Reputation - Proof of Transaction

[TellTale]

Obviously the system is misused and many of us who actually have a good reputation are left in the dust because of others finding alternate means of gaining reputation.

Reputation should not be based on opinion, I think that's horrible.

Reputation should only be given for a real transaction or trade, and proof be required in a link/description box. I had (was removed recently) a permanent negative reputation on my profile for "trashing threads" while if it really was an issue a moderator could have handled it, instead because a user I had no dealings with did not like what I had to say on his thread (which by making a public thread subjected himself to the criticism of anyone who may view) gave me a negative reputation.

In addition, all banned users should have reputation they gave, if negative, removed.

 

[Ping]

MisfitNerd What you think?

 

[Fawks]

A thread has already been made here - - - - > I'll add this to the main message in a bit

 

[TellTale]

A thread has already been made here - - - - > I'll add this to the main message in a bit

Whether it is or isn't, this needs to be addressed. If you read my post, you will see that I have a very good argument for this. I also suggested the removal of negative reputation from banned users, which is also very needed.

 

[Ivain]

There should be exceptions, such as people trying to sell stolen stuff in their threads, since this has a direct impact on their reliablility, but in such cases the relevant thread should also be linked. I agree on some form of proof having to be linked, and things such as 'bad' behaviour in a chat or thread should not count, but proof can be faked.
we may need to figure out how to tell fake from real before implementing this

 

[TellTale]

proof can be faked.
we may need to figure out how to tell fake from real before implementing this

Yes, proof can be faked. People will deceive, they always do. However it will be on a much smaller scale than before.

 

[Ivain]

Yes, proof can be faked. People will deceive, they always do. However it will be on a much smaller scale than before.

not saying it should not be done, we should just figure out how to minimize the options to fake proof.

 

[TellTale]

not saying it should not be done, we should just figure out how to minimize the options to fake proof.

Put the seat belt on before seeking something safer.

 

[Mick]

not saying it should not be done, we should just figure out how to minimize the options to fake proof.

Only way I can think of is forcing for deals to be done through PMs on site, but that will just be a pain. I really don't want the reputation system to be based on just deals, doing it based on opinions is much better.

 

[TellTale]

Only way I can think of is forcing for deals to be done through PMs on site, but that will just be a pain. I really don't want the reputation system to be based on just deals, doing it based on opinions is much better.

You misunderstand. The main issue here is that people from a users server, or friends in general will come on and post a positive reputation for that user. You cannot monitor users, we know this. However at least having a link or screenshot of a transaction or trade (emails have it all) you can minimize the amount of reputation users are getting when they should not.

 

[Ivain]

Only way I can think of is forcing for deals to be done through PMs on site, but that will just be a pain. I really don't want the reputation system to be based on just deals, doing it based on opinions is much better.

Maybe if you get someone to write a guide on what is considered valid and what is not, people would not be spamming each other with bullshit reputation.
The current system inspires fear in newer members to challenge existing ones, because if they do the SLIGHTEST thing that other person does not like, they may get negrepped into oblivion. Since there is no defined line on what is legitimate rep and what is not, people do not know when to report and when not to. People will revengre-rep, so a lot of people are afraid to give negative reputation when it IS deserved. As such, the reputation system is currently a category 6 clusterfuck (the scale goes up to 5), and the only people it works with are those who are decent and professional in the first place.
This will persist until either straight guidelines are implemented or it becomes deals-only.

 

[Mick]

You misunderstand. The main issue here is that people from a users server, or friends in general will come on and post a positive reputation for that user. You cannot monitor users, we know this. However at least having a link or screenshot of a transaction or trade (emails have it all) you can minimize the amount of reputation users are getting when they should not.

I don't know of a single forum that has a reputation based off of actual trades for reputation, and that's for a reason.

Maybe if you get someone to write a guide on what is considered valid and what is not, people would not be spamming each other with bullshit reputation.
The current system inspires fear in newer members to challenge existing ones, because if they do the SLIGHTEST thing that other person does not like, they may get negrepped into oblivion. Since there is no defined line on what is legitimate rep and what is not, people do not know when to report and when not to. People will revengre-rep, so a lot of people are afraid to give negative reputation when it IS deserved. As such, the reputation system is currently a category 6 clusterfuck (the scale goes up to 5), and the only people it works with are those who are decent and professional in the first place.
This will persist until either straight guidelines are implemented or it becomes deals-only.

I absolutely agree. Having a wiki page and possibly even one designated person to deal with reputation given will certainly cut down on us all not knowing exactly where the line is between allowed and not allowed. This is what we had to do for Doge when deciding whether something is OG or not, rather than having the entire staff team decide on it.

 

[TellTale]

If it is to be opinion based, consider removing the "do not hint towards positive reputation" rule and allow thread owners to request (not demand, but request) positive reputation with their services if they satisfy a customer. This would be more of a reminder we should be allowed to give.

 

[Mick]

If it is to be opinion based, consider removing the "do not hint towards positive reputation" rule and allow thread owners to request (not demand, but request) positive reputation with their services if they satisfy a customer. This would be more of a reminder we should be allowed to give.

Hackforums is one site that I know that is extremely strict about this. In their reputation rules they state:

Can members ask other member to give them reputation points?
Absolutely not. That includes posts, PMs, profiles, or signature, and while we can't verify if you're doing this via IM services, it's likely if on site evidence is presented to us, you'll be banned. We consider any hints, tips, or off-handed comments such as "+rep is appreciated" or "I like reps" to be an obvious hint to trade reps with a member. We won't tolerate it. If a user asks you for rep, report it to an Admin immediately. If it is discovered you didn’t do this, you subject to penalty such as an account closure.

Implementing this in MCM may create contention, as if you ask even one person your entire reputation will be removed, but in the long run it may lead to a more accurate reputation system based on merit rather than people asking others.

 

[TellTale]

It's called the reputation system for a reason.

There is no need to tell me what Reputation means, I'm sure we are all aware. And like you said, the issue is unnecessary positive reputation.[DOUBLEPOST=1503579467][/DOUBLEPOST]Mick I use MCM and not hack forums for a reason, there is no need to take from their site or become what they are. This community can do better than all of them, it is better!

 

[Ivain]

I think a good first step would be requiring a thread to be linked in general. that way SB misbehaviour is not a viable option for rep.
For the buyer, they should link the seller's service/sale thread (if they have one, if not their own buying thread). for the seller, link the buyer's thread, if that doesnt exist their own service/sale thread.
it would be tricky to find a way to deal with misbehaviour in PMs, but perhaps that should not be rep related, just letting staff handle someone who's spamming it by adding them to the PM.