Leave the darn reps...

[Joshua C]

So today, I woke up having around 8 disputes where the users failed to add proof (half the users are haven't been available since months ago) and now I have to find their chats to find proof..

But that's okay.

Today however, around 8 reps were also removed because the user were banned, I mean its not something not we did wrong but the users it why are we being handled their shit on us?
We did a business, we earned a point, if they get banned its not our fault.

Pretty much these are some users, whom reps were removed from my profile without talking to me, most of them even have added proof in the rep which valid the rules, however they being banned and us removing our point is what MCM shouldn't be doing.


Leave the reps that were left by banned members.

If you disagree please state why.
If you agree, also state why.





-=-=- EDIT -=-=-

Forgot to add this, but incase a user is inactive, or doesn't have time to put the proof the other person can also show it and the rep will stay there, or the moderator can replace the proof.

 

[Norska]

I agree, it's plain stupid to lose reputation just because someone that you've once made a deal with decided to get banned. As long as there is actual proof attached to the reputation it should be left alone no matter if either party is banned.

As for the reputations that don't have proof attached to them, I agree with those being removed because most of such reputations are most of the time fake or blown out of proportion.

 

[Joshua C]

I agree, it's plain stupid to lose reputation just because someone that you've once made a deal with decided to get banned. As long as there is actual proof attached to the reputation it should be left alone no matter if either party is banned.

If there's no proof they can make a dispute and ask the person who's not banned.

 

[Norska]

If there's no proof they can make a dispute and ask the person who's not banned.

I don't think they'd go that far just to keep a reputation intact, even though it'd be much better than just removing it.

 

[wavy]

i was the rule

 

[Joshua C]

Forgot to add this, but incase a user is inactive, or doesn't have time to put the proof the other person can also show it and the rep will stay there, or the moderator can replace the proof.

 

[Joshua C]

I think just as you’re allowed to post a comment on someone’s reputation against you, you could add the proof of the deal as well

I don't have any idea regarding that, can you confirm that statement

 

[Desert]

you still did a deal with them before they were banned. it's dumb for them to remove their rep just because they're banned. as long as it was a legit deal it should be kept. it's really that simple.

 

[Justis]

A quote from a previous response of mine:

1. The reputation system’s entire purpose is to allow users to gauge the community’s collective opinion of a user.
That is why it’s there. That is precisely why it exists, and we make policies and design its features specifically for that purpose.

2. Banned users are no longer members of this community. Thus, in order to function in line with its purpose, non-community members’ opinions, by definition, do not belong within the system.

a) Banned users, having been removed from MCM, do not have the ability to update their feedback for the users they’ve interacted with, should their opinions of our users change. They are completely disconnected from the system, and thus, the feedback which remains, which is supposedly a reflection of their opinions of our users, ceases to serve its purpose as a reflection of their opinions.
​

The above statements factually identify a contradiction with the suggestion that banned users’ feedback should stay. The premise clearly violates the purpose of the system.

Some more open to interpretation arguments are as follows:

b) Users are banned because they can no longer be trusted to comply with our policies. Users are able to leave feedback because we entrust in them the responsibility of leaving feedback which accurately represents their opinions at the time. For banned users, who we removed because they proved themselves not having been trustworthy, the feedback they left can also not be trusted to be an accurate reflection of their opinions.

i) Banned users are, by majority, the most observably intolerant of other people, and prior to having been banned, are among the most toxic and willing to abuse a system.

ii) They participate in rule violating behavior which often illicit an inappropriate response, and then leave negative feedback based on that inappropriate response, not for the sake of the community, but for the sake of hurting the image of the user they dislike. Because the user did respond inappropriately, and everyone is entitled an opinion, we cannot deny the toxic user the ability to leave feedback on it, however, if they continue their behavior and prove themselves untrustworthy, they will end up banned. The feedback doesn’t represent interactions with a rule abiding community member, it represents interactions with someone whose behavior has lead them to be banned.

ii) Feedback by banned users are significantly more likely to have been left as a result of policy violations left uncaught, such as “rep for rep” behavior, sharing account access, creating alt accounts, and ban evasion accounts, the latter two make up a significant majority of our banned user-base. Often times, ban evaders will get banned for scamming or other significant violations before they’ve slipped up and made a significant connection to their past banned accounts. The fact that they are banned means these violations will almost certainly go on remaining uncaught. Their feedback needs to be removed to cut out these abuses.
​

Few of us enjoy wasting our time in a transaction that doesn’t contribute to our reputation on MCM; and if we do one with the expectation that it will, it’s certainly disappointing to see that feedback get removed. But it doesn’t belong. For the sake of the community and the reliability and stability of our feedback system as a whole, it must be removed.

If we get the system developed further, I could see us restoring and keeping feedback deleted for users being banned, but having it appeared grayed out, and not count towards the feedback total. Or perhaps having it not count is unnecessary, and we can add an expiry system, where feedback is grayed out and not counted towards the total once it has exceeded a year without being updated by the author.

However, it should be clear to everyone that if positive feedback by banned users is allowed to stay on your profile, that also means all of the negative feedback by banned users will forever stay on your profile, and they will never be able to update it. It’ll be stuck there.

 

[Norska]

However, it should be clear to everyone that if positive feedback by banned users is allowed to stay on your profile, that also means all of the negative feedback by banned users will forever stay on your profile, and they will never be able to update it. It’ll be stuck there.

Why? Positive feedback is there because it's... positive. Negative feedback can be all sorts of wrong and there's no way to dispute it if someone is banned.

 

[Justis]

Why? Positive feedback is there because it's... positive. Negative feedback can be all sorts of wrong and there's no way to dispute it if someone is banned.

There is absolutely no difference between positive and negative feedback other than the fact that the receiver wants the positive feedback and doesn’t want the negative. You’re suggesting we knowingly introduce positive bias into our policies.
How would you apply that bias to neutral feedback? Throw it in with negative just in case you want to get rid of it?

To be clear, all positive and all neutral and all negative feedback can be all sorts of wrong, it isn’t just negative. We offer the report button and the dispute button in order to resolve anything that may be wrong about it.

Imagine the scenario though: You receive negative feedback, dispute it, there were some rule violations, but it gets updated and now it’s compliant. Down the line, the person who left it gets banned. You report it hoping to get that feedback removed finally, but you can’t because it’s compliant with our rules, and "just because a user is banned doesn’t mean their feedback is wrong".
Now you’re stuck with that feedback for the rest of your time on MC-Market, and will not have the opportunity to improve that user’s opinion of you, because they’ve been kicked out of our community, and are no longer a part of it.

Banned users who are not a part of our community and never will be again shouldn’t have their past opinions listed equally among the feedback of our active users. That goes for positive, neutral, and negative.

 

[Orochimaru]

It shows the deal went down, sorta makes me think of this(happened to me):

- User called me a "faggot", and to "kys".
- I accordenly made a neg rep and post on his profile for toxcicity.
- User deletes the post
- "i wAS nEVeR toxiC BEfoRe WYm"

Correction: A staff member deleted the posts by him, and I still got my messages of him deleted, even though they were still correct.

 

[jxhdvn]

Imagine the scenario though: You receive negative feedback, dispute it, there were some rule violations, but it gets updated and now it’s compliant. Down the line, the person who left it gets banned. You report it hoping to get that feedback removed finally, but you can’t because it’s compliant with our rules, and "just because a user is banned doesn’t mean their feedback is wrong".
Now you’re stuck with that feedback for the rest of your time on MC-Market, and will not have the opportunity to improve that user’s opinion of you, because they’ve been kicked out of our community, and are no longer a part of it.

Banned users who are not a part of our community and never will be again shouldn’t have their past opinions listed equally among the feedback of our active users. That goes for positive, neutral, and negative.

I’d much rather have a stain of negative rep I cannot remove than literally half or more of my rep being removed...

 

[Mick]

At the moment I'm going through a number of suggestions, and a lot of them were created regarding the reputation updates that we published and later rescinded. We now have a system where we consider some reputation to be 'legacy' and that reputation does not count toward reputation totals, and overall I feel like now a lot of people are satisfied with this system.

There were a tonne of suggestion threads created during this time, all with very valid criticism of our updates, and I believe that the reputation system we have now is even better because of that so thank you for that.

I'll move this to denied now, along with the rest of the suggestions made on this topic at this time, thank you.