Revenge Rep Removal

[Zeimzey]

It seems like you can't give somebody a well-deserved negative reputation without recieving one in return. By giving someone a negative rep, you are almost guaranteed to receive one as well. My suggestion is not not allow revenge rep, if reported with proof I think the rep should be removed.

 

[Zeimzey]

If someone is blatantly using it as punishment/revenge rep, it'll be removed. But your rep isn't being removed because right now, there is no proof that you didn't do it. If you make a support request and just wait, the rep will be removed unless he can provide proof of his claims.

I am not talking about my current rep in general, I did provide proof in my report and I am awaiting response.

 

[Zeimzey]

If someone gives a neg rep and says, "neg repped me because ...." it will automatically be thrown out for blatant revenge repping and for using the rep system as punishment.

If you have proof that someone is lying, it can be thrown out really easy. Revenge repping is already against the rules, it's just a matter of what's in the rep. If you neg rep someone for, let's say, "This user caused arguments in the chat and was very toxic toward people. He kept doing ... and saying ..." and that same person you neg repped neg reps you and says something like, "This user is very toxic. He did ... and ..." it would be classified as informative. It would only be thrown out if he couldn't provide evidence of the claims.

Revenge repping is not against the rules.

 

[Zeimzey]

If someone gives a neg rep and says, "neg repped me because ...." it will automatically be thrown out for blatant revenge repping and for using the rep system as punishment.

If you have proof that someone is lying, it can be thrown out really easy. Revenge repping is already against the rules, it's just a matter of what's in the rep. If you neg rep someone for, let's say, "This user caused arguments in the chat and was very toxic toward people. He kept doing ... and saying ..." and that same person you neg repped neg reps you and says something like, "This user is very toxic. He did ... and ..." it would be classified as informative. It would only be thrown out if he couldn't provide evidence of the claims.

Justis and Bucket both stated that it is allowed in SB you said "Revenge repping is already against the rules" Revenge rep is allowed.

 

[Ally]

Justis and Bucket both stated that it is allowed in SB you said "Revenge repping is already against the rules" Revenge rep is allowed.

Revenge rep is allowed? LOL.

No, it's not. The only reason a reputation would be allowed is if it gave valid evidence of the person doing something wrong. If a person gave someone a valid neg rep, only for that someone to give that person a neg rep, also, saying 'This person gave me a neg rep! DNDW', that would be removed under rule 9.1/4

9.1 Do not give reputation which is not truthful, relevant and informative.

9.4 Do not use reputation as a currency, reward, condition, incentive, punishment or deterrent.

TL;DR, revenge rep at its core is NOT permitted.

 

[Justis]

"Revenge rep" is not an official term used by any MC-Market documents; and for good reason. The implications that it has aren't consistent across those who would interpret it, and it isn't necessarily how we want to enforce the use of our reputation system.
For instance, we don't want reputation to become first come first serve and just because someone puts negative reputation on you first means you can't leave one on them as well.
Any use of the term "revenge rep" would need to be overwritten with an additional description. So it's meaningless. The term is meaningless.

In most situations, what many people consider "revenge rep" would be violating at least one of our current rules, and in other cases, it wouldn't, because for instance the reputation is informative, and contains useful and relevant information to our forum and any future interactions someone might have with a user.

To say revenge rep is allowed would not be entirely correct and to say it was disallowed would also be incorrect.

What matters is the actual contents of the reputation that contributes.
If the information is false or irrelevant, report it and get it removed.

 

[Mick]

"Revenge rep" is not an official term used by any MC-Market documents; and for good reason. The implications that it has aren't consistent across those who would interpret it, and it isn't necessarily how we want to enforce the use of our reputation system.
For instance, we don't want reputation to become first come first serve and just because someone puts negative reputation on you first means you can't leave one on them as well.
Any use of the term "revenge rep" would need to be overwritten with an additional description. So it's meaningless. The term is meaningless.

In most situations, what many people consider "revenge rep" would be violating at least one of our current rules, and in other cases, it wouldn't, because for instance the reputation is informative, and contains useful and relevant information to our forum and any future interactions someone might have with a user.

To say revenge rep is allowed would not be entirely correct and to say it was disallowed would also be incorrect.

What matters is the actual contents of the reputation that contributes.
If the information is false or irrelevant, report it and get it removed.

Well put.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.