stop removing rep from banned members
- Thread starter Sparko
- Start date
- Status
PebbleHost
High performance, consistent uptime and fast support. Minecraft hosting that just works.
I honestly agree to an extent.
If the reputation in question is from a banned user but follows all the rules including uploaded conclusive evidence then I am all for keeping the reputation.
However if the reputation doesn't follow the rules, was before the reputation update or there's any area of doubt then we would have to remove it as they can't possibly provide more proof once banned. The user who received it also couldn't provide the proof as we wouldn't have the other side of the story to confirm it's validity (we also currently don't have a system where anyone else can edit the reputation on their behalf, though that isn't the main issue).
The main problem, in my opinion, is how we would handle negative reputation from a banned user after it is disputed. Would it have to be removed regardless due to the inability to hear both sides of the story? Would this then create a bias or hypocrisy in how we handle reputation if a positive reputation is allowed to stay but then a rule abiding negative reputation with the same amount of proof would have to be removed?
Another issue is that the banned user is no longer a part of the community, is their opinion still valid once banned? In my opinion, the deal still happened and not every reputation will have anything to do with the reason why they were banned (if any at all) but a lot of people may argue that a banned users voice shouldn't be present in the community.
Essentially there's a lot of "What if's" and conflicting views on the situation.
If the reputation in question is from a banned user but follows all the rules including uploaded conclusive evidence then I am all for keeping the reputation.
However if the reputation doesn't follow the rules, was before the reputation update or there's any area of doubt then we would have to remove it as they can't possibly provide more proof once banned. The user who received it also couldn't provide the proof as we wouldn't have the other side of the story to confirm it's validity (we also currently don't have a system where anyone else can edit the reputation on their behalf, though that isn't the main issue).
The main problem, in my opinion, is how we would handle negative reputation from a banned user after it is disputed. Would it have to be removed regardless due to the inability to hear both sides of the story? Would this then create a bias or hypocrisy in how we handle reputation if a positive reputation is allowed to stay but then a rule abiding negative reputation with the same amount of proof would have to be removed?
Another issue is that the banned user is no longer a part of the community, is their opinion still valid once banned? In my opinion, the deal still happened and not every reputation will have anything to do with the reason why they were banned (if any at all) but a lot of people may argue that a banned users voice shouldn't be present in the community.
Essentially there's a lot of "What if's" and conflicting views on the situation.
Well that just reinforces the point of adding good evidence to your reputation. If you get banned and didn't leave any good evidence to prove it should stay, give the active member the benefit of the doubt. If, however, there is conclusive evidence in the rep, then keep it there.
If the deal was done on site via a conversation, wouldn't that count as validable proof?
who would go through and look at each individual rep and make sure the evidence is conclusive. There is no bot that can give its partial opinion on a situation given substantial evidence so this would waste moderation time. If they were banned, remove the reputations they gave, there is no efficient way to look at all the reputation given by a banned user, I also want high quality reputation and not just someone who will bolster my number/counts.
you have 3 reputation so I theoretically shouldn't deal with you... reading your reps, some of them could honestly be fabricated. So what i'd do is look at WHO gave you rep, if(theoretically) you were given rep by 2 banned members and 1 user with one positive reputation from a reputable member, why would i deal with you. The number comes with deals, and that is inevitably true, however the people that give you rep if you are a low rep user matters.
Stop being so aggressive lmfao, calm down.
And why would staff just be looking at rep randomly, like what?? LMFAO don't you think they'd be doing things more useful like resolving reports or disputes rather than looking at reputation. Plus, to look at something the first time is different than looking at something after the fact. Your argument therefore invalid... 3 rep lol
sorry for spamming caps lol.
Feedback moderators don’t randomly open disputes. We respond to reports, however, so if a dispute was opened on one of your feedbacks it is probably because it was reported for having insufficient evidence or otherwise.
I wish there was a clear solution to this issue, though. Ellie brought up some great points- I see why rule-abiding positive feedback from banned members should stay. If the deal truly happened and the positive feedback was justified, it seems silly to remove it.
That being said, I don’t think negative feedback from banned members should stay, and I certainly don’t think we should handle negative and positive feedback differently from one another.
I don’t see any way around this issue other than removing all banned member’s reputations across the board- ideally all at once, so nobody feels as if they are being targeted.
Something has to be done, though, because the current system of simply responding to reports leaves nobody happy.
I wish there was a clear solution to this issue, though. Ellie brought up some great points- I see why rule-abiding positive feedback from banned members should stay. If the deal truly happened and the positive feedback was justified, it seems silly to remove it.
That being said, I don’t think negative feedback from banned members should stay, and I certainly don’t think we should handle negative and positive feedback differently from one another.
I don’t see any way around this issue other than removing all banned member’s reputations across the board- ideally all at once, so nobody feels as if they are being targeted.
Something has to be done, though, because the current system of simply responding to reports leaves nobody happy.
Last edited:
I see where you’re coming from, but personally, I just don’t like the idea of being inconsistent with rules/policies, especially around feedback. Removing just the negative stuff would skew everyone’s reputation to the positive side. Your argument is that the positive feedback is what builds trust, and since the deal really happened, it should stay- but negative feedback could be just as valid. It could have perfect proof. The person who received the negative review might not even deny their wrongdoing.
So removing a negative feedback like that, but keeping a positive feedback which is equally as proven, introduces a bias within our system.
If anything, I think that would damage the feedback system’s integrity more than simply removing all of banned member’s reputation equally. As I said before, the way we are doing it now is not good for anyone.
But why is a thing to begin with people who are banned usually scammed once and got banned but they had a full MCMarket life of doing legit trades but now there rep of a legit trade is being removed
I reckon if the proof is solid for either a positive or negative reputation, that it should stay.
Duplicate.
Suggestion already exists: https://www.mc-market.org/threads/520209/
Suggestion already exists: https://www.mc-market.org/threads/520209/
ok boomer
- Status
