Legacy Reputation Policy Updates

[Mick]

G’day everyone,

Recently, we released an announcement in which we expressed our plans to remove feedback authored prior to the new format, in which we enforce a character minimum, specific information, and evidence be uploaded for each accusation or claim. We believe that this is a bullet that needs to be bitten eventually, in order for our community to move on from the period where our reputation system was undeveloped, and widely abused. However, after hearing the complaints from a community who still, nonetheless, values the feedback authored during that period, we’ve cancelled those plans.

As a staff team, we’ve discussed our options and agreed upon a compromise which should best serve and protect the community’s interests. Before proceeding with these plans, we’re sharing it with everyone in the community for additional consideration.

1. We will not be deleting legacy feedback, it will display publicly but be greyed out. (Suggested by Sparko here)
2. We will no longer be accepting reports on legacy feedback. We are aware that they violate our rules, however, they are being provided with an exception.
3. We will be providing everyone with the option to toggle whether or not they see reputation totals inclusive of legacy feedback. It will default to not include legacy feedback and your toggle settings will be saved across sessions.
4. We will be removing the display of reputation totals from all areas of our site except the reputation tab and overview page, where the toggle option will be located and where they’ll be encouraged to read the contents of the feedback.
5. We will be adding a notice to the feedback page for all legacy feedback, warning users that no evidence has been provided to support the accusations/claims being made, and informing them of the abuse that occurred due to the limitations with our reputation system during the time when it was authored.
6. We will be sending out messages on behalf of our community to everyone who is currently an author of legacy feedback on one of our users, with a list of the feedback that they need to update. (Suggested by Sparko here)
7. We will be implementing a feature which will allow our users to upload evidence to feedback that they’ve received, including legacy feedback. When evidence is submitted by the receiver of legacy feedback, it will be placed under moderation. Once a staff member approves of the evidence provided, it will be counted and highlighted normally again. (Suggested by Zyger here)
8. We will be extending the previously provided two weeks before our changes to legacy feedback are implemented, to January 1st. (Suggested by Kiri here)

With these changes, we aim to address everyone’s valid concerns about their activities within the community over the past years not being properly represented, encourage that past feedback for legitimate interactions get updated, as well as protect our site’s newer and future community members from being forced to use a system that will always provide a strong positive bias to users who were around when feedback points were so much easier to obtain, especially through unrestricted farming of dishonest reviews for made up interactions.

Please utilize this suggestion thread to offer up any feedback you have on these changes before they take place. We want to ensure that our next announcement takes everyone’s ideas into consideration for the best possible end results.

 

[Chearful]

We do not want a compromise. We don't want any changes!

 

[Ghast]

We won boys!
Edit: Alright I’m confused by the disagrees. It’s a fairly decent compromise in my opinion.
Edit 2: Alright I see how it is

 

[markd]

good morning mick

 

[Geek]

I appreciate what you guys are trying to do and understand our comments and concerns. My only concern now, is what happens to all the legacy feedback that has already been deleted. Have they been hidden from users eyes, but maintained in the backend and could be reinstated?

 

[oRory]

Not bad, pretty good compromise.

 

[Zyger]

I appreciate what you guys are trying to do and understand our comments and concerns. My only concern now, is what happens to all the legacy feedback that has already been deleted. Have they been hidden from users eyes, but maintained in the backend and could be reinstated?

I was told that they're soft deleted, so yeah they can be reinstated

 

[Blaze.]

Thoughts on #1: I think doing this is fine, but if it doesn't count towards your total reputation, then it doesn't matter and you should just honestly remove it at that point.

Thoughts on #2: Sounds great.

Thoughts on #3: Why just not keep legacy reputation in the first place?

Thoughts on #4: What does this achieve? It just makes people go through extra steps to see how reputable someone is and really seems unnecessary.

Thoughts on #5: Sounds great as long as the rep still counts towards the total.

Thoughts on #6: Don't think they'll be able to update it since, like a lot of users have said, most of the people who gave those reps have gone inactive, changed their discord/skype, or just don't want to.

Thoughts on #7: Thank god, I'm not gonna lose a bunch of rep now!

Thoughts on #8: Sounds amazing. This gives everyone more time to get this proof.

Thank you Mick for actually doing something and not ignoring us! But I'd love an explanation as to why you think banned rep is invalid and should be removed from your total.

 

[Geek]

I was told that they're soft deleted, so yeah they can be reinstated

Good to know. I guess it comes down to WILL they be reinstated

 

[Jack]

Why make users jump through a bunch of hoops to keep their rep? I don't use the site much and getting "evidence" for 20 rep is already going to be a pain, considering a lot of my rep is very old with some users not having logged into the site in over a year (and I never deal off-site, so it's not like I have these users' Discords).
Can't imagine the pain it will be for users with hundreds of rep.

 

[Ty]

you're still fucking with the shit your community is telling you not to.

honestly just ridiculous

 

[Sloth]

This compromise is a far better idea than the original plan, but it seems tedious like other users have already mentioned. Users are going to have to go to a lot of trouble to view another users reputation.

 

[Crimvael]

eh, ya know what i'll take it

 

[Justis]

We do not want a compromise. We don't want any changes!

Not wanting any changes means you want us to continue to handle reports on legacy feedback by asking for evidence, just as we have been doing for the past four years? If evidence cannot be provided, then we delete it. That’s how it has always been, since the start of the reputation system.

In several years, the feedback of our current reputation system will make up the majority and legacy feedback will become inconsequential. These changes set us up to be able to more painlessly phase it out of the system when that time comes, while also protecting the current community that is still reliant on legacy feedback, from the policies that have been in place since the start, which have resulted in the feedback steadily being removed, especially as a result of the targeted reporting that we’ve seen in the past several months.

 

[Chearful]

Not wanting any changes means you want us to continue to handle reports on legacy feedback by asking for evidence, just as we have been doing for the past four years? If evidence cannot be provided, then we delete it. That’s how it has always been, since the start of the reputation system.

In several years, the feedback of our current reputation system will make up the majority and legacy feedback will become inconsequential. These changes set us up to be able to more painlessly phase it out of the system when that time comes, while also protecting the current community that is still reliant on legacy feedback, from the policies that have been in place since the start, which have resulted in the feedback steadily being removed, especially as a result of the targeted reporting that we’ve seen in the past several months.

You clearly took my post way too literally - for someone like yourself, I'm surprised there was a lack of common sense here.

Mass reporting is a problem that should be punishable from the get-go.

Legacy rep MUST BE ALLOWED TO STAY AS IT WAS
Banned users' rep MUST BE ALLOWED TO STAY AS IT WAS

Maybe introduce toggles for the weird people who want legacy/banned rep greyed out but the toggles would have to DEFAULT TO OFF.

Does a banned user leaving someone a rep make that user less trustworthy? NO.
Does a reputation left before evidence could even be left make a user less trustworthy? NO.

The community has spoken. Look at the agrees on my post(s). It's time MCM stopped doing what Mick(/Justis) wants and instead what the community wants.

 

[Arik]

I want OG MCM back this shit is wack. Or just do what Chearful said above.

 

[alice]

Not wanting any changes means you want us to continue to handle reports on legacy feedback by asking for evidence, just as we have been doing for the past four years? If evidence cannot be provided, then we delete it. That’s how it has always been, since the start of the reputation system.

In several years, the feedback of our current reputation system will make up the majority and legacy feedback will become inconsequential. These changes set us up to be able to more painlessly phase it out of the system when that time comes, while also protecting the current community that is still reliant on legacy feedback, from the policies that have been in place since the start, which have resulted in the feedback steadily being removed, especially as a result of the targeted reporting that we’ve seen in the past several months.

Why don't you just remove all negative legacy rep and keep all positive legacy rep? I assume that users are only mass reporting their negative rep.

Also, the new rep system is pretty much just as inconsequential if you ask me. You guys act like new rep has far more merit than legacy rep, but I don't see how. The "evidence" 80%+ users provide for the required attachment is usually vague and barely means anything because most users don't know what to put. A small snippet of the chatlog as evidence can be easily fabricated and means jack shit. The only somewhat valid evidence someone could provide would probably involve leaking extensive information about the deal such as the account's information, full chat transcripts, etc., but that would just make giving someone rep tedious, as well as invade users' privacy and leak sensitive information.

I'd just default all legacy reps transacted funds to $0 without graying anything out or making it weird. Keep it simple.