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.

 

[500miles]

You think greyed reputation that doesn't count to our total will fix everything?

 

[Landon]

Default to include legacy reputation.

 

[Chearful]

Funny majority staff agreed innit? How abouts we disallow staff on giving their biased opinions, then we see what the *community* really want. Just thought I'd suggest that. But. Why is this necessary to change? Why don't we just follow Chearful 's comment, and revert these changes back to when everyone was happy?

funny thing is, is that the staff are basically forced into submission

 

[Justis]

Default to include legacy reputation.

Why? It’s one click, and your setting is saved forever.
Defaulting it to off ensures that we’re actually making progress towards phasing the farmed and rule violating feedback out of the system in the years that are to come.
Defaulting it to on for everyone that doesn’t even have legacy feedback, and all of our new users who are completely unfamiliar with all of the abuse that took place back in our old system.

Defaulting it to off allows us to provide a popup with a warning, informing users of the dangers and issues associated with legacy feedback before confirming that they want to see them in everyone's totals.

 

[Chearful]

Why? It’s one click, and your setting is saved forever.
Defaulting it to off ensures that we’re actually making progress towards phasing the farmed and rule violating feedback out of the system in the years that are to come.
Defaulting it to on for everyone that doesn’t even have legacy feedback, and all of our new users who are completely unfamiliar with all of the abuse that took place back in our old system.

Defaulting it to off allows us to provide a popup with a warning, informing users of the dangers and issues associated with legacy feedback before confirming that they want to see them in everyone's totals.

it's only "rule violating" because you want to implement a rule that makes legacy rep "rule violating"

 

[Justis]

Funny majority staff agreed innit? How abouts we disallow staff on giving their biased opinions, then we see what the *community* really want. Just thought I'd suggest that. But. Why is this necessary to change? Why don't we just follow Chearful 's comment, and revert these changes. We don't want compromises. Everyone was happy before?

Nobody was happy before. Evidence has been required following a report on legacy feedback ever since the start of the reputation system. We have always needed to confirm that the accusations and claims being made in feedback were factual.
If we’re going to stop accepting reports, and stop requiring evidence for this feedback, (which would be a change, not keeping things the same), we need to also ensure that we’re compensating for the inclusion of rule violating feedback, and feedback that we never will answer a report for again, even if the feedback is completely false.[DOUBLEPOST=1575150992][/DOUBLEPOST]

it's only "rule violating" because you want to implement a rule that makes legacy rep "rule violating"

Our rules are added for a reason. We enforce them on all content, including past posted content, because they make our site safer.

What this suggestion thread is offering, is to make an exception for legacy feedback, not enforce our current rules, and also not enforce the policies that were present at the time that the legacy feedback was being posted. Those policies being where we would require evidence when following up on a report on feedback, to verify that it wasn’t falsely placed/farmed.

 

[Justis]

Hi Justis, nice title btw "Community Member" lol.

Compensating my ass. You're ruining the reputation of old sellers on the site from 2014 or whatever onwards. Asa, Kelsey, Chearful, these are just some examples of people whom are losing majority, if not all their reputation. How are you compensating them? Instead of thanking them for being on the site for so long, you bend them over and remove their reputation. Making new members more reputable than 4+ year old veterans of the site.

Brilliant compensation my man :tup: Would have to give compensation if you didn't ruin it in the first place. So how about we just revert the changes.

Edit: Valid compensation would be giving the receiver of the reputation the option to add the proof too. I mean, they were part of the deal too.... Right?

The suggestion thread states that the feedback will not be removed, we will not be accepting reports on them, and everyone can choose whether or not they see the feedback totals for this feedback.

If you want everything to go back to "the way it was", we can start accepting reports again, and require evidence be provided to prove that the accusations and claims being made aren’t completely made up, as we have been doing since the start of the reputation system four years ago.

As for your edit, this suggestion thread does offer to allow receivers of feedback to add evidence to the feedback they’ve received. Please ensure you’ve read over it.

 

[Chearful]

The suggestion thread states that the feedback will not be removed, we will not be accepting reports on them, and everyone can choose whether or not they see the feedback totals for this feedback.

If you want everything to go back to "the way it was", we can start accepting reports again, and require evidence be provided to prove that the accusations and claims being made aren’t completely made up, as we have been doing since the start of the reputation system four years ago.

As for your edit, this suggestion thread does offer to allow receivers of feedback to add evidence to the feedback they’ve received. Please ensure you’ve read over it.

We want to go back to the time where you didn't accept reports for bullshit & unannounced policies.

 

[Justis]

We want to go back to the time where you didn't accept reports for bullshit & unannounced policies.

That was never a time. We have always followed up with reports on feedback, by asking for evidence of the accusations/claims being made. Again, since the start of the reputation system.

The reputation system would have been completely worthless all these years if we allowed any accusation and any claim to be made on anyone and didn’t accept reports and ask for evidence to support the claims/accusations.

 

[Chearful]

That was never a time. We have always followed up with reports on feedback, by asking for evidence of the accusations/claims being made. Again, since the start of the reputation system.

The reputation system would have been completely worthless all these years if we allowed any accusation and any claim to be made on anyone and didn’t accept reports and ask for evidence to support the claims/accusations.

yes, but i am referring to you deleting banned members' rep

honestly, i dont know why you're trying to continue to defend any of this. the community's really pissed off at mick & you for all of this. we don't feel listened to - i mean... when are we?

 

[Justis]

yes, but i am referring to you deleting banned members' rep

honestly, i dont know why you're trying to continue to defend any of this. the community's really pissed off at mick & you for all of this. we don't feel listened to - i mean... when are we?

This suggestion thread is 100% focused on legacy feedback, and there’s a lot of misinformation floating around, so I’m correcting it. Why do I respond? We’re having a discussion over what we both feel is best for the future of MC-Market. Of course we’re both going to be very vocal, it doesn’t matter what our position is.

It doesn’t take a single brain cell to be a yes-man and simply follow along with what everyone else is saying; but that doesn’t make someone a good administrator, that doesn’t make someone a good leader, and that will not lead to the success of a very large, very complex platform. Having constructive discourse, spending countless hours mulling over the problems we face, the problems we will face in the future, the solutions we can offer for each, and presenting those ideas to the body of people we're dedicated to protecting, even if they don’t initially see eye to eye, that’s what this suggestion thread is about.

 

[Chearful]

This suggestion thread is 100% focused on legacy feedback, and there’s a lot of misinformation floating around, so I’m correcting it. Why do I respond? We’re having a discussion over what we both feel is best for the future of MC-Market. Of course we’re both going to be very vocal, it doesn’t matter what our position is.

It doesn’t take a single brain cell to be a yes-man and simply follow along with what everyone else is saying; but that doesn’t make someone a good administrator, that doesn’t make someone a good leader, and that will not lead to the success of a very large, very complex platform. Having constructive discourse, spending countless hours mulling over the problems we face, the problems we will face in the future, the solutions we can offer for each, and presenting those ideas to the body of people we're dedicated to protecting, even if they don’t initially see eye to eye, that’s what this suggestion thread is about.

You're literally making trustworthy users look like scammers and new people look like trustworthy people. Why are you trying to achieve this goal?

 

[Kram]

Funny majority staff agreed innit? How abouts we disallow staff on giving their biased opinions, then we see what the *community* really want. Just thought I'd suggest that. But. Why is this necessary to change? Why don't we just follow Chearful 's comment, and revert these changes. We don't want compromises. Everyone was happy before?

On January 1st, you applied for staff. Now, let's say, just for a moment, you were picked for chat mod. Does that mean, you would no longer be allowed to give your opinion on the matter? That automatically your opinion on this would no longer count and you should just not be allowed to agree? Every staff member came from the community and every staff member is still a community member that cares about the forum. If you don't care, you wouldn't be here. We give our opinions based on our experiences and what we believe would better the forum. Before making this thread, we asked all staff members what was their opinion, do they agree that this makes sense and if they don't agree, what would they change. We talked and we came to what has been posted here. Nobody was forced. We wanted to make sure everyone's opinion was heard before we post this because this is something we want to do right as we saw the community's reaction to the announcement and wanted to come to a point where we could all be content with the changes.

 

[Chearful]

On January 1st, you applied for staff. Now, let's say, just for a moment, you were picked for chat mod. Does that mean, you would no longer be allowed to give your opinion on the matter? That automatically your opinion on this would no longer count and you should just not be allowed to agree? Every staff member came from the community and every staff member is still a community member that cares about the forum. If you don't care, you wouldn't be here. We give our opinions based on our experiences and what we believe would better the forum. Before making this thread, we asked all staff members what was their opinion, do they agree that this makes sense and if they don't agree, what would they change. We talked and we came to what has been posted here. Nobody was forced. We wanted to make sure everyone's opinion was heard before we post this because this is something we want to do right as we saw the community's reaction to the announcement and wanted to come to a point where we could all be content with the changes.

mhm

 

[Justis]

mhm

I’ll ask Roy who told him that, but I’m certain it wasn’t a member of the staff team.