Reputation Resolvers

[pace]

Reputation resolvers instead of having Moderators deal with unreasonable neg reps or revenge reps these people come in and do it instead
it is helpful for mcm as moderators have to deal with other things not only the reputation system

kthxbye

too lazy to write a whole 1000lines like what most people do

 

[pace]

Consistency is extremely important to me, and if the moderation team proves that even after having been provided all of the moderation tools planned to be implemented into the reputation system, consistency cannot be provided by the general moderation team, then I will absolutely consider your suggestion to be a reasonable one.
As I said in my first response to this suggestion thread:

I merely want to see the general moderation team provided the necessary tools to do the job before determining that they are unqualified to perform it, and creating a separate branch of moderation.

i understand that changing the team layout is a pain, and hard but i don't see a problem in doing so for the sake of the market to make it a better place to deal in.

 

[Justis]

i understand that changing the team layout is a pain, and hard but i don't see a problem in doing so for the sake of the market to make it a better place to deal in.

It's not about being difficult. Not at all.
As I've explained, I don't believe that creating a new branch will make the market a better place than simply providing the current moderation team with the tools to moderate reputation properly.
If I thought that it would provide an even slightly better experience in the long run, I would agree with you instantly.
However, I cannot see that as being true until I've seen what the current moderation team can do with the proper tools, because if the general moderation team can consistently handle reputation, then that will be a better solution than a separate branch, only being able to be handled by a few people who could potentially become unavailable, and or requiring the addition of unqualified members.

 

[pace]

As I've explained, I don't believe that creating a new branch will make the market a better place than simply providing the current moderation team with the tools to moderate reputation properly.
If I thought that it would provide an even slightly better experience in the long run, I would agree with you instantly.
However, I cannot see that as being true until I've seen what the current moderation team can do with the proper tools, because if the general moderation team can consistently handle reputation, then that will be a better solution than a separate branch, only being able to be handled by a few people who could potentially become unavailable, and or requiring the addition of unqualified members.

you don't believe, although the community itself does, in your view you can't see the moderation team clearly.
or am i incorrect?
they are indeed the best of the best on the market but do you understand the delay and how they aren't like you they instantly deny the report without asking for proof nor going into conversation between the two discussing it.

 

[CrimsonChin]

I made a scam report against a user (https://www.mc-market.org/threads/319904/). I have solid evidence, but they refuse to
1. Ban him.
2. Keep my negative rep on his profile with the thread linked.
3. Remove his stupid rep on my profile.
It's so unfair, please someone explain this to me

 

[pace]

I made a scam report against a user (https://www.mc-market.org/threads/319904/). I have solid evidence, but they refuse to
1. Ban him.
2. Keep my negative rep on his profile with the thread linked.
3. Remove his stupid rep on my profile.
It's so unfair, please someone explain this to me

did you post this on the wrong thread or are you asking for support from staff members? did you mean me?

 

[acollierr17]

As I've explained, I don't believe that creating a new branch will make the market a better place than simply providing the current moderation team with the tools to moderate reputation properly.
If I thought that it would provide an even slightly better experience in the long run, I would agree with you instantly.
However, I cannot see that as being true until I've seen what the current moderation team can do with the proper tools, because if the general moderation team can consistently handle reputation, then that will be a better solution than a separate branch, only being able to be handled by a few people who could potentially become unavailable, and or requiring the addition of unqualified members.

I agree with you on this Justis. Implementing a new branch of the staff team would render the initial plan you already had in place useless. That being updating the staff policies and the moderation system altogether to include a better system to help the moderation team to the job they are supposed to do.

I see the other side of this matter. People want to change now by implementing a short-term fixed that can be resolved in the short-term with the changes you suggested in the first place. Again I feel that would be better. Training a new branch to deal with reported reputations wouldn't be the time MCM would spend in parallel to the training of new moderators and the time that takes.

you don't believe, although the community itself does, in your view you can't see the moderation team clearly.
or am i incorrect?
they are indeed the best of the best on the market but do you understand the delay and how they aren't like you they instantly deny the report without asking for proof nor going into conversation between the two discussing it.

I mentioned this above, but there would be the need to allocate new time for a short-term fix to deal with the reputation system that could be fixed by Justis' suggestion instead in the short-term so in the long term MCM would be better off. I'm not saying that as an excuse, but I am taking this from both sides. People want a better system. Justis and everyone else here. But the options have to be weighed.

 

[CrimsonChin]

did you post this on the wrong thread or are you asking for support from staff members? did you mean me?

I've posted it in multiple places, but everyone ignores me. I really just want some clue as to why this is happening from anyone at this point.

 

[pace]

I agree with you on this Justis. Implementing a new branch of the staff team would render the initial plan you already had in place useless. That being updating the staff policies and the moderation system altogether to include a better system to help the moderation team to the job they are supposed to do.

I see the other side of this matter. People want to change now by implementing a short-term fixed that can be resolved in the short-term with the changes you suggested in the first place. Again I feel that would be better. Training a new branch to deal with reported reputations wouldn't be the time MCM would spend in parallel to the training of new moderators and the time that takes.

I mentioned this above, but there would be the need to allocate new time for a short-term fix to deal with the reputation system that could be fixed by Justis' suggestion instead in the short-term so in the long term MCM would be better off. I'm not saying that as an excuse, but I am taking this from both sides. People want a better system. Justis and everyone else here. But the options have to be weighed.

I undoubtedly agree, although the most efficient one is the best not the short-term one.
also it wouldn't take time to find someone to be a reputation resolver as i believe it is such a simple task the only thing it requires it to put in time, training one won't take a single week.[DOUBLEPOST=1522723294][/DOUBLEPOST]

I've posted it in multiple places, but everyone ignores me. I really just want some clue as to why this is happening from anyone at this point.

PM mick or Justis and report this.

 

[fawny]

I feel like this could be really useful, but also be a hassle for the actual mod. So many people would harass and bother them to look at their rep RIGHT NOW and rage if it didn’t get deleted. No one really likes to think their neg rep is “valid”. But it could still be useful.

 

[Justis]

you don't believe, although the community itself does, in your view you can't see the moderation team clearly.
or am i incorrect?
they are indeed the best of the best on the market but do you understand the delay and how they aren't like you they instantly deny the report without asking for proof nor going into conversation between the two discussing it.

The moderation team making instant decisions on false rep reports without a dispute is indeed currently the case, and extremely frustrating. Which is why I've suggested making a dispute process staff policy, which it is not right now.
However, making a dispute process for false rep reports staff policy cannot be reasonably done until the reputation system actually has moderation tools available to the team moderating it.

What I want are:
- Consistency
- A dispute for every false rep report
- Timely responses to reports

And I believe that providing the global moderation team with the moderation tools to support disputes, and making the provision of a dispute for false rep reports an expected and enforced staff policy is a better way to provide those three things in the long run.
I want to give the moderation team these tools and this policies to enforce with first, before deciding that they are incapable and creating potentially unnecessary separate branch and adding unqualified members who could potentially become unavailable.

I want to be sure that the best possible action is being taken before taking action.
Many members are frustrated by the reputation system right now, as they are justified in being, however, often they will quickly jump on the bandwagon of any suggestion to change the system, simply because it's a change, and they don't like what it is currently, without being adequately aware of the potentially worse consequences of that change, or any better solutions to the problems that bother them.
My first priority is the long term success and happiness of the entire site, and I have had many years of experience as a staff member to develop an understanding of what that will ultimately entail.
Sometimes that leads to disagreements between myself and other members. Unfortunately that isn't something that I can prevent.

 

[pace]

The moderation team making instant decisions on false rep reports without a dispute is indeed currently the case, and extremely frustrating. Which is why I've suggested making a dispute process staff policy, which it is not right now.
However, making a dispute process for false rep reports staff policy cannot be done until the reputation system actually has moderation tools available.

What I want are:
- Consistency
- A dispute for every false rep report
- Timely responses to reports

And I believe that providing the global moderation team with the moderation tools to support disputes, and making the provision of a dispute for false rep reports an expected and enforced staff policy is a better way to provide those three things in the long run.
I want to give the moderation team these tools and this policies to enforce with first, before deciding that they are incapable and creating potentially unnecessary separate branch and adding unqualified members who could potentially become unavailable.

I want to be sure that the best possible action is being taken before taking action.
Many members are frustrated by the reputation system right now, as they are justified in being, however, often they will quickly jump on the bandwagon of any suggestion to change the system, simply because it's a change, and they don't like what it is currently, without being adequately aware of the potentially worse consequences of that change, or any better solutions to the problems that bother them.
My first priority is the long term success and happiness of the entire site, and I have had many years of experience as a staff member to develop an understanding of what that will ultimately entail.
Sometimes that leads to disagreements between myself and other members. Unfortunately that isn't something that I can prevent.

Instead of having moderators handle this situation *clearly* adding reputation resolvers will be a much better choice, they won't get paid for doing such a job i don't see a problem as well making it easier on you the staff team and faster on us the community

 

[pace]

How about hire someone that can actually handle the role of a scam resolver and not a carbon copy of M6 who is coincidentally his brother?

did you read the title wrong?
it is a reputation resolver not a scam resolver

 

[Justis]

Instead of having moderators handle this situation *clearly* adding reputation resolvers will be a much better choice, they won't get paid for doing such a job i don't see a problem as well making it easier on you the staff team and faster on us the community

Assuming a competent staff member is added to MC-Market, and not an incompetent one, then they would be more beneficial to MCM as a regular moderator while the entire moderation team is handling rep reports, than as a reputation moderator in a separate branch.

Reasons for this being:
1. If they have time time to do more than just reputation, they can do more than just reputation thus further alieving the rest of the moderation team.
2. If they are ever unavailable to do reputation, other staff members are just as capable of handling the task, because it has also been their responsibility and they have been doing them as well, and reputation reports are never met with a delay.

You're misplacing the source of the benefits, crediting them to the fact that there would be another team, and not to the fact that there would be more staff members.
The fact that there would be more staff members is the actual source of any relief that the staff team might feel off their shoulders, not the fact that the team is split into a reputation branch.

If, after the moderation system changes I've described have been implemented, the moderation team is capable of handling reputation, then the addition of a single competent staff will be even more beneficial than if responsibilities were further separated, because we would be able to much more efficiently make use of the additional time and support that member could provide without limiting the support that we can provide those who need it for reputation.

If, after the moderation system changes I've described are implemented, the moderation team is incapable of handling reputation to the desired standards, only then could a separate team possibly be more beneficial. As it is with scam reports and resources.
However, the moderation team has not yet been provided the changes which I've described, so it is unreasonable to jump to the assumption that a separate team is more beneficial.

 

[Recension]

Currently, there are 3 branches of government on this website - (just like the U.S.A)

Useful -
Just breathing air -
Useless -

I believe having a reputation person would be extremely useful, as there are only a few moderators on the website, so it would definitely reduce work for them.

 

[pace]

Assuming a competent staff member is added to MC-Market, and not an incompetent one, then they would be more beneficial to MCM as a regular moderator while the entire moderation team is handling rep reports, than as a reputation moderator in a separate branch.

Reasons for this being:
1. If they have time time to do more than just reputation, they can do more than just reputation thus further alieving the rest of the moderation team.
2. If they are ever unavailable to do reputation, other staff members are just as capable of handling the task, because it has also been their responsibility and they have been doing them as well, and reputation reports are never met with a delay.

You're misplacing the source of the benefits, crediting them to the fact that there would be another team, and not to the fact that there would be more staff members.
The fact that there would be more staff members is the actual source of any relief that the staff team might feel off their shoulders, not the fact that the team is split into a reputation branch.

If, after the moderation system changes I've described have been implemented, the moderation team is capable of handling reputation, then the addition of a single competent staff will be even more beneficial than if responsibilities were further separated, because we would be able to much more efficiently make use of the additional time and support that member could provide without limiting the support that we can provide those who need it for reputation.

If, after the moderation system changes I've described are implemented, the moderation team is incapable of handling reputation to the desired standards, only then could a separate team possibly be more beneficial. As it is with scam reports and resources.
However, the moderation team has not yet been provided the changes which I've described, so it is unreasonable to jump to the assumption that a separate team is more beneficial.

Reputation system is not a toy as i have stated above the reputation system is what makes the market move and what judges a character and adding a dedicated team only for the purpose of improving that system i have no problem doing so as reputation is highly judged on the market

 

[Jerry]

did you read the title wrong?
it is a reputation resolver not a scam resolver

He made that comment on my behalf but I enabled my account to comment further on this.

Why don't we get staff that can protect the users and who use the pay they're receiving as motivation to actually do something. Why get auxiliary staff for something as meaningless as rep when scam reports take forever to get dealt with and the resolvers are mongs who can't understand how to open their eyes or do their job?

This suggestion, while good in theory, is awful at this time because of the other pressing matters such as scam reports piling up and scammers running rampant on the site. My two cents, do with it as you please.

 

[pace]

He made that comment on my behalf but I enabled my account to comment further on this.

Why don't we get staff that can protect the users and who use the pay they're receiving as motivation to actually do something. Why get auxiliary staff for something as meaningless as rep when scam reports take forever to get dealt with and the resolvers are mongs who can't understand how to open their eyes or do their job?

This suggestion, while good in theory, is awful at this time because of the other pressing matters such as scam reports piling up and scammers running rampant on the site. My two cents, do with it as you please.

Scam resolvers is another topic, as well Jerry if rep is what you think is then it wouldn't have been implemented into the market? or would it
people judge by the reputation as i clearly stated which also leads people to get scammed normally and they won't be able to have there freedom to sell, buy nor trade just because of their rep.

 

[Jerry]

Scam resolvers is another topic, as well Jerry if rep is what you think is then it wouldn't have been implemented into the market? or would it people judge by the reputation as i clearly stated which also leads people to get scammed normally and they won't be able to have there freedom to sell, buy nor trade just because of their rep.

At this point in time rep means nothing. Randos have tons of rep from selling of capes and shit like that while others with lower rep have done actual deals with significant value. I saw some rep that said, "helped me in chat box." Do you really think that's something that people should be basing their ability to trust a user on? The rep system is garbage and profile Vouches should be utilized more because it's easier to give more info and it's not a competition with people begging for rep because there's no number attached.