Staff negative rep

[BrianGrug]

I feel like it should be a rule that staff can’t get negative rep for doing their jobs. Like false warnings or even if someone disagrees with their ruling

 

[MarkFreak]

I completely agree with this. I do not want to worry about receiving negative rep for every warning or punishment I hand out.
I'll gladly give up all the positive rep I received for being a mod in return.
In fact, after being made aware just now that receiving negative rep because some salty kid disagrees with my modding decisions is considered valid, I think I might need to break my promise to Mick and quit NOW, because I cannot function as a mod if every warning I hand out can result in negrep from the salty user.[DOUBLEPOST=1531585691][/DOUBLEPOST]
The thing is that with the current system, every possible action I take as a mod could result in negative reputation because the user disagrees. Nothing more than that.
Now, the first negrep I received as a staff-member was theoretically valid except for the different circumstances, as I made a user wait an unreasonable amount of time. That is the sort of neg-rep I'd grudgingly accept.
My current one, however, is because a user disagreed with a decision I made as a staff-member. If they disagree, they should appeal, not neg-rep me.
The only reason most staff members don't have 50 neg-rep yet is because a surprising amount of people on this site are too decent for that.



For a final illustration, I'll compare the 2 neg-reps I received for my actions as staff.
The first one was given to me by flipora, for leaving them waiting for a month for a trivial support request. This resulted in me feeling guilty despite the circumstances beyond my control that led to me being inactive for most of june, because I could still have taken action to prevent their long wait (handed it off to another member).
Fortunately, the user willingly removed it.

Now, the current neg-rep has as result that I'm pissed at the user and have to actively stop myself from abusing my mod powers to remove it or otherwise teach the user a lesson, and above all has me regretful I agreed to be a mod again.
Not exactly a good emotion to experience in a time when MCM is already short on staff.
Nor do I have any reasonable chance of talking it out with the user.
I guess I've now finally felt the frustration users experience when a shitty neg-rep is technically valid and the user that gave it is unreasonable.
I'll be doing some serious reconsideration of how I deal with reported neg-rep once I can safely return to my duties without fear of being blackmailed.



TLDR: If it's allowed to neg-rep staff members simply because you disagree with their decision, staff-members will be discouraged from ever taking action because they might get "valid" neg-rep for it.
If a staff-member misbehaves/abuses their power, that should be taken up with the admins, and too much misbehaviour should result in demotion.
If a member disagrees with a staff decision, that should be an appeal, not a negrep.
Otherwise, staff members that actually give a shit about their reputation are susceptible to blackmail by users (I'll remove the rep if you remove the warning, etc).
Of course, at that point you might as well abuse your staff powers to remove it yourself, but it's still a worsening of the situation.

Isn't that how this forum works? Opinionated reputation it is. From your point you can't take actions without getting a reputation because they think your opinion is wrong.

Well that's my perspective too, if you're staff or not that doesn't matter. "Being a jerk and stating my thread won’t get any replies, then continues to trash the thread." this is a negative reputation that I got a month ago that since affects my reputation on this forum.

Why did I receive it? Cause I took actions to "trash" a thread or I actually told them their thread isn't properly made. It's an opinion about me, because I took actions to prevent other users from dealing with him. You're doing the same thing when not deciding whenever someone should be reputable or not and it's fair for you to get the negative reputation I would get for doing the same thing.

From when I received my first reputation I wondered why reputation on a marketplace is decided by an their opinion of you, so when you do any harm even for a positive outcome to a user, you'd get a negative reputation and that's a fair reputation according to you (staff).

 

[Ivain]

Isn't that how this forum works? Opinionated reputation it is. From your point you can't take actions without getting a reputation because they think your opinion is wrong.

Well that's my perspective too, if you're staff or not that doesn't matter. "Being a jerk and stating my thread won’t get any replies, then continues to trash the thread." this is a negative reputation that I got a month ago that since affects my reputation on this forum.

Why did I receive it? Cause I took actions to "trash" a thread or I actually told them their thread isn't properly made. It's an opinion about me, because I took actions to prevent other users from dealing with him. You're doing the same thing when not deciding whenever someone should be reputable or not and it's fair for you to get the negative reputation I would get for doing the same thing.

From when I received my first reputation I wondered why reputation on a marketplace is decided by an their opinion of you, so when you do any harm even for a positive outcome to a user, you'd get a negative reputation and that's a fair reputation according to you (staff).

I believe I did say in my previous post I'd be seriously reconsidering how I handled rep reports.
Of course, the whole opinion-based rep thing is something I wasn't happy with from the start. The reasoning behind it was explained to me, and while I understood I still don't agree. Sadly, I do not have the power to just up and ignore the rules of the site when moderating. Or, well, I do, for a very short period of time.
However, the essential difference here is that it's perfectly possible to avoid people getting a negative opinion of you when you're not a staff member. I managed for ages, except for the one or two times I got too involved in a 'discussion'.
However, as a staff member, you end up getting between the dozens of conflicts between users. You CANNOT avoid people being upset at you. The only way to absolutely avoid getting neg-rep from either party in this current system, from something like a rep dispute or whtever, is to ban the party that you decided against. Something I don't think is a good idea.

 

[MarkFreak]

I believe I did say in my previous post I'd be seriously reconsidering how I handled rep reports.
Of course, the whole opinion-based rep thing is something I wasn't happy with from the start. The reasoning behind it was explained to me, and while I understood I still don't agree. Sadly, I do not have the power to just up and ignore the rules of the site when moderating. Or, well, I do, for a very short period of time.
However, the essential difference here is that it's perfectly possible to avoid people getting a negative opinion of you when you're not a staff member. I managed for ages, except for the one or two times I got too involved in a 'discussion'.
However, as a staff member, you end up getting between the dozens of conflicts between users. You CANNOT avoid people being upset at you. The only way to absolutely avoid getting neg-rep from either party in this current system, from something like a rep dispute or whtever, is to ban the party that you decided against. Something I don't think is a good idea.

Understandable response, I CANNOT have a discussion on a FORUM and have a different opinion than someone else without getting a negative reputation here. That's my perspective that equals to yours in a situation where you are not a staff member.

This new rule should consist of:

Cannot give a negative reputation if what a staff member did is in the rules and is not his opinion.

If it's your opinion then by rules we are allowed to give you a negative reputation.

 

[Mick]

It's fair for a user to give a reputation to another user based on an opinion they have on them if they can provide proof. If someone is abusing the reputation system then they will be punished for that, but I don't think we need to add a specific clause to our rules for that.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion.