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.

 

[Joshua C]

What about all those purges? what about all those reps from banned members? are they not going to be added back to the user, if that's a no then why you're allowing this? it means the same thing.

You just dropped the hammer on others before properly executing the policies.

 

[Kram]

What about all those purges? what about all those reps from banned members? are they not going to be added back to the user, if that's a no then why you're allowing this? it means the same thing.

You just dropped the hammer on others before properly executing the policies.

Banned rep that wasn't legacy has already been added back, they should all be visible. All legacy rep that was removed because it didn't have proof can be brought back and made to conform with what we are suggesting in this compromise.

 

[Zyger]

Banned rep that wasn't legacy has already been added back, they should all be visible. All legacy rep that was removed because it didn't have proof can be brought back and made to conform with what we are suggesting in this compromise.

How do we find the legacy rep that was deleted though?

 

[Kram]

How do we find the legacy rep that was deleted though?

Just like with banned rep we are able to mass add it back based on a few variables.

 

[Joshua C]

Just like with banned rep we are able to mass add it back based on a few variables.

Why are neg reps being showed even though they were proved wrong?

 

[FisherGee]

Don’t delete reputation given by banned members.

 

[Kram]

Don’t delete reputation given by banned members.

As mentioned in the announcement, we no longer will delete feedback given by banned members. It is still visible but is grayed out. It also will not count towards your feedback totals.

 

[FisherGee]

As mentioned in the announcement, we no longer will delete feedback given by banned members. It is still visible but is grayed out. It also will not count towards your feedback totals.

Rip we at a disadvantage because the site didn’t implement something they wanted. We all followed policies. That’s how I see it.

 

[Kram]

Rip we at a disadvantage because the site didn’t implement something they wanted. We all followed policies. That’s how I see it.

Banned feedback not being counted isn't because there's a feature that we didn't add. It's because there are problems associated with feedback from banned members. They are no longer part of the community and because of that, the feedback cannot be edited if opinions change, judgment from users who are banned is obviously questionable so what the feedback states should be under scrutiny. There are many members banned for ban evading/creating multiple accounts and feedback left by them can be duplicates, thus inflating feedback totals.
However, when people say the deal still happened, they're right, which is why banned feedback isn't deleted, they are there for anyone to read if they choose to do so.

 

[FisherGee]

Banned feedback not being counted isn't because there's a feature that we didn't add. It's because there are problems associated with feedback from banned members. They are no longer part of the community and because of that, the feedback cannot be edited if opinions change, judgment from users who are banned is obviously questionable so what the feedback states should be under scrutiny. There are many members banned for ban evading/creating multiple accounts and feedback left by them can be duplicates, thus inflating feedback totals.
However, when people say the deal still happened, they're right, which is why banned feedback isn't deleted, they are there for anyone to read if they choose to do so.

Ngl it’s not really our problem that there wasn’t enough regulations on it. But like just because some people abused - we are all going to have legacy and banned feedback looked at as lower or less competent; so we’re all taking the punishment because of others. Don’t think this is right - sounds more like communism

 

[Kram]

I sense some bs here. It's clear the community don't have a say and Mick is just making these threads to make it look like we were involved for when he sells it on

If it wasn't the case it'd be a lot simpler and quicker for us to just make the changes without making this thread. If the community didn't have a say, this thread actually wouldn't be here, nor a compromise even be suggested. It was because of the community's input on the announcement that we made this thread and took some of the suggestions made by community members and put it in the compromise.

 

[Chearful]

If it wasn't the case it'd be a lot simpler and quicker for us to just make the changes without making this thread. If the community didn't have a say, this thread actually wouldn't be here, nor a compromise even be suggested. It was because of the community's input on the announcement that we made this thread and took some of the suggestions made by community members and put it in the compromise.

well i mean we don't want any of these compromises or any of the proposed changes as proven by the disagrees on the op and the agrees on my posts

how much money do i want to bet on mick going ahead with the changes anyways

 

[Kram]

Please just stop fucking with the rep system, sure it isn't perfect but if you're going to make a change discuss it fully with the community BEFORE the change is made, not after you have mass deleted reputation, hidden bulk amounts of it and are going to absolutely obliterate legacy reputation unless someone goes through a setting wall to find it.

We want to discuss this compromise with the community and that’s the purpose of this thread. Any feedback that has been deleted can be brought back, and the toggle won’t be in a setting wall, it’s going to be clearly visible on the reputation overview page.

 

[Justis]

Plenty of users don’t understand why the entire staff team sees the issue so differently. It's because communication is faster and clearer between smaller groups of people, and the issues are better communicated and better understood.
As someone who’s personally bore witness to the abuse of the legacy feedback system, and been a part of the staff team that’s attempted to manage it over the past four years, I have a perspective that isn’t so easily understood unless you take an equally intimate look at the history behind the reputation system.

In order to share that history with you, I’ve spent the past few days documenting it for everyone in the community, old or new, to read about and come to understand: https://www.mc-market.org/threads/545300/

 

[root]

Fucking virgins fuck off nobody wanted this

There is absolutely no need to be toxic about it. Sure, you may not like the change but being toxic and calling them virgins isn't going to change anything or get you any "social standing" for doing so.

 

[MarkElf]

I believe this is as fair of a solution as anyone is going to come up with. If reputation doesn't have proof uploaded, how can anyone outside the 'deal' say it happened for certain? I think Justis exaggerated the whole 'everyone reached out to their friends to do rep for rep farming' situation in another thread but I wouldn't be surprised if some members of the community did do this. I want to say someone asked in whisper/shoutbox or Skype(?) forever ago but I don't recall exactly. Point being, I'm sure it happened to a minority of members. Did several deals happen legitimate? Probably. I'm not going to deny that I occasionally uploaded some random nonsense image from my downloads when giving rep but if someone questioned a translation, I can surely prove it happened with a bit of digging.

Leading towards the lack of moderation and the new system. I also think this is a right step to some regard. I mean the whole hide the numbers and let people read the reviews people wrote out for each other. The numbers are there for convenience so you don't have to read the reviews - which I take mostly as fluff after the first sentence because of the 100 character limit (not a fan of that requirement). Point being, if you read someone does a good chunk of spotify account upgrades, they're reputable for that but not much else. You wouldn't really notice that easily looking at an overall number or percent. I look at join dates so reputation is pretty worthless in my eyes anyway as someone with 100 spotify account upgrades is just as likely to (exit) scam as anyone else to me. I hate to look at the site through such a pessimistic lens but that's also how I have avoided being scammed generally.

The issue with deviding reputation into positive, neutral, and negative is that people will get butthurt when they get a negative rep in the same way people get butthurt over getting a funny or optimistic reaction (I'm in favor of getting those removed after someone *cough shamelessly calling you out geez *cough get butthurt that I accidentally rated their post funny when scrolling - never happened with 4 years of being on the site - and rather than asking why they just went through my post history to return the favor) and needing to justify themselves by spamming the other person with the same reaction that has a negative connotation. Nobody wants that negative reputation and having a visable number reinforced that negative connotation.

Regarding the threads of "MC-Market is under attack" (JayMC) and "this isn't a compromise" and the other nonsense going on, are y'all really that butthurt over losing rep? If you intend to stay on the site then losing some reputation shouldn't effect you. I lost 1 rep and I couldn't care less - you don't see me making 20 threads and starting flame wars to see who lost the most rep - which as I explained above is just a number to show how frequently you make deals and isn't a fair representation of how genuinely reputable someone is. To be fair, I only buy some codes and artwork when I need it from here - excluding resource sales - but my point being, you'll get your reputation back eventually as you do more deals on the site. If you don't like what's occurring, go to the suggestions/bugs section and make a better suggestion to the issue. As much hate as the site's staff and administration gets, they genuinely want what's best for the community and I don't understand if the community is too egoistic, immature, or inexperienced in management to understand that.

 

[geez]

I believe this is as fair of a solution as anyone is going to come up with. If reputation doesn't have proof uploaded, how can anyone outside the 'deal' say it happened for certain? I think Justis exaggerated the whole 'everyone reached out to their friends to do rep for rep farming' situation in another thread but I wouldn't be surprised if some members of the community did do this. I want to say someone asked in whisper/shoutbox or Skype(?) forever ago but I don't recall exactly. Point being, I'm sure it happened to a minority of members. Did several deals happen legitimate? Probably. I'm not going to deny that I occasionally uploaded some random nonsense image from my downloads when giving rep but if someone questioned a translation, I can surely prove it happened with a bit of digging.

Leading towards the lack of moderation and the new system. I also think this is a right step to some regard. I mean the whole hide the numbers and let people read the reviews people wrote out for each other. The numbers are there for convenience so you don't have to read the reviews - which I take mostly as fluff after the first sentence because of the 100 character limit (not a fan of that requirement). Point being, if you read someone does a good chunk of spotify account upgrades, they're reputable for that but not much else. You wouldn't really notice that easily looking at an overall number or percent. I look at join dates so reputation is pretty worthless in my eyes anyway as someone with 100 spotify account upgrades is just as likely to (exit) scam as anyone else to me. I hate to look at the site through such a pessimistic lens but that's also how I have avoided being scammed generally.

The issue with deviding reputation into positive, neutral, and negative is that people will get butthurt when they get a negative rep in the same way people get butthurt over getting a funny or optimistic reaction (I'm in favor of getting those removed after someone *cough shamelessly calling you out geez *cough get butthurt that I accidentally rated their post funny when scrolling - never happened with 4 years of being on the site - and rather than asking why they just went through my post history to return the favor) and needing to justify themselves by spamming the other person with the same reaction that has a negative connotation. Nobody wants that negative reputation and having a visable number reinforced that negative connotation.

Regarding the threads of "MC-Market is under attack" (JayMC) and "this isn't a compromise" and the other nonsense going on, are y'all really that butthurt over losing rep? If you intend to stay on the site then losing some reputation shouldn't effect you. I lost 1 rep and I couldn't care less - you don't see me making 20 threads and starting flame wars to see who lost the most rep - which as I explained above is just a number to show how frequently you make deals and isn't a fair representation of how genuinely reputable someone is. To be fair, I only buy some codes and artwork when I need it from here - excluding resource sales - but my point being, you'll get your reputation back eventually as you do more deals on the site. If you don't like what's occurring, go to the suggestions/bugs section and make a better suggestion to the issue. As much hate as the site's staff and administration gets, they genuinely want what's best for the community and I don't understand if the community is too egoistic, immature, or inexperienced in management to understand that.

don’t care, still don’t care