Reputation System Suggestions

[User]

Yes, I know this is about the 100th of its kind, but this is quite clearly a big issue within the community.

I have one main argument, and that is: If you are removing reputation without proof and/or from banned members for the community's benefit, and the community nearly unanimously has stated on numerous occasions that they do not want it, it should not be required.

Reputation, currently, is being disputed and removed from hundreds if not thousands of members. There are good intentions behind it; to prevent false reputation. However, there are a few flaws with this system.

Flaw 1: If banned members provided valid proof, then the deal is valid. A member being banned is entirely unrelated to a reputation they left on a member. If they provided valid proof, and were not banned for anything that might suggest they were in the habit of creating false reputation, then the reputation should still stand. Say a member is banned for garnering too many warning points, such as Zelda. They did not scam out or create fake reputation, they just broke chat rules such as toxicity or spamming (most likely). Even if the person in question did scam out, how does that prove they would have created false reputation? There are many members of this community that are permanently banned on MC-Market, but still considered reputable and trustworthy, such as smuj. These users would have had no reason to make fake reputation.

Flaw 2: This is an incredibly long, unnecessary, and tedious process for staff. Staff are dealing with, as I said earlier, hundreds or even thousands of reputation disputes and removals at the current moment. Just one user, t-rex, has 40+ disputes and at least 16 reputation statements removed. While staff could be doing scam reports, support requests, etc, all of which the community has been begging for months for increased attention (which we have received; the backlogs have been significantly lowered, and we very much appreciate that), they appear to be focusing on, or at least giving equal share to, the reputation disputes that are widely disliked. The priorities seem to be quite misplaced, at least, in terms of the interest of the community using this site. (p.s, feedback moderation is good, I just advise against mass removal/disputing. It's more sensible, in my opinion, to deal with reputation reported as false by the receiver of the reputation.

Personally, I think both of these problems can be easily fixed. Rather than forcefully removing all reputations lacking evidence or that have been posted by a banned member, I think that adding an automatic warning/alert to reputations would be significantly better. Anyone viewing the reputation page of any member will be able to see what reputation statements lack proof, and which are posted by banned members. This can be done as simply as putting a line through the reputation posters name to indicate a ban, and showing a small thumbnail of proof next to the reputation. This would allow the members of the community to decide for themselves which users should be trusted and which should not, as we've been doing for the past few years, and give both members and staff more freedom.

If you have any objections, alternate ideas, or information/ideas to add on to this post, feel free to reply with your thoughts. I'll try my best to respond to all.

 

[User]

I mean, at least now you can argue in a rep dispute, a year ago you literally just lost no matter what it seemed. The attention was drawn away because of the new role "FM - Feedback Moderator", so their job is literally to open and respond to these reports while the rest of the staff team focuses on other things.

Yes, and I don't object to feedback moderators/moderation. However, mass removal and disputes is not the way to go. It would be much more suitable for them to focus reputation that one of the sides claimed themselves was false, rather than that a third-party or the staff discovered lacked proof or were posted by a banned member.

 

[User]

The problem is that no user would claim their reputation as false, the system requires the picture to be valid and many people cut out on it. The user t-rex was targeted and had all his reputation reported. I don't agree but the feedback moderators would be doing nothing but disputing negative rep and reputation would be far too inflated and easy to gain.

Reputation isn't necessarily easy to gain unless you're dealing with small amounts, which almost always are cracked accounts (against the rules). These can be taken care of by other moderators. T-Rex may have been targeted, but that, once again, means this system is faulty and easily exploitable by practically anyone. As far as I can see, the people who are losing reputation aren't able to provide proof themselves, either. And finally, this doesn't really apply to banned members; there's legitimately no reason to remove a valid reputation from a banned member.

 

[Justis]

Point 1: The community doesn’t want what’s best for the community, the community is full of individuals who want what they feel is best for themselves. That’s why the staff team exists, to think about the community over personal interest. When you do that, and you take in the argument for why banned member feedback needs to be removed, you realize it is necessary.

Point 2: I agree. It’s a waste of staff time. Banned user feedback should be removed automatically. I suggested this a while ago, in fact.

EDIT: Reasonably, the individuals who want what’s best for the community disagreed with the first statement. Please know I wasn’t referring to you. There’s simply not enough of you good souls to overpower the tens of thousands of people who use this website for personal interests only, and “What the community wants” refers to the majority.
My phrasing could have been better. Apologies.

 

[Clown]

Who tf cares about reputation anyways man , im just getting straight up mad when im getting negative rep for my attitude

 

[Doge]

Flaw 1: If banned members provided valid proof, then the deal is valid. A member being banned is entirely unrelated to a reputation they left on a member. If they provided valid proof, and were not banned for anything that might suggest they were in the habit of creating false reputation, then the reputation should still stand. Say a member is banned for garnering too many warning points, such as Zelda. They did not scam out or create fake reputation, they just broke chat rules such as toxicity or spamming (most likely). Even if the person in question did scam out, how does that prove they would have created false reputation? There are many members of this community that are permanently banned on MC-Market, but still considered reputable and trustworthy, such as smuj. These users would have had no reason to make fake reputation.

I wholeheartedly agree! Being banned does not invalidate rep that is accompanied by proof.

Point 1: The community doesn’t want what’s best for the community, the community is full of individuals who want what they feel is best for themselves. That’s why the staff team exists, to think about the community over personal interest. When you do that, and you take in the argument for why banned member feedback needs to be removed, you realize it is necessary.

Point 2: I agree. It’s a waste of staff time. Banned user feedback should be removed automatically. I suggested this a while ago, in fact.

Oh boy, where to start

The community doesn’t want what’s best for the community, the community is full of individuals who want what they feel is best for themselves. That’s why the staff team exists, to think about the community over personal interest.

Not having a red name color doesn't mean that one is selfish/doesn't know what's best. What you are saying is absurd. Most suggestions are made with the intent to help the community. Oftentimes, perceived problems are brought to light by a personal experience, and then a suggestion is made with the thought that it will be beneficial to themselves AND everyone else, because then it won't happen to other people. The whole "banned user rep removal" thing is a perfect example. One person has it happen to them, they realize it's an issue, and they make a thread in hopes of it benefiting everyone because the change would affect everyone. A suggestion is a request for change, and in order to need change, there needs to be a perceived problem. Being affected by the perceived problem and making a suggestion about it does not mean that one is ONLY doing it because they were affected, but rather because the perceived problem was brought to their attention.

When you do that, and you take in the argument for why banned member feedback needs to be removed, you realize it is necessary.

The way this comes off to me is: "Silly non-red-name mortals, the opinion of your overlords is a fact! You just don't see it because you don't know what's best for the community, you're only acting in your own best interest and not the community's, like we are!" Please step off your high horse. Being pro-deletion of banned member's rep is an OPINION still, not a fact and you being a staff member doesn't mean you are right or that your opinion is more valid.

What is this "argument for why banned member feedback needs to be removed" which you speak of? I tried to find it in your posts, but I can't. I would really like to see it. I also would like to know why rep from a member who once did a valid deal with proof is all of a sudden no longer considered valid because of their own decisions, completely unrelated to the deal in question, which results in the receiver of the rep being punished by having their rep removed.

I've always been pro-community before I was staff, while I was staff and after I was no longer staff. I never believed that I was some beacon of righteousness whose opinions were facts. I used to actively argue my case in suggestion threads and I always felt like an equal member of the community, I never believed that my red name color meant my opinions were facts or that I knew better than an entire community.

What you are trying to do is invalidate the opinions/suggestions of non-staff members because you think their ideas stem only from self interest and that they don't know any better, and that's just bullshit.

 

[Justis]

I wholeheartedly agree! Being banned does not invalidate rep that is accompanied by proof.




Oh boy, where to start



Not having a red name color doesn't mean that one is selfish/doesn't know what's best. What you are saying is absurd. Most suggestions are made with the intent to help the community. Oftentimes, perceived problems are brought to light by a personal experience, and then a suggestion is made with the thought that it will be beneficial to themselves AND everyone else, because then it won't happen to other people. The whole "banned user rep removal" thing is a perfect example. One person has it happen to them, they realize it's an issue, and they make a thread in hopes of it benefiting everyone because the change would affect everyone. A suggestion is a request for change, and in order to need change, there needs to be a perceived problem. Being affected by the perceived problem and making a suggestion about it does not mean that one is ONLY doing it because they were affected, but rather because the perceived problem was brought to their attention.

It was a hyperbole to illustrate a point in refutal of the claim that because the community wants something, that thing must therefore be good for the community. Clearly there are a number of individuals who prioritize the community above their own business. I would not suggest that only staff members are capable of that. The staff team was derived from the community after all. But those who can afford those priorities do not make the majority. And that’s fine. It’s not their responsibility. More often than not, what’s good for the individual is good for the community as a whole, so it isn’t as though community interests are irrelevant. I wouldn’t suggest that either.
It is, however, naive to think that community interest reliably reflects what’s best for everyone, as User originally implied.

The way this comes off to me is: "Silly non-red-name mortals, the opinion of your overlords is a fact! You just don't see it because you don't know what's best for the community, you're only acting in your own best interest and not the community's, like we are!" Please step off your high horse. Being pro-deletion of banned member's rep is an OPINION still, not a fact and you being a staff member doesn't mean you are right or that your opinion is more valid.

What is this "argument for why banned member feedback needs to be removed" which you speak of? I tried to find it in your posts, but I can't. I would really like to see it. I also would like to know why rep from a member who once did a valid deal with proof is all of a sudden no longer considered valid because of their own decisions, completely unrelated to the deal in question, which results in the receiver of the rep being punished by having their rep removed.

I've always been pro-community before I was staff, while I was staff and after I was no longer staff. I never believed that I was some beacon of righteousness whose opinions were facts. I used to actively argue my case in suggestion threads and I always felt like an equal member of the community, I never believed that my red name color meant my opinions were facts or that I knew better than an entire community.

What you are trying to do is invalidate the opinions/suggestions of non-staff members because you think their ideas stem only from self interest and that they don't know any better, and that's just bullshit.

There are a number of staff members who dislike the idea of deleting banned user’s feedback. I actually never suggested that having a staff color makes you suddenly correct. That was a misinterpretation of my words.
What makes someone correct is having a solution to a problem that provides the most desired outcome. Which is, factually, the deletion of banned users’ feedback. Keeping it would be a logical fault, and I have strong faith that everyone is capable of seeing that, if viewing the problem objectively, which is why I speak of it as a fact, rather than an opinion.

Here’s the original thread I made for it back in 2016: https://www.mc-market.org/threads/160649/
Here’s a recent thread in which I defended the removal of all banned user feedback: https://www.mc-market.org/threads/508725/

The argument is:

1. The reputation system’s entire purpose is to allow users to gauge the community’s collective opinion of a user.
That is why it’s there. That is precisely why it exists, and we make policies and design its features specifically for that purpose.

2. Banned users are no longer members of this community. Thus, in order to function in line with its purpose, non-community members’ opinions, by definition, do not belong within the system.

a) Banned users, having been removed from MCM, do not have the ability to update their feedback for the users they’ve interacted with, should their opinions of our users change. They are completely disconnected from the system, and thus, the feedback which remains, which is supposedly a reflection of their opinions of our users, ceases to serve its purpose as a reflection of their opinions.
​

The above statements factually identify a contradiction with the suggestion that banned users’ feedback should stay. The premise clearly violates the purpose of the system.

Some more open to interpretation arguments are as follows:

b) Users are banned because they can no longer be trusted to comply with our policies. Users are able to leave feedback because we entrust in them the responsibility of leaving feedback which accurately represents their opinions at the time. For banned users, who we removed because they proved themselves not having been trustworthy, the feedback they left can also not be trusted to be an accurate reflection of their opinions.

i) Banned users are, by majority, the most observably intolerant of other people, and prior to having been banned, are among the most toxic and willing to abuse a system.

ii) They participate in rule violating behavior which often illicit an inappropriate response, and then leave negative feedback based on that inappropriate response, not for the sake of the community, but for the sake of hurting the image of the user they dislike. Because the user did respond inappropriately, and everyone is entitled an opinion, we cannot deny the toxic user the ability to leave feedback on it, however, if they continue their behavior and prove themselves untrustworthy, they will end up banned. The feedback doesn’t represent interactions with a rule abiding community member, it represents interactions with someone whose behavior has lead them to be banned.

ii) Feedback by banned users are significantly more likely to have been left as a result of policy violations left uncaught, such as “rep for rep” behavior, sharing account access, creating alt accounts, and ban evasion accounts, the latter two make up a significant majority of our banned user-base. Often times, ban evaders will get banned for scamming or other significant violations before they’ve slipped up and made a significant connection to their past banned accounts. The fact that they are banned means these violations will almost certainly go on remaining uncaught. Their feedback needs to be removed to cut out these abuses.
​

Few of us enjoy wasting our time in a transaction that doesn’t contribute to our reputation on MCM; and if we do one with the expectation that it will, it’s certainly disappointing to see that feedback get removed. But it doesn’t belong. For the sake of the community and the reliability and stability of our feedback system as a whole, it must be removed.

 

[Terminated]

a) Banned users, having been removed from MCM, do not have the ability to update their feedback for the users they’ve interacted with, should their opinions of our users change. They are completely disconnected from the system, and thus, the feedback which remains, which is supposedly a reflection of their opinions of our users, ceases to serve its purpose as a reflection of their opinions.

So why not, rather than punishing users who are still part of the community, implement a way for this to happen just like the Restricted Scam Report role. It is ridiculous to say that it is a "fact" that banned users reputations should be removed as you yourself said that there are differing opinions in the staff team.

If banned users are no longer part of the community, why is it possible to view their profile pages, see and read their posts and have the ability to write on their profiles, add new reputation and so much more? Why is it also possible for banned users to have this much of a punitive effect on users who are still a part of this community? Surely them being banned is a way to remove them so they cannot affect users in that way any more and it seems to be the complete opposite right now. We can still view and interact with banned users' legacy in every other way so why should their reputation be an exception to this?

Users have been on this forum for years before being banned some of the time, it must then also be true that those people have not changed at all since they joined? The notion that because they were banned NOW, they were ALWAYS untrustworthy is also very much wrong.

Even if your reasons for it being necessary to remove banned users feedback were correct, as said by User , even providing a cross through the person who left the reputation's name would suffice to notify users that it may be left for one of the reasons you quoted.

I really do hope you have good intentions.

 

[Zyger]

I think that there should be more of an incentive for people to leave valid proof, because currently a lot of people upload random unrelated pictures.

This can get pretty annoying as the reputation will eventually be removed, which is basically punishing the receiver of the reputation even though they didn't do anything wrong.

This means that you then have to go through the hassle of contacting the person who left the reputation in the first place, then try to get them to update it with proper proof.

Even if you contact them, usually they will just ignore it because they can't be bothered or they're inactive, which is why I think providing proper proof needs to be enforced a lot more.

I don't think that the reputation of banned members should be removed either, unless the proof is invalid.

 

[Justis]

So why not, rather than punishing users who are still part of the community, implement a way for this to happen just like the Restricted Scam Report role. It is ridiculous to say that it is a "fact" that banned users reputations should be removed as you yourself said that there are differing opinions in the staff team.

If banned users are no longer part of the community, why is it possible to view their profile pages, see and read their posts and have the ability to write on their profiles, add new reputation and so much more? Why is it also possible for banned users to have this much of a punitive effect on users who are still a part of this community? Surely them being banned is a way to remove them so they cannot affect users in that way any more and it seems to be the complete opposite right now. We can still view and interact with banned users' legacy in every other way so why should their reputation be an exception to this?

Users have been on this forum for years before being banned some of the time, it must then also be true that those people have not changed at all since they joined? The notion that because they were banned NOW, they were ALWAYS untrustworthy is also very much wrong.

Even if your reasons for it being necessary to remove banned users feedback were correct, as said by User , even providing a cross through the person who left the reputation's name would suffice to notify users that it may be left for one of the reasons you quoted.

I really do hope you have good intentions.

I’ll respond to each of your two comparisons.

Scam reports:

Even users who have never been members of our community can create an account to file a scam report on someone they’ve never interacted with on MC-Market or in relation to MC-Market before. Being a member of the community is not necessary.

Reputation, however, requires the person leaving it be a member of the community. We even require that users be a member of the website for at least a month before they can give feedback to anyone.
​

Profile Viewing:

Until recently, this was not possible. However, they were made public as a means of allowing users to protect themselves with the information on those profiles. So that they know what the user is done and what contact information, products, accounts, etc. to avoid in order to prevent themselves from being scammed, and so that they have the info needed to file reports to get the user banned again if they create an account to ban evade with. Unfortunately, the change is fairly new, so there are some normal minor functions which are still available on a banned member’s profile, such as making profile posts. But the purpose is still to help everyone keep these banned users out of our community and their interactions, and the function is compliant with that purpose.
​

Even if your reasons for it being necessary to remove banned users feedback were correct, as said by User , even providing a cross through the person who left the reputation's name would suffice to notify users that it may be left for one of the reasons you quoted.

I had considered the possibility that graying out the feedback, and not counting it in everyone’s reputation totals could be a viable alternative which would be less upsetting. It is true that doing so would severely cut out the negative symptoms that result of allowing a feature which contradict’s the system’s purpose, however, the contradiction would still exist. Covered up or not.

Users have been on this forum for years before being banned some of the time, it must then also be true that those people have not changed at all since they joined?

I’d like to respond to this. It is true that people change, and people cannot be relied upon at the present simply because they could be relied upon in the past. Ebay has made it so that only trade feedback received within the last 12 months is displayed.
In order to ensure that feedback is an accurate representation of both the user’s current disposition, and the community’s current opinion of that user, we should also be hiding feedback which hasn’t been updated in the last 12 months or so.
Although, since the person who left it is still a member of our community, graying out and not counting it until it’s updated again would be reasonable.

I think that there should be more of an incentive for people to leave valid proof, because currently a lot of people upload random unrelated pictures.

This can get pretty annoying as the reputation will eventually be removed, which is basically punishing the receiver of the reputation even though they didn't do anything wrong.

This means that you then have to go through the hassle of contacting the person who left the reputation in the first place, then try to get them to update it with proper proof.

Even if you contact them, usually they will just ignore it because they can't be bothered or they're inactive, which is why I think providing proper proof needs to be enforced a lot more.

I don't think that the reputation of banned members should be removed either, unless the proof is invalid.

I’ve suggested and the staff team has all agreed that the person receiving the feedback should be able to add their own supporting evidence to the feedback they receive. This would allow everyone to ensure that their feedback isn’t removed for failing to contain supporting evidence, if the person who left it fails their responsibility to upload the required evidence.
Since it’s their own feedback, they have incentive to add the evidence.

 

[Zyger]

I’ve suggested and the staff team has all agreed that the person receiving the feedback should be able to add their own supporting evidence to the feedback they receive. This would allow everyone to ensure that their feedback isn’t removed for failing to contain supporting evidence, if the person who left it fails their responsibility to upload the required evidence.
Since it’s their own feedback, they have incentive to add the evidence.

Is this something that's going to be implemented in the future e.g. an "Upload a file" button for the receiver of the reputation? Or are we supposed to add the evidence as a comment of the reputation right now?

 

[Justis]

Is this something that's going to be implemented in the future e.g. an "Upload a file" button for the receiver of the reputation? Or are we supposed to add the evidence as a comment of the reputation right now?

Yes, it’s planned. Comments don’t have an “Upload a file” button, unfortunately, so that’s not a valid alternative.
We can’t accept links either, since the contents at the other end can be changed at any time, and we wouldn’t have reliable logs of them.

The suggested feature would split the evidence section of the feedback into two sections. One for the creator and one for the receiver. The evidence would be displayed in those two separate columns, and evidence posted by either person would be viable.

 

[Zyger]

Yes, it’s planned. Comments don’t have an “Upload a file” button, unfortunately, so that’s not a valid alternative.
We can’t accept links either, since the contents at the other end can be changed at any time, and we wouldn’t have reliable logs of them.

The suggested feature would split the evidence section of the feedback into two sections. One for the creator and one for the receiver. The evidence would be displayed in those two separate columns, and evidence posted by either person would be viable.

Ahh I see, yeah that's a pretty good idea, you should try to get it implemented ASAP imo since it'd help reduce the amount of reports that the feedback staff would have to look through as well.

 

[Orochimaru]

makes me think of when I neg repped of a dude calling me the hard R, and me neg repping him, then he reports it as false cause he deleted the msgs
like bruh moment

 

[Terminated]

I’ll respond to each of your two comparisons.

Scam reports:

Even users who have never been members of our community can create an account to file a scam report on someone they’ve never interacted with on MC-Market or in relation to MC-Market before. Being a member of the community is not necessary.

Reputation, however, requires the person leaving it be a member of the community. We even require that users be a member of the website for at least a month before they can give feedback to anyone.
​

Profile Viewing:

Until recently, this was not possible. However, they were made public as a means of allowing users to protect themselves with the information on those profiles. So that they know what the user is done and what contact information, products, accounts, etc. to avoid in order to prevent themselves from being scammed, and so that they have the info needed to file reports to get the user banned again if they create an account to ban evade with. Unfortunately, the change is fairly new, so there are some normal minor functions which are still available on a banned member’s profile, such as making profile posts. But the purpose is still to help everyone keep these banned users out of our community and their interactions, and the function is compliant with that purpose.
​

I had considered the possibility that graying out the feedback, and not counting it in everyone’s reputation totals could be a viable alternative which would be less upsetting. It is true that doing so would severely cut out the negative symptoms that result of allowing a feature which contradict’s the system’s purpose, however, the contradiction would still exist. Covered up or not.


I’d like to respond to this. It is true that people change, and people cannot be relied upon at the present simply because they could be relied upon in the past. Ebay has made it so that only trade feedback received within the last 12 months is displayed.
In order to ensure that feedback is an accurate representation of both the user’s current disposition, and the community’s current opinion of that user, we should also be hiding feedback which hasn’t been updated in the last 12 months or so.
Although, since the person who left it is still a member of our community, graying out and not counting it until it’s updated again would be reasonable.


I’ve suggested and the staff team has all agreed that the person receiving the feedback should be able to add their own supporting evidence to the feedback they receive. This would allow everyone to ensure that their feedback isn’t removed for failing to contain supporting evidence, if the person who left it fails their responsibility to upload the required evidence.
Since it’s their own feedback, they have incentive to add the evidence.

I thing graying out or making banned users reps neutral is a valid solution of sorts. It is less punishing to current members and that would be good as it still leavs the feedback visible.

I dont think that this solution is very damaging to how the system is supposed to work, i think its generally quite reasonable as it still leaves their feedback as it should whether that be negative or positive so it lets users make a decision for themselves.

I do still mainly think that the system should be changed rather than us trying to accomodate for something that punishes valuable users.

 

[Justis]

I thing graying out or making banned users reps neutral is a valid solution of sorts. It is less punishing to current members and that would be good as it still leavs the feedback visible.

I dont think that this solution is very damaging to how the system is supposed to work, i think its generally quite reasonable as it still leaves their feedback as it should whether that be negative or positive so it lets users make a decision for themselves.

I do still mainly think that the system should be changed rather than us trying to accomodate for something that punishes valuable users.

It’s absolutely unfair as it is now, being removed manually after we receive a report about it from a user that may just be attempting to target someone. That’s not unreasonable to consider a punishment. At that point, one user has lost feedback for a reason that many users have not, and thus they have comparably less. It’s unjust. Hence the current outrage.
However, if all banned feedback from all banned members were removed automatically for everyone, there wouldn’t be anything unfair about it. It would merely be one detail of how the system functions in consistency with its intended purpose.
I believe everyone would quickly get used to it if this were the case. Since the feedback would only ever be able to be removed one ban at a time, and bans for people who you’ve dealt with are as infrequent as they are, there would be no sense of great loss during normal activity once we’ve gotten the initial mass removal over with.

There was once a time when the majority of the community demanded MCM allow its users to do MC alt sale transactions here if they wanted. Saying yes would have pleased everyone, but we said no, and now the community is both a better place because of it, and whenever a suggestion pops up about changing that, everyone is quick to shut it down, because the majority now realize that the change and all of its subtle implications would not be good for the community.
This is not always the case. As I said in my response to Doge, more often than not what’s good for the individual is good for the community. More often than not. However, when I see a proposition which contradicts the purpose of the thing which is proposed to be changed, red flags go up. Mitigating the effects of the fact that a contradiction was introduced won’t change the fact that a contradiction was introduced. Contradictions within a system are the identifier of a mistake, a wrong choice. Regardless of the short term positivities it was hoped to preserve and maybe even successfully preserved.