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.

 

[BOOP]

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.

Who tf asked for this?

 

[Kram]

Lol who are you to start releasing details that should be disclosed Privacy now at risk is it? ps I applied before I saw it all go to toes. People were nice back then and wanted to be with my buddy

I never said they shouldn't be allowed to give their opinion, I said prioritise the community itself because of course staff members will be biased and agree with the Owner. You haven't been in the real world if you think otherwise. (don't you even refute against this point with some weird irl example. Not interested).

Oh right so this was discussed with the staff team before, and they all agreed. So why are some staff now changing their minds? Or why did you still release it when some staff disagreed? Was their say not good enough?

Question. Was everyone's opinion heard? It seems that everytime someone gives an opinion, a staff member jumps on the gun and basically tells them how they're stoopid and the changes are good.

Be realistic, we aren't all going to be "content with the changes", you heard it from Justis prior.

Funny majority staff agreed innit? How abouts we disallow staff on giving their biased opinions, then we see what the *community* really want.

I never said they shouldn't be allowed to give their opinion,

Which one is it? You clearly didn't read my message either because staff are still part of the community. The change effects everyone, staff members too. Some of the staff members still sell on MCM too, both Aelin and Ellie still offer commissions and they both agreed to the change. Roy agreed to the compromise. We specifically said in the staff chat that we want to hear every staff member's opinion on this suggestion thread. Even if you applied back then, my point remains the same, staff comes from the community, every staff member was and is a community member. To my knowledge, no staff member has changed their mind on this compromise.

 

[Kram]

To be exact, I said biased opinions. General opinions are of course welcome, just not biased. Y'all need to work on that.

I've asked all staff members whom had an opinion on this matter and each and everyone of them said that they don't care about rep, yet it's the opposite for normal members of the community. Now what's the common denominator there? Personally, I believe it's their position on the team. Intriguing.

Well, you can say staff are a part of the community. But I know for certain some see themselves above it. Eclipse would have been a prime example, along with yourself and others. You need to treat the people as if you were still in the community. Not like a drill instructor.


Wow very ironic thank Boss Man Kram. You didn't read mine either about spacing out the paragraph. So I don't think you're in any position to tell me I didn't read your message

So what makes the reactions on this thread biased and what makes them general opinions? Please elaborate on when it becomes a biased opinion and when is it a general opinion?

I don't think of myself as above the community, I'm sorry if it comes that way but I have always given my opinion based on what I think would be best for the community both from a staff member perspective and from my perspective as a community member.

I assumed everything under Justis' quote was to Justis, I hope my spacing now is to your liking.

 

[Ellie]

To be exact, I said biased opinions. General opinions are of course welcome, just not biased. Y'all need to work on that.

I've asked all staff members whom had an opinion on this matter and each and everyone of them said that they don't care about rep, yet it's the opposite for normal members of the community.

Sorry to barge into this conversation but this isn't true at all. I was in the chat with you when this was announced, you didn't ask me nor Energy.
I expressed my opinions and so did he, neither of us said we don't care about feedback and in fact we had different opinions on the matter.

 

[Landon]

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.

I’m not saying as a Staff Member that you are forced to agree with Mick or Justis, and that you can’t have any other opinion on the situation.

However, a trend that many of us community members recognize by now is the trend of staff promotions. Majority of promotions are users who have minimal influence on the community. Users with little reputation and little interaction besides offering services (primarily graphic design, as well).

Now, this isn’t an issue. Obviously promotions are thought out by Mick and the rest of the team to promote users who have experience, learn quickly, and want what’s best.

That works for almost every update except this. This change is affecting reputable, legacy members. Something that the current staff team (with some exceptions) have very little knowledge of. None of the staff members understand the frustration of users who have spent the last 3 years building their reputation just for it to be gone.

I’m not saying staff shouldn’t have an opinion on this either, everyone gets an opinion. The staff team just doesn’t understand the true reality behind this update, and can’t connect with the rest of the community’s view on what this truly means for the forum.

Spoiler: staff rep

Justis: 68

Mick: 26

Aelin: 51

Aliensushi: 26

Ellie: 15

Energy: 26

Kuchy: 15

Majored: 10

TechBanana: 53

Kram: 23

Roy: 16

Tofty: 18

Zeiyon: 95 (impressive)

Banned: 56

Ben J: 17

Red: 39

Jayson: 20

As you see, the impact it has on Staff Members will never compare to the impact us legacy members with 100, 200+ reputation losing majority of it. (Exceptions with users like Zeiyon and Justis).

 

[Ellie]

Hi Ellie, but what? Yes you were in the chat, and if you were paying attention you'd remember I tagged you both and said I had a question. You both tagged me back and said go ahead, I only tagged Energy in my response as I forgot to tag you and it was too late. Energy said they didn't care and it was just a number. Feel free to check out the archives and get the facts before barging in on the conversation, cheers.

Hey! How is that asking all the staff then? And you didn't ask me wether I cared about feedback, you asked me if I would update mine (which I did answer you about).
The only other question I can see is that you asked why we don't just remove the number, Energy answered before your question that he feels the number shouldn't matter because the feedback should speak for itself.

I don't mind you being angry at us but are you making very generalised sweeps of the entire team based on a couple conversations and/or misunderstanding?

As for the screenshot you provided, you have taken it out of context. He was talking about his own feedback that's old but even then, Energy's response to you isn't the mouth of the entire team so i'm not sure why you are claiming you have spoken to all of us because I certainly believe that a compromise would be more ideal than just removing it:

[DOUBLEPOST=1575156805][/DOUBLEPOST]To be clear,
I have never liked the feedback system even as a member. I want it to be changed because I want it to mean more than insane amounts of farmed feedback or useless comments that don't provide any information or context. Feedback should be informative to the viewer and not just a number we glance at.

I have always read through at least some of the feedback on a user when looking into doing a deal or commission. I want to see if they are negative to work with or have a good reputation in the community before doing anything above $100. This is what the feedback system should be used for and not "I have more rep than you therefore I'm better" because that definitely isn't always the case.

I don't like the idea of removing it all but I certainly don't enjoy the system in place. I would like a change and I am genuinely hoping this thread provides some good discussion and ideas and not just putting down every staff members opinion, posting memes or posting comments without even reading the post or discussion first.

 

[Rhos]

All great changes except for 3, which should default to on. This way there's essentially no change for those who don't want it, but the option exists for those who are worried about legacy feedback.

You guys definitely have a marketing problem too, would have made way more sense to gather feedback first.

 

[roy]

That was very clear by Roy's reaction, as well as a few others. He literally said it's biased to agree with a random member of the community.

mhm

I would like to clarify as this message was taken out of context.

It was [a joke] in reference to users claiming we were biased for having liked one of Reinsure's threads prior to the incident with Sosa. No member of the staff team has ever claimed it is biased to agree with community members, it was community members themselves that claimed this.

 

[Blood]

Note: These are my thoughts before reading the 8 proposals.
Let me break this down for you Mick. No changes to the reputation system are needed. Every time a change occurs, it makes the reputation system more complex and troublesome. If we could go back to the legacy reputation system, I would love for that to happen. Unfortunately, everyone knows that's not going to happen. So here we are, debating over this process that's becoming more complicated every update. Obviously you guys want complete control over the reputation and make it the most strict part of this forum, which is a fruitless effort. Every time you guys try to enforce new rules or changes in the reputation system, it just degrades the user experience. I don't understand why you guys just can't leave the feedback system alone. Just keep it simple and there will be fewer problems. This whole thread is so unnecessary and it's just a complete mess. Just stop fucking up the reputation system. Please.

One major problem I've seen come up time and time again is the "punishment" (if you will) of a user because someone left "invalid" feedback. This is easily fixed with Zyger's suggestion: https://www.mc-market.org/threads/544342/. It just isn't fair to take away reputation from someone due to the fault of someone else. Another problem that goes hand in hand with this is not being able to leave old feedback alone. It isn't that hard. Leave it alone. It's old. It's hard to investigate. It's just as valid as newer reputation. Just leave it alone. Fewer problems will result if we can just leave it be. I understand that the administrative team wets their pants every time they come across feEDBACk WiThout EViDEnCe but the community needs to be listened to, especially our oldest and most loyal members. This brings me to my next point. I feel as though the recent meddling in legacy feedback is a way to provoke our older users. They are the least welcoming to the direction admins want the site to go so it would make the most sense for them to try to drive this select audience away from the site. Unfortunately, due to their stubborn nature, they're not going to submit to this nonsense, causing more headaches for the admins. Justis is it really worth the trouble and headache? Ruining the reputation system should not be a priority. There are better uses of your time.

Note: These are my thoughts after reading the proposals.
Now to the actual point of this thread:
1. No. That doesn't benefit anybody. It's stupid.
2. YES. Finally something good. This is definitely needed.
3. No. Don't complicate the system any further. That's stupid.
4. Nope. Pointless. Useless. Stupid. Don't do it.
5. Sure I guess. But is "informing them of the abuse that occurred" really needed? Unnecessary provocation of older users. :I
6. Nope. Please don't do that. Unnecessary measure. It's not really going to help. I don't think any active user who receives that message is proactive enough to go through each feedback they left, find evidence, and upload it.
7. Yes. I love it. Except for the part where it says "it will be counted and highlighted normally again" since all legacy feedback should still be counted normally. I think it'd be nice to be able to add evidence though.
8. No. Just don't change the system.

Sparko I really appreciate your suggestions to help make things better but honestly, we don't need any more change and complication to the reputation system.

TL;DR: DON'T TOUCH LEGACY FEEDBACK. THANK YOU.

 

[Chearful]

the sad thing is, is that the general gist i got from a short sb conversation with mick yesterday is that the "compromises" will go ahead regardless of what anything is said by us

so i mean... is this the site we want to use? :shrug:

 

[Kelsey]

the sad thing is, is that the general gist i got from a short sb conversation with mick yesterday is that the "compromises" will go ahead regardless of what anything is said by us

so i mean... is this the site we want to use? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

then why was this thread made in the first place if we're just going to be ignored once again?

 

[Chearful]

then why was this thread made in the first place if we're just going to be ignored once again?

at mcm, anything is possible

 

[Sparko]

Note: These are my thoughts before reading the 8 proposals.
Let me break this down for you Mick. No changes to the reputation system are needed. Every time a change occurs, it makes the reputation system more complex and troublesome. If we could go back to the legacy reputation system, I would love for that to happen. Unfortunately, everyone knows that's not going to happen. So here we are, debating over this process that's becoming more complicated every update. Obviously you guys want complete control over the reputation and make it the most strict part of this forum, which is a fruitless effort. Every time you guys try to enforce new rules or changes in the reputation system, it just degrades the user experience. I don't understand why you guys just can't leave the feedback system alone. Just keep it simple and there will be fewer problems. This whole thread is so unnecessary and it's just a complete mess. Just stop fucking up the reputation system. Please.

One major problem I've seen come up time and time again is the "punishment" (if you will) of a user because someone left "invalid" feedback. This is easily fixed with Zyger's suggestion: https://www.mc-market.org/threads/544342/. It just isn't fair to take away reputation from someone due to the fault of someone else. Another problem that goes hand in hand with this is not being able to leave old feedback alone. It isn't that hard. Leave it alone. It's old. It's hard to investigate. It's just as valid as newer reputation. Just leave it alone. Fewer problems will result if we can just leave it be. I understand that the administrative team wets their pants every time they come across feEDBACk WiThout EViDEnCe but the community needs to be listened to, especially our oldest and most loyal members. This brings me to my next point. I feel as though the recent meddling in legacy feedback is a way to provoke our older users. They are the least welcoming to the direction admins want the site to go so it would make the most sense for them to try to drive this select audience away from the site. Unfortunately, due to their stubborn nature, they're not going to submit to this nonsense, causing more headaches for the admins. Justis is it really worth the trouble and headache? Ruining the reputation system should not be a priority. There are better uses of your time.

Note: These are my thoughts after reading the proposals.
Now to the actual point of this thread:
1. No. That doesn't benefit anybody. It's stupid.
2. YES. Finally something good. This is definitely needed.
3. No. Don't complicate the system any further. That's stupid.
4. Nope. Pointless. Useless. Stupid. Don't do it.
5. Sure I guess. But is "informing them of the abuse that occurred" really needed? Unnecessary provocation of older users. :I
6. Nope. Please don't do that. Unnecessary measure. It's not really going to help. I don't think any active user who receives that message is proactive enough to go through each feedback they left, find evidence, and upload it.
7. Yes. I love it. Except for the part where it says "it will be counted and highlighted normally again" since all legacy feedback should still be counted normally. I think it'd be nice to be able to add evidence though.
8. No. Just don't change the system.

Sparko I really appreciate your suggestions to help make things better but honestly, we don't need any more change and complication to the reputation system.

TL;DR: DON'T TOUCH LEGACY FEEDBACK. THANK YOU.

Yeah I’d rather have the legacy rep kept as is but I suggested those as a compromise because it’s unlikely that they would fully reverse such a major decision, and would rather at least have some sort of proof of my past dealings there than none at all.

 

[Kram]

the sad thing is, is that the general gist i got from a short sb conversation with mick yesterday is that the "compromises" will go ahead regardless of what anything is said by us

so i mean... is this the site we want to use? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That isn’t the case, we really do care about the community’s opinion on this compromise and do want to know how many people agree, and if you don’t agree, what should change so you do. I’m not sure what exactly mick said to make you think that we don’t care about what the community says in response to this. Because we do care.