Reputation Disputes

[Jerry]

Two parts to this,

1) if a reputation rating is older than x amount, it can't be disputed but must be worked out between the users. It is impossible to keep a record of each negative rating a user has given and it doesn't make sense that a user can go back and just start disputing every negative rating they've received in hopes it will get removed because a user is inactive.

2) If a user opens a dispute and does not reply for x amount of time, the dispute is closed. Personal situation where a user read and didn't/hasn't replied in almost two months however @/eclipse just recently replied to the thread asking me for more proof after I've given sufficient evidence for the rating I posted.

The rep system is trash but this rep dispute system is even more trash.

If you disagree, reply with reasoning please.

 

[Jerry]

If you disagree, reply with reasoning please.

Bumblewasp[DOUBLEPOST=1557417060][/DOUBLEPOST]

So what if someone comes back to mcm, and has a very old reputation from an inactive member if they message them they won't answer, what then?

The rating stays, there should be a period of a month where you can dispute a rating, there's no reason to be going back 6 months to a year and trying to get rid of a rating.

 

[Bumblewasp]

I think these suggestions make it particularly hard for a user in this position to have their reputation fairly checked.

• The user is active in the marketplace but leaves for an important period in real life, such as examinations or a busy time at work.
  • The dispute is opened but not finished as they left. Rather than a moderator fairly analysing the dispute, it would just be closed, even if the dispute is clearly invalid.
  • After this period, the dispute can never be analysed again as the reputation is too old.

 

[Bumblewasp]

Bumblewasp[DOUBLEPOST=1557417060][/DOUBLEPOST]
The rating stays, there should be a period of a month where you can dispute a rating, there's no reason to be going back 6 months to a year and trying to get rid of a rating.

There is a probability that significant evidence against the reputation arises after this month is over.

• You come into contact with a witness.
• The user slips up and inadvertently shows evidence against

The problem you fail to address here is going away anyway, reputation now has to be detailed and overtime proof will exist even if the user who made the reputation is gone (and the true reputation will stay).

 

[Jerry]

But if it's an old rating and everyone is basing you off of that one rating ya I think you should be able to dispute it.

If it's an old rating you should be able to bounce back and improve your reputation through other deals and interactions. If everyone is basing their opinion of a user on old ratings and that's all, old positive ratings should be removed too. A rating is a rating and it doesn't matter if it's positive or negative, they all need to be treated the same.[DOUBLEPOST=1557417673][/DOUBLEPOST]

I think these suggestions make it particularly hard for a user in this position to have their reputation fairly checked.

• The user is active in the marketplace but leaves for an important period in real life, such as examinations or a busy time at work.
  • The dispute is opened but not finished as they left. Rather than a moderator fairly analysing the dispute, it would just be closed, even if the dispute is clearly invalid.
  • After this period, the dispute can never be analysed again as the reputation is too old.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, are you referring to a user giving a negative rating then disappearing?[DOUBLEPOST=1557417712][/DOUBLEPOST]

There is a probability that significant evidence against the reputation arises after this month is over.

• You come into contact with a witness.
• The user slips up and inadvertently shows evidence against

The problem you fail to address here is going away anyway, reputation now has to be detailed and overtime proof will exist even if the user who made the reputation is gone (and the true reputation will stay).

That is a good point and something I didn't consider.

 

[Jerry]

So if someone has an old rep on you saying you scammed them and all this stuff you should have it stay there because its old ok.

That reputation would break the rules..a dispute is not necessary for that rating to be removed. Report it.

 

[Jerry]

And if you have around 8 neg reps from all inactive people who gave it to you before you left you should keep them?

So you're talking about what-ifs here. There will be plenty of what-ifs to fine tune a suggestion to which is just not feasible. There's never going to be a sure solution but if there is a standard and consistency among the staff team then the reputation system and dispute system will work more smoothly.

 

[Jerry]

We shouldn't be basing a suggestion off of an improbability should we, I see no need to have this implemented into the forums.

What do you mean an improbability? With any law/rule there's always a gray area that is dealt with on a case by case basis. There's a reason there are courts and moderation teams, they interpret the rules in order to have a system that is as fair as possible.

If anyone else has an assload of what-ifs situations to share, see yourself out.

 

[Jerry]

This is a minecraft forum, not real life dude I see no reason for there to be an expiration date on not even negative reputations but REPUTATION DISPUTES...

This is a Minecraft forum I don't see a reason for you to still be butthurt you've got negative ratings because your PayPal got locked and everything charged back. You can join the list of people on my ignore list.

 

[Jerry]

It's not butthurt it's a side of an argument I don't see how I am butthurt when you just put me on your ignored list for supporting my side of an argument on a suggestion thread :rofl: thanks for being able to read my reputations that were already solved 3-4 weeks ago. But whatever can get you leverage in an argument on a minecraft forum I guess...

Takes a big man to do what you just did sir!

I didn't ignore you because of your argument against my suggestion. I ignored you because you're annoying. There's a difference.

 

[Cleora]

Me: *Has 2 active disputes*
Eclipse: *Looks at one from almost 2 months ago*

 

[Jerry]

Annoying for what exactly because all I have been doing on this thread is supporting my side of an argument.

when you whipped out the caps to essentially yell through text you started being annoying. I've always thought you were annoying but you weren't relevant enough to do anything about but now you're annoying me personally so you will remain on ignore. Pce.