The removal of legacy feedback

[roy]

As I am sure everyone is already aware, all legacy feedback, if not updated to conform with our new reputation system rules, will be removed on December 14th, 2019. I have created this thread as a base-discussion for the removal/addition of legacy feedback to keep things more organized and avoid flooding Shoutbox with said discussion.

Argument against: Many long time users of MC-Market, myself included, disagree with the decision to mandate that two-three year old feedback conforms with the new rules.

Argument for: The removal of legacy feedback is to ensure consistency of our rules and ensure all feedback is relevant and informative for community members.

I have also provided a non exhaustive list of all members losing a significant amount of feedback due to this change.
Glove drops from 201 to 12. Join date: December 29th, 2015
* Doge drops from 192 to 132. Join date: April 14th, 2015
Chearful drops from ~170 to 120. Will drop to <10 once non-evidence feedback is removed. Join date: July 26th, 2015
Kelsey has lost 72 rep thus far. Join date: March 7th, 2017
Deleted User 48892 has dropped from 42 to 6 thus far. Join date: September 11th, 2016
Landon will drop from 150 to 18 once legacy feedback is removed. Join date: January 3rd, 2017
asa has dropped from 191 to 139. Will drop to 30 once legacy feedback is removed. Join date: October 6th, 2015
roy has dropped from 32 to 16. Will drop to 0 once legacy feedback is removed. Join date: December 8th, 2015
* 1337 has dropped from 251 to 177. Will drop further once legacy feedback is removed. Join date: May 9th, 2017
* = Feedback count post-legacy feedback removal has not yet been calculated.

There seems to be a trend that the users losing the most feedback have been here the longest.

Please try to keep this discussion civil.

Mick's announcement thread: https://www.mc-market.org/posts/4288052/

 

[Chearful]

The decision clearly was not thought about for any more than a few seconds. I'm struggling to find a non-staff member who is supportive of it...

It makes no sense. It needs to be stopped. Revert all the changes.

I'll be down to 3 rep after the 14th. I had almost 200.

 

[Doge]

You know what makes me much more annoyed about this policy?

I have minimal control over the situation. There is no way for me to find proof and add it to rep that I was GIVEN. The only way for me to do this is to PM a report moderator apparently? So I would have to do this for 100+ rep, and others would too. That would take so long that we'd likely lose all of our rep by the time that happens.

I don't understand why there is no way for us to add proof to our GIVEN rep.

 

[Polygon]

I think it's super flawed; contacting people who you've made deals with over 2 years ago will be SO incredibly infeasible as most people remove you after dealing with you. Legacy reputation should remain and the new standards should be imposed henceforth rather than negating years of work by MCM folk.

 

[Tomb]

Wondering when MCM will stop pushing away their com and actually start caring/thinking a bit more than they do right now.

 

[Doge]

Wondering when MCM will stop pushing away their com and actually start caring/thinking a bit more than they do right now.

Keeping the Minecraft account section? "We disagree, but the majority of our community wants it, so we will keep them."

Not removing rep which disproportionately affects older members? "Justis wants it, the majority of the community doesn't, even most staff members, but nah, it's getting removed anyway."

 

[BrianGrug]

I'll be going from fucking 76, I went to 60, then I will be going to fucking 10 rep. I've been here for 3 years and I've done a lot of deals in my time here. This is only punishing old users and, personally I think that it will increase scamming since people will look at newer users with higher rep than older users and do deal with them and bam. Scammed. I think that this new system is just another way MCM is being driven into the ground

 

[Blaze.]

Hi went from 103 to 85 and he said he's going down to like 30 or something.

Honestly, this idea is stupid. Apparently MCM didn't think about their community when they pushed this update through. Everyone, except for a few staff and one ex-staff, believes this is a dumb idea and wants this reverted as soon as possible. Safe to say that if this goes through, most will move to a competitor, which is sad.

I don't understand who thought this was a good idea. After this blows through, I'll be more reputable than Chearful and almost more reputable than Glove, but I joined this year and barely sold anything. Makes 0 sense lol.

 

[xX99oddXx]

Why remove reputation that doesn’t meet the new standards? It’s a little unnecessary to enforce new rules to old members and their feedback. If a country makes a new law they don’t GENERALLY go around trying to enforce the law on people who broke it in the past do they?

If you MUST do SOMETHING throw a disclaimer on the reputation page saying to “deal with caution (as you should anyway) as some reputation has not been verified”?

I haven’t been actively selling much since we switched to the real reputation system rather than just thread vouches/reactions, so I don’t have anything to lose, but this is f**king stupid lol.

 

[Stormbits]

I hope all of you that are saying 'MCM made this decision' understand that it's probably just Mick and Justis thinking this is a smart decision.

Rest of the staff that agrees on the removal of legacy feedback probably don't want to be criticised on their own opinion and just take on the opinion of Mick and Justis.

Anyways, finally a competent staff member that isn't scared to say what they think. :tup: roy

 

[Fawks]

I honestly think this has gone way too far.

I see why this is to be implemented: it will make reputation moderator's lives easier, sure. However, nobody keeps evidence of deals from years ago.

I feel that the administration team has taken the wrong way to do this. The reputation system is old and flawed - sure, but I honestly think that the way to make it more evidence than opinion based was silly. It should've stayed how it was before - people hated it when it was first introduced and going against the community even more is just not helping. Some people's businesses will be destroyed by rep being remove (in some cases) totally.

I think the main problem is Staff and Members have completely different ideologies and unfortunately the staff don't ask for the members opinions before implementing big changes like they should.

 

[1337]

As I am sure everyone is already aware, all legacy feedback, if not updated to conform with our new reputation system rules, will be removed on December 14th, 2019. I have created this thread as a base-discussion for the removal/addition of legacy feedback to keep things more organized and avoid flooding Shoutbox with said discussion.

Argument against: Many long time users of MC-Market, myself included, disagree with the decision to mandate that two-three year old feedback conforms with the new rules.

Argument for: The removal of legacy feedback is to ensure consistency of our rules and ensure all feedback is relevant and informative for community members.

I have also provided a non exhaustive list of all members losing a significant amount of feedback due to this change.
Glove drops from 201 to 12. Join date: December 29th, 2015
* Doge drops from 192 to 132. Join date: April 14th, 2015
Chearful drops from ~170 to 120. Will drop to <10 once non-evidence feedback is removed. Join date: July 26th, 2015
Kelsey has lost 72 rep thus far. Join date: March 7th, 2017
Deleted User 48892 has dropped from 42 to 6 thus far. Join date: September 11th, 2016
Landon will drop from 150 to 18 once legacy feedback is removed. Join date: January 3rd, 2017
asa has dropped from 191 to 139. Will drop to 30 once legacy feedback is removed. Join date: October 6th, 2015
roy has dropped from 32 to 16. Will drop to 0 once legacy feedback is removed. Join date: December 8th, 2015
* = Feedback count post-legacy feedback removal has not yet been calculated.

There seems to be a trend that the users losing the most feedback have been here the longest. I fail to see how it is a smart move to disregard and more or less screw over those who have been around the longest.

Please try to keep this discussion civil.

Mick's announcement thread: https://www.mc-market.org/posts/4288052/

I lost nearly 100 reputation from this change... overnight. Absolutely fucking ridiculous that someone this incompetent is given the authority to run this site. The amount of disrespect and just general cluelessness this decision shows to anyone that had earned reputation legitimately prior to this is insane to the point where one has to genuinely question whether the administration is up to the task of keeping the site going.

 

[Glove]

I've said all I can say in the shoutbox, this is unbelievable

 

[Landon]

The staff need to understand that this site was built by the early users. Early users built an image for themselves on this site, built their reputation up, and found an effective source of income.

Before November of 2018, the reputation rules required no attached file upload. Users did not even have the ability to do this. This means that any user who was on the site prior to November, 2018, will lose all of that reputation they gained throughout the years.

I don't have contact with users from 2017 anymore, nor will I or any other user go to the extreme length to contacting these users and requesting they attach proof of transaction (which is most likely gone by now) to preserve this reputation.

The only thing this change does is benefit 2019 members who have contributed almost nothing to this forum, and damage older members who Mick should be thanking for making this forum what it is today. Mick, Verringer, Night, didn't build this forum. The community of 2015, 2016, 2017, and even 2018 members did. And we're thanked by losing years worth of earned reputation :tup:

 

[Chearful]

also paypal transaction history only goes back so far xd

 

[utaninja]

You know what makes me much more annoyed about this policy?

I have minimal control over the situation. There is no way for me to find proof and add it to rep that I was GIVEN. The only way for me to do this is to PM a report moderator apparently? So I would have to do this for 100+ rep, and others would too. That would take so long that we'd likely lose all of our rep by the time that happens.

I don't understand why there is no way for us to add proof to our GIVEN rep.

Like even if they aren't banned a lot are inactive

 

[Kelsey]

From 229 to 167, to 157 and I will only keep 1 rep after this update. I'm literally lost for words.

 

[Doge]

I just spoke to Tofty in PMs and he confirmed that the situation is much worse than we had expected.

The way the rep system works is if a rep mod tries to add proof for a user, the rep gets changed to as if they had given the rep, it basically breaks the system.

This means the ONLY way for proof to get added is by whoever GAVE US the rep. It's not even possible for us to gather proof on our own and have it added to our reps.

In other words, we're screwed unless this gets changed. We don't even have the ability to do anything. We have to rely that someone inactive for 1-2 years is going to add proof for us, which they have 0 incentive to and likely won't even notice our PM.

 

[MrAniman2]

Quite important thing many people miss is that it would be a bad practice to bother clients and request to update reputation (an extra work for them) especially if the deal happened long time ago... this would literally make your service less attractive to that particular customer.

If this won't be changed then I'll create a support request and demand that Mick himself personally contacts my clients, apologizes for the inconvenience and requests an extra info from them!