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.

 

[Justis]

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?

If someone starts spamming random people with negative reputation, they are abusing the reputation system by giving an inaccurate measure of their feelings towards each member. Thus violating the being informative rule; because false information is not being informative.

Negative reputation is a decision someone makes when they've resigned NOT to understand or forgive the user who they are giving the negative reputation to.
As a result of that, it is understandable for the person receiving the reputation to be impatient with the user's lack of empathy or willingness to understand them. By that means, they may express their now negative feelings towards that member in their reputation; or, as we always encourage, message the user to hopefully smooth out their negative feelings of each other, and come to an understanding, thus improving their reputation between each other, and as a result, have that reflected in their total community reputation.

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.

Again, that wouldn't be reputation at all, that'd be a log.
If we're talking about reputation, we're talking about feelings, because that's what reputation is, specifically feelings towards each member of the community by each member of the community.

Whether or not a log of transactions or reputation would be better for this site is a different subject entirely, but we're not using logs based off deals right now; for various reasons, we're using reputation, which implies feelings of our members, which requires that everyone be allowed to express their feelings for other members with 1 single point, regardless of their situation, if a person's feelings are true, then their reputation is valid in the eyes of what reputation actually is, and if it doesn't violate our rules, it is valid in the eyes of MC-Market. The more restrictions we put on that, the further we diverge from an accurate representation of a user's actual reputation within our community, and the harder it is to understand what a person's "reputation" actually means.

 

[fawny]

This is a great idea tbh. I feel like it would help contain a lot of issues regarding rep. So many people but staff about "false rep" and getting bit removed. This could clear a lot of it up.

 

[MisfitNerd]

If someone starts spamming random people with negative reputation, they are abusing the reputation system by giving an inaccurate measure of their feelings towards each member. Thus violating the being informative rule; because false information is not being informative.

Negative reputation is a decision someone makes when they've resigned NOT to understand or forgive the user who they are giving the negative reputation to.
As a result of that, it is understandable for the person receiving the reputation to be impatient with the user's lack of empathy or willingness to understand them. By that means, they may express their now negative feelings towards that member in their reputation; or, as we always encourage, message the user to hopefully smooth out their negative feelings of each other, and come to an understanding, thus improving their reputation between each other, and as a result, have that reflected in their total community reputation.


Again, that wouldn't be reputation at all, that'd be a log.
If we're talking about reputation, we're talking about feelings, because that's what reputation is, specifically feelings towards each member of the community by each member of the community.

Whether or not a log of transactions or reputation would be better for this site is a different subject entirely, but we're not using logs based off deals right now; for various reasons, we're using reputation, which implies feelings of our members, which requires that everyone be allowed to express their feelings for other members with 1 single point, regardless of their situation, if a person's feelings are true, then their reputation is valid in the eyes of what reputation actually is, and if it doesn't violate our rules, it is valid in the eyes of MC-Market. The more restrictions we put on that, the further we diverge from an accurate representation of a user's actual reputation within our community, and the harder it is to understand what a person's "reputation" actually means.

I think at this point it's already pretty difficult to determine what reputation is valid and isn't anymore. Considering how simple I could go neg rep a person simply because of something I wasn't involved in, that's just a nightmare to think about. And again, I think it's more than fair to provide evidence against a user. It makes the case that much better against them. Users should be able to improve their reputation if they made a mistake. We shouldn't be enabled to get multiple neg reps from one mistake we made. In Kim's case, if he keeps acting the way he is, more proof will pile up against him, making it still valid. Whereas if someone gets neg rep and decides to change, they can't get hated on for one mistake/bad deal/etc.

 

[Pyrazine]

You shouldn't be allowed to give a negative reputation for scamming! If someone scammed you report them and they will get banned! The ability to give someone a negative reputation for scamming makes no sense.

 

[Luigical]

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.

Do you even know why "Kim" has a bad reputation? He is sending people pictures of his dick and scamming people on a Minecraft server.

 

[MisfitNerd]

You shouldn't be allowed to give a negative reputation for scamming! If someone scammed you report them and they will get banned! The ability to give someone a negative reputation for scamming makes no sense.

See that isn't even the biggest issue with it. It's just how people can bandwagon together on one person and practically walk away without ever having to have talked to the person. It's how easy one can neg rep someone for a valid reason then turn around and dish it the other way with absolutely no reason. It's how stupid the system currently works and how easily abuseable it is.

 

[Luigical]

You shouldn't be allowed to give a negative reputation for scamming! If someone scammed you report them and they will get banned! The ability to give someone a negative reputation for scamming makes no sense.

No because its "off site" which means its okay to scam. I made a report on him and got that as my response. Thanks staff team.

 

[Justis]

I think at this point it's already pretty difficult to determine what reputation is valid and isn't anymore. Considering how simple I could go neg rep a person simply because of something I wasn't involved in, that's just a nightmare to think about. And again, I think it's more than fair to provide evidence against a user. It makes the case that much better against them. Users should be able to improve their reputation if they made a mistake. We shouldn't be enabled to get multiple neg reps from one mistake we made. In Kim's case, if he keeps acting the way he is, more proof will pile up against him, making it still valid. Whereas if someone gets neg rep and decides to change, they can't get hated on for one mistake/bad deal/etc.

If you went and negative repped someone for something you weren't involved in, but the feelings you expressed in your reputation were accurate, and you could explain why you felt that way, it would be perfectly valid.
It's not difficult to understand, that is simply the definition of reputation.

A person's opinion of you will not change until you show them it should change.
Kim, as an example, does have the ability to improve his reputation, by changing, and showing the members who have negative repped him that he is a better person.
We encourage users do this by means of private messaging them, at least as a start, to work towards an understanding.

Because the reputation system is about feelings and is accurate towards the community's feelings about them, that means that if the community's feelings about that user changes, and their reputation does improve, then their points will reflect that.
Assuming they do update their points to reflect them, though ensuring that is as simple as the profile that got negative repped going to the member and reminding them.

You shouldn't be allowed to give a negative reputation for scamming! If someone scammed you report them and they will get banned! The ability to give someone a negative reputation for scamming makes no sense.

If you read the reputation rules, you'd see it's against the rules to accuse someone of scamming in reputation without linking a scam report; and you have to be the starter of that scam report.
If you were referring to my example, that was all it was, an example of a theoretical MC-Market, not ours.

 

[MisfitNerd]

Do you even know why "Kim" has a bad reputation? He is sending people pictures of his dick and scamming people on a Minecraft server.

If you look through the comments you'll notice me say how I only used Kim as an example. He deserved the rep he got, it's how he dished it back to everyone else with no particular reason behind it, while everyone else had a valid reason. That's where the problem lies. Kim was merely an example as you could see all the neg rep he's gotten and how much he gave right back without reason.

 

[Pyrazine]

If you read the reputation rules, you'd see it's against the rules to accuse someone of scamming in reputation without linking a scam report; and you have to be the starter of that scam report.
If you were referring to my example, that was all it was, an example of a theoretical MC-Market, not ours.

I know, but if they had an accepted scam report the user would be banned anyway, so the system doesn't make sense.

 

[Luigical]

If you went and negative repped someone for something you weren't involved in, but the feelings you expressed in your reputation were accurate, and you could explain why you felt that way, it would be perfectly valid.
It's not difficult to understand, that is simply the definition of reputation.

A person's opinion of you will not change until you show them it should change.
Kim, as an example, does have the ability to improve his reputation, by changing, and showing the members who have negative repped him that he is a better person.
We encourage users do this by means of private messaging them, at least as a start, to work towards an understanding.

Because the reputation system is about feelings and is accurate towards the community's feelings about them, that means that if the community's feelings about that user changes, and their reputation does improve, then their points will reflect that.
Assuming they do update their points to reflect them, though ensuring that is as simple as the profile that got negative repped going to the member and reminding them.


If you read the reputation rules, you'd see it's against the rules to accuse someone of scamming in reputation without linking a scam report; and you have to be the starter of that scam report.
If you were referring to my example, that was all it was, an example of a theoretical MC-Market, not ours.

Yes you are right he does have the ability to change his rep. But what about the people who were neg repped by him?? The only way he is willing to change his is if they change theirs for sure.

 

[Pyrazine]

No because its "off site" which means its okay to scam. I made a report on him and got that as my response. Thanks staff team.

The reputation system should only be for on-site. How can you even prove something off-site?

 

[Ivain]

I know, but if they had an accepted scam report the user would be banned anyway, so the system doesn't make sense.

Yes it does, since sometimes people get, you know, proved innocent. or at least the report is closed.

 

[MisfitNerd]

The reputation system should only be for on-site. How can you even prove something off-site?

You're going into a conversation entirely different than the point of this thread and I think you may have misunderstood what was being discussed here.

Justis could you remove the couple of unnecessary comments here so we can keep this on track?

 

[Pyrazine]

Yes it does, since sometimes people get, you know, proved innocent. or at least the report is closed.

If they are proved innocent they shouldn't have the negative reputation then. I don't understand your point.[DOUBLEPOST=1497822231][/DOUBLEPOST]

You're going into a conversation entirely different than the point of this thread and I think you may have misunderstood what was being discussed here.

Justis could you remove the couple of unnecessary comments here so we can keep this on track?

How? The thread is about "How To (Possibly) Fix Reputation", and I'm suggesting an improvement and backing it up with valid points.

 

[Doge]

The rep system became pretty much the same thing it was before we had to remove it the first time: full of people +repping their friends despite not doing any deals, -repping for vague reasons with no proof and people -repping for something that happened to SOMEONE ELSE. There have been many cases of people in their little discord/skype chats telling each other to +/- rep others. For example recently a user chargedback on a server so the owner got all his staff/friends to -rep the guy. Doesn't work that way. I understand they were pissed off, but it's between them two and nobody else. Also, it makes no sense not to have a place to post a screenshot as proof of the deal/reason for -rep. Would make everything a lot better because 1. People would think twice before leaving -rep for something stupid, 2. We're going to be able to confirm that whatever was done actually happened and 3. If it's forged and is reported, the person will lose access to the rep system.

 

[kojoti]

Conclusion Kim is not family friendly look her reputations :/

 

[Ivain]

If they are proved innocent they shouldn't have the negative reputation then. I don't understand your point.

The negative rep should not be there until the report is resolved. Therefore it is forbidden to negative rep people about scamming, since if the report is closed that rep should never have been there, and when it is closed then it does not matter.
it's called innocent until proven guilty. The concept upon which any juridical system is SUPPOSED to function. This is a poor imitation of one, but that shouldnt stop from trying.

 

[MisfitNerd]

Conclusion Kim is not family friendly look her reputations :/

Again, look up at what I said to Luigical.

If you look through the comments you'll notice me say how I only used Kim as an example. He deserved the rep he got, it's how he dished it back to everyone else with no particular reason behind it, while everyone else had a valid reason. That's where the problem lies. Kim was merely an example as you could see all the neg rep he's gotten and how much he gave right back without reason.

This comment here. ^
That should explain it all. Kim was merely an example.

 

[Jack]

Reputation has been around for less than 1 year (28 June 2016 - http://www.mc-market.org/threads/113091/)
As of right now, there have been 21268 reputations made. That's about 60 reputations per day.
To have staff check the validity of 60+ reputations per day would be brutal.