Reputation

[jacobi]

i just have a thot, what if mcm replicates paypals dispute payments, for example if Jimmy neg repped Penelope, Penelope can 'open a dispute' on that reputation, they have a 24hours to try and solve their issue between them, if they cant solve within 24 hours then staff get involved (dispute gets escalated) and then staff give the crown to whoever seems more reliable/correct, in which case the reputation that Jimmy put upon Penelope is locked their and cant be reported from Penelope again but CAN be deleted by Jimmy.

JUST AN IDEA DONT BE TO HARSH IM LITERALLY JUST TRYING MY BEST WHILE IM @ SCHOOL DONT HATE ME !

ALSO SORRY IF THIS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED >_<

 

[jacobi]

Sounds a lot like a private message + support request

similar but its just a system similar/exact to paypal that may benefit the organization and ties to my other suggestion

 

[jacobi]

Why change it, there's more important things to do than implement something so useless

Why change it? because idk if your aware but reputation is a huge issue on this site, idk if your neg rep is false or true but if you reported it, it will take an enormous amount of time for it to be dealt with.

 

[jacobi]

You report it because the other person is obviously not gonna remove it.
If you could get the other person to remove it without contacting support then you would do that anyway.

thats where your false, people report prior to trying to resolve the issue with the other client, hence why i suggested this.

 

[jacobi]

Because they already know the reporter is not going to remove it. That's the case with 99.9% of neg reps in support tickets.
Nobody is dealing with any money, shouldn't use a system like PayPal for neg reps

The thing is if you NEVER TRY to solve it with the other client you will NEVER know whether or not it would be removed, which i know from personal experience because i have spoken to someone who negrepped me and we solved it. Thats why i emphasized the whole system as a dispute between the two clients because if they cant solve it their then after that it gets escalated.
To prevent staff wasting time so the only thing staff would have to do is review their messages and come to a conclusion.[DOUBLEPOST=1536870324][/DOUBLEPOST]

This is already implemented, staff just have to tag the users when the report gets made.

This isnt implemented...

 

[jacobi]

It's not exactly like you said but it's very close to it (for scam reports)

yea but this is more for reputation where theirs a conversation WHETHER IT BE PMS OR NOT between the 2 parties, if they cant come to a conclusion staff can review the messages and then lock the rep and never have it reported again.[DOUBLEPOST=1536870601][/DOUBLEPOST]1. forces members to abide by rules because i can recall me reporting a neg repp, it getting denied, and then reporting a neg repp again in different diction and possibly persuasive technique that lead to it being removed.

 

[Justis]

We already have a replacement system planned for reputation moderation, in which disputes occur automatically between users, and staff join the active dispute after accepting responsibility for the report.
Users will then have chance to resolve or at least move along the dispute to the point where a staff member's final decision is hopefully all that's required.

The problem is our previous developer failed to provide us the features we paid for, so we'll be needing to get ourselves a new developer. He was recently demoted, as noted in the announcement.

 

[jacobi]

We already have a replacement system planned for reputation moderation, in which disputes occur automatically between users, and staff join the active dispute after accepting responsibility for the report.
Users will then have chance to resolve or at least move along the dispute to the point where a staff member's final decision is hopefully all that's required.

The problem is our previous developer failed to provide us the features we paid for, so we'll be needing to get ourselves a new developer. He was recently demoted, as noted in the announcement.

thank you, sounds similar to my idea in a way but yea thank you for clarifying ![DOUBLEPOST=1536870813][/DOUBLEPOST]

I mean, who cares if someone can report a rep once or twice not really a inconvenience for you

because then users wont put themselves in a situation where they will be negrepped if they can never report it again, which is a huge issue by itself but as Justis said, they have a system so this debate is for nothing --(^-^)--

 

[jacobi]

Don't get me wrong, I feel like it should/could be updated but the way you suggested is fairly close to what we have now

i mean i guess, just trying to add some more organization and Community independance since no one wants to speak to eachother about the reputation and rely on staff 24/7

 

[jacobi]

This suggestion is not plausible because let's say member1 gives member2 a negative reputation for something member2 did. member2 gives member1 a negative reputation for something he didn't do. member1 makes a conversation with member2 and member2 is not going to budge on removing his reputation on member1. member1 then gets staff involved. member1 provides proof that member2 is lying, member2 can't provide proof of his claims so member2's reputation on member1 is removed, and member2's reputation stays and is on lock. member2 can't report it, because of the lock. member1 later decides he wants to be corrupt and change his reputation to something false, like "this user doxed me" or "this user scammed me". Unless member2 checks his reputation daily to see if anything changed from his past reputation, member2 will have to deal with the false accusation until staff are able to handle it.

This can make people abuse the reputation system even more if this was set in place.

I know I've had my fair share of getting negative repped for negative repping someone and the majority were false. People either twisted things in the reputation or straight up lied. If someone lies in their reputation, it means that person is not reasonable. In my times of getting reputation disputed, the person who left the reputation kept trying to say their reputation was right, despite proof being countered on them and them not being able to provide proof and that's where staff come in, to handle it.

People just need to be more patient with getting their dispute handled, as there is a queue of reports/disputes that staff have to go through.

point proven >_<