Yes, I am aware such a thread exists, that one, however, asks to remove the complete system.
Hello all,
TL;DR below
After being disputed for every 2-year-old reputation that does not have proof attached to it I found, in my opinion, an issue in this dispute system.
I could provide proof of every transaction. Even the banned members (lost $1000+ transaction). The problem was that some of my clients left this forum. So even after providing proof to the Feedback Moderator that the deal was legit and it happened the reputation was still marked invalid because the user was inactive.
My suggestion hereby goes: Let any of the parties provide proof that a deal went right/wrong.
If the service provider can provide valid proof of the transaction, why still mark the reputation invalid only because the client has gone inactive? The deal still took place.
The only thing that would be needed to have a more balanced system is to allow feedback moderators to edit the reputation. If the service provider provides proof, they'll attach it to the reputation and then the dispute is solved. No loss of actual deals that happened anymore.
Please share your thoughts.
TL;DR: Let the service/product provider provide proof for a transaction so that the Feedback Mods can edit the proof in and the dispute is solved. This solves the issue that valid reputation gets marked invalid because a client has gone inactive.
Hello all,
TL;DR below
After being disputed for every 2-year-old reputation that does not have proof attached to it I found, in my opinion, an issue in this dispute system.
I could provide proof of every transaction. Even the banned members (lost $1000+ transaction). The problem was that some of my clients left this forum. So even after providing proof to the Feedback Moderator that the deal was legit and it happened the reputation was still marked invalid because the user was inactive.
My suggestion hereby goes: Let any of the parties provide proof that a deal went right/wrong.
If the service provider can provide valid proof of the transaction, why still mark the reputation invalid only because the client has gone inactive? The deal still took place.
The only thing that would be needed to have a more balanced system is to allow feedback moderators to edit the reputation. If the service provider provides proof, they'll attach it to the reputation and then the dispute is solved. No loss of actual deals that happened anymore.
Please share your thoughts.
TL;DR: Let the service/product provider provide proof for a transaction so that the Feedback Mods can edit the proof in and the dispute is solved. This solves the issue that valid reputation gets marked invalid because a client has gone inactive.
- Type
- Suggestion
- Status
- Denied
Last edited:
