if they will be managing this?

They can rarely manage threads from people breaking the rules and especially when people report there false rep. There has to be a different way then with proof because that does not seem like it'll be the case.

It'd be similar to the reports system. A simple list of all the reputation coming in, listing the things I said as well as who's posting it and who's profile it would end up on.

Considering most neg rep gets reported and evaluated anyways, this wouldn't really change much.