Did your posts actually warrant a response?
The Reputation System: A History
- Thread starter Justis
- Start date
- Status
Maybe they’re just not good posts
We have been filtering out feedback with no evidence as we go for the past four years but haven’t been able to manage it all, and now we’re at a point where it’s been so long since some of the feedback has been left that continuing to filter it is resulting in constant complaints that users can’t or don’t keep their evidence for that long, and expecting it is unreasonable. It’s just a constant and drawn out torment of the community. I believe it’s better to rip off the bandaid and get it over with. Purge it all as the original announcement stated.Just read it in full, and from my perspective it seems to be a bit biased in MCM's favour..? All I'm reading is that the old system was extremely heavily abused, staff team couldn't handle it, made some changes, started adding requirements, and now we're here instead of filtering out old fake rep as we go, just removing all the old rep in one big purge. Problem with that is people built their services/reputation back in 2018 and prior, making them the real victims here.
I might be wrong, but that's what I'm getting from my first read.
May I also ask, was the old system really abused that much? Majority legacy rep I see now a days around MCM is completely fine or legit. (or so it seems..?) But I don't believe the system was abused that much at all, and if that's the case hire more feedback moderators? (if you do, i'd remove the reputation requirement needed for staff because you're ruling out a lot of people after this purge)
But the suggestion being made in Mick’s thread is no longer to purge it, it’s to stop filtering it and deleting any altogether, don’t touch it anymore, keep it all public, just greyed, and have our users opt into including the old system’s feedback in the totals they see, so we can warn them about feedback they otherwise wouldn’t question. Especially new and future members.
It being so impossible to differentiate feedback stating that a deal happened when it didn’t, and feedback for a deal that did happen is exactly what makes old feedback so difficult to clean up.
BUMA, site statistics say that the past few months have averaged the most users active in MCM’s history. Your lack of replies is likely due to it being an uninteresting thread. You’ll not find the same issue on threads that people care about.
Perhaps ask the community for assistance in how to create an interesting thread that people want to read and respond to.
Here's my reasoning why I'm for this change and why you really shouldn't care a dime:
Ghast
- The moment you'll end up being in a heated argument, the other side, I kid you not, will report all of your feedback. That's what I've seen happen.
- Reputation doesn't mean a lot compared to 'reputation'. Don't get mistaken, having a rating number is always great, but the best form of validity will always come from other members doing the sales job for you. This only applies for a service or a product. For OG sellers, it's what accounts you've sold that matter. For managers, it's how many servers you did not fuck up. For marketing managers, it's what contacts you've got and how many kids you charged +300$ for a one week job (it seems the more expensives ones are the ones that are sought after)
- It's best for the future, not the present. This is not a step to make everyone all happy dovy. Stop whining like a bunch of kids. I've worked hard for real reputation myself, I handled thousands in transactions and I lost more than 2/3 of my valid reputations over time. Things happen but that didn't change how people viewed me. Instead of viewing a member who boosted themselves to 300 reputations as reputable, things will be like when they were in 2017 where 50 reputations was considered reputations.
Ghast
Last edited:
Seriously starting to wonder if the management of this site even cares what the members want anymore. So what if the reputation system was abused before? How many people are banned today for exit scamming with a ton of fake rep? Not a whole lot I'd assume. I agree the system is not perfect, and I don't have any idea how to make it perfect, but going against a majority of the sites members and pushing an update you want because you think it's a good idea, doesn't sound like a flawless plan to me. You should have realized it was a bad update when you have to write a bible about the reputation system just to try to get less hate about the update.
If you were to add up all the values scammed by members < 50 reputations versus the value scammed by members < 50 reputations, you'd find yourself in an arguably controversial position. The smaller ones scam small amounts, the big ones go for the big bucks. I'd say the "the value scammed by members < 50 reputations" would win fairly easily.
Yes, and no. There is a lot more small scams than there are big scams. Yes the big scams adds to a lot of money, but don't be fooled by the small scams just because each value is not a lot. I think in the end you wouldn't have much of a difference. Also having more than 50 reputation is not hard to get if you do a lot of small deals, and very rarely a member with 50-99 rep has an opportunity to scam big bucks.
More than $6,000-7,000 was scammed this year afaik. Rasturize -> 1.8k, BucketOfTruth -> ~1.3-2k ish., then 3-5 “larger” exit scams. That’s from memory. Now of course you had about 10-20 other members scamming around 50-100$ on average. I read way too many scam reports. That’s an extra 1-2k. So about $9,000 a year I’d say. This is from reading SRs.
Now, the average scam price I see on scam reports from smaller individuals are between $30-50, as some have scammed entire accounts and others dollar stuff. You’d need about 150-200 scams a year to meet that.
This all brief and way too vague to conclude anything, but I think my point goes through. Larger sums and exchanged by more reputable members, and these scam.
Bests,
Ghast
It's now clear that we as a community are being rejected and silenced
Those are big words... but they're unfortunately true. I hope nobody from the staff team tries to convince me otherwise, or else yall can't handle the truth!
I'd sit and argue all day, in fact I've already did that, but it's like trying to convince paint to dry faster. If ya can't beat em, sit and watch I guess? Why bitch and moan about this site when you could just switch to a better one, ya know?
I wouldn't be so hard on MCM... but it's just mistake after mistake, miscommunication after miscommunication, it doesn't end! I can no longer support the management here anymore. Maybe, just maybe, if a large portion of the community leaves, then they might reconsider our decisions. In my eyes, that's the only way that we can give Justis a reality check. (Like a 'strike' I guess? I mean, it's just a minecraft forum though...).
I keep editing this, maybe I'm going on a rant after all.
Those are big words... but they're unfortunately true. I hope nobody from the staff team tries to convince me otherwise, or else yall can't handle the truth!
I'd sit and argue all day, in fact I've already did that, but it's like trying to convince paint to dry faster. If ya can't beat em, sit and watch I guess? Why bitch and moan about this site when you could just switch to a better one, ya know?
I wouldn't be so hard on MCM... but it's just mistake after mistake, miscommunication after miscommunication, it doesn't end! I can no longer support the management here anymore. Maybe, just maybe, if a large portion of the community leaves, then they might reconsider our decisions. In my eyes, that's the only way that we can give Justis a reality check. (Like a 'strike' I guess? I mean, it's just a minecraft forum though...).
I keep editing this, maybe I'm going on a rant after all.
Last edited:
I keep hearing people say "Listen to me/us/them" but from them, we hear no sound arguments for why the suggestion thread posted by Mick fails to resolve the concerns voiced by the community as well as the legitimate dangers of halting moderation of legacy feedback, allowing it an immunity to our old, current, and future policies. Especially when all of that feedback was submitted to a system which allowed anyone to claim anything without any evidence whatsoever, and people did, for their own mutual gain.
The original announcement, the original plan was to completely purge all feedback that still does not have any evidence uploaded to support the claims provided. The community voiced concerns about their work being for nothing, so massive changes to that plan were made. All feedback without evidence would be allowed to stay public, and would be immune to all past, current and future policies, and users would be able to choose whether or not they included them in the totals they see, we’d just provide warnings about it to inform users of the abuse so they can protect themselves.
How is this a worse option than allowing the remains of an abused system to have moderation immunity?
How is it a worse option than forcing our new and future users to see totals inclusive of a system they were never familiar with, probably never will become familiar with, and one we know to have been massively abused?
New and future users only know our current system, and know that all feedback requires evidence, so when they see totals, they assume that that total represents feedback which has evidence attached. Not that it represents feedback where any claim could have been made and no evidence was required to back it up.
How is splitting the totals for these things into two, and allowing our users to choose how they view them, a worse option?
In what way does this not satisfy everyone’s complaints?
I am here, and I am willing and eager to listen to the remaining concerns of the community that this suggestion thread has still failed to address, and I will always always fight for the safety, security, and future of this platform and the members that occupy it.
If there is a better solution than what has been suggested, which more successfully accomplishes the above, and you can justify that solution with sound reasoning, please respond to this thread or the suggestion thread, tag me, and offer that reasoning.
The original announcement, the original plan was to completely purge all feedback that still does not have any evidence uploaded to support the claims provided. The community voiced concerns about their work being for nothing, so massive changes to that plan were made. All feedback without evidence would be allowed to stay public, and would be immune to all past, current and future policies, and users would be able to choose whether or not they included them in the totals they see, we’d just provide warnings about it to inform users of the abuse so they can protect themselves.
How is this a worse option than allowing the remains of an abused system to have moderation immunity?
How is it a worse option than forcing our new and future users to see totals inclusive of a system they were never familiar with, probably never will become familiar with, and one we know to have been massively abused?
New and future users only know our current system, and know that all feedback requires evidence, so when they see totals, they assume that that total represents feedback which has evidence attached. Not that it represents feedback where any claim could have been made and no evidence was required to back it up.
How is splitting the totals for these things into two, and allowing our users to choose how they view them, a worse option?
In what way does this not satisfy everyone’s complaints?
I am here, and I am willing and eager to listen to the remaining concerns of the community that this suggestion thread has still failed to address, and I will always always fight for the safety, security, and future of this platform and the members that occupy it.
If there is a better solution than what has been suggested, which more successfully accomplishes the above, and you can justify that solution with sound reasoning, please respond to this thread or the suggestion thread, tag me, and offer that reasoning.
If we was listened to, you wouldn't be still trying to defend yourselves and trying to implement frankly retarded changes. The overwhelming majority of the community agrees that your changes aren't fit for purpose. We don't want them. Please, give up.
And also, stop trying to pad out your posts - it's annoying to read especially without much substance.
You basically want to screw over the members you should be valuing the most - longstanding members. Making their rep basically seem invalid is stupid. The rep is completely valid by all accounts. You're only calling the rep "rule violating" because you want to implement a (stupid) rule which will make it "rule violating".
Keep rep the same as it was before the announcement.
For legacy & banned users' rep:
- Do not remove it
- Do not hide it
- Do not exclude it from totals
- Do not grey it out
- Do not 'warn' others it should be treated as 'rule violating'/pointless
- Do not tamper with it
These reps are not any more or less worthy than those left in 2019. You're intentionally screwing over the majority of your community. We don't want your changes.
Ridiculous that Mick and Justis are even continuing with this despite the backlash before and after your 'compromise'. Might have to enquire as to whether MCM's competition would like a donation towards their marketing budget!!!
And also, stop trying to pad out your posts - it's annoying to read especially without much substance.
You basically want to screw over the members you should be valuing the most - longstanding members. Making their rep basically seem invalid is stupid. The rep is completely valid by all accounts. You're only calling the rep "rule violating" because you want to implement a (stupid) rule which will make it "rule violating".
Keep rep the same as it was before the announcement.
For legacy & banned users' rep:
- Do not remove it
- Do not hide it
- Do not exclude it from totals
- Do not grey it out
- Do not 'warn' others it should be treated as 'rule violating'/pointless
- Do not tamper with it
These reps are not any more or less worthy than those left in 2019. You're intentionally screwing over the majority of your community. We don't want your changes.
Ridiculous that Mick and Justis are even continuing with this despite the backlash before and after your 'compromise'. Might have to enquire as to whether MCM's competition would like a donation towards their marketing budget!!!
You have still yet to provide an actual argument.
"These reps are not any more or less worthy than those left in 2019."
That is simply not the case.
In the old system, anyone could leave any claim on anyone for any reason and not need to provide a shred of evidence to support it. We are completely aware that this was abused, and have spent the past 4 years manually asking for evidence in order to combat it.
The assertion that claims without evidence are somehow equal to claims with evidence is simply wrong.
We have a responsibility to protect our future members from of the abuse of our previous system, and make them aware that the feedback which remains from that system has absolutely no evidence to support it. They only know the current system, and unless warned, would assume that the totals only include feedback which has evidence to back up their claims.
The community’s complaints to purging all of that corrupted system’s feedback was heard, and instead, the suggestion was made to keep it all public, stop moderating it for abuse, count it in totals, but make it separate and allow everyone to choose for themselves how they see it, and simply provide responsible warnings to unknowing members.
Chearful In what way does this not responsibly address the concerns of both our older members as well as protect and inform our new/future members?
In what way is this not a better solution than:
a) Continuing to handle reports on legacy feedback, removing all without evidence, as we’ve done for the past four years to combat its abuse
b) Making all of the feedback without any evidence immune to our past, present, and future policies, enshrining the results of a corrupted system into our site forever, and taking no reasonable action to inform or protect our new and future members
At no point have I or the staff team tried to censor community. I’ve listened, I’ve engaged in the discourse, and I’ve argued for the sake of the platform’s safety and future, the same as I would encourage any member to do. So please do not attempt to shame me or anyone else for voicing concerns and attempting to communicate them to people who might not have considered them.
After reading this thread, I've come to my own personal conclusion. So, despite me knowing most won't agree with me, I thought I'd share it.
Everyone is blowing this whole reputation thing out of proportion.
For one, if you have tons upon tons of reputation, (like over 100) you should already be known by a majority of the non-banned community.
For two, if you aren't as reputable, (40-60 rep) what's stopping you from going back to old conversations, (if you can) finding proof for these deals, and editing the proof yourself whenever you're able to when this update rolls around?
For three, if you want to prove to someone who just joined that "you're very reputable", tell them to just toggle on legacy reputation. They'll still see all of your reputations.
I don't understand why everyone cares about numbers on a Minecraft-related forum so much. This change is for the better of this forum's future. (as there are a lot of high-repped users with false reputation)
Here are some of the counter-arguments I can guarantee I'd see if I didn't post my own counters before-hand.
#1: Something along the lines of "You're just a 2019 member. You directly benefit from this and you wouldn't understand."
I, however, do not benefit from this in the slightest. After this update rolls around, I will go from 24 positive reputations (or higher depending on how many deals I complete in the meantime) to a solid 14, when I'm already supposed to be at around 31. I still support this compromise/change fully.
#2: Something along the lines of "We don't want change! You should listen to the community instead!"
Mick, Justis, and whoever else was behind the compromise obviously did listen to the community, as they swiftly changed what they originally planned to what is happening now. If you don't want change, give ideas on what to improve rather than just repeating yourself. Saying, "we just want legacy reputation to stay" isn't good enough, as legacy reputation is indeed staying.
If you can still give a good, decent reason as to why you disagree without it being the two arguments I've listed, I'd love to see what you say.
Everyone is blowing this whole reputation thing out of proportion.
For one, if you have tons upon tons of reputation, (like over 100) you should already be known by a majority of the non-banned community.
For two, if you aren't as reputable, (40-60 rep) what's stopping you from going back to old conversations, (if you can) finding proof for these deals, and editing the proof yourself whenever you're able to when this update rolls around?
For three, if you want to prove to someone who just joined that "you're very reputable", tell them to just toggle on legacy reputation. They'll still see all of your reputations.
I don't understand why everyone cares about numbers on a Minecraft-related forum so much. This change is for the better of this forum's future. (as there are a lot of high-repped users with false reputation)
Here are some of the counter-arguments I can guarantee I'd see if I didn't post my own counters before-hand.
#1: Something along the lines of "You're just a 2019 member. You directly benefit from this and you wouldn't understand."
I, however, do not benefit from this in the slightest. After this update rolls around, I will go from 24 positive reputations (or higher depending on how many deals I complete in the meantime) to a solid 14, when I'm already supposed to be at around 31. I still support this compromise/change fully.
#2: Something along the lines of "We don't want change! You should listen to the community instead!"
Mick, Justis, and whoever else was behind the compromise obviously did listen to the community, as they swiftly changed what they originally planned to what is happening now. If you don't want change, give ideas on what to improve rather than just repeating yourself. Saying, "we just want legacy reputation to stay" isn't good enough, as legacy reputation is indeed staying.
If you can still give a good, decent reason as to why you disagree without it being the two arguments I've listed, I'd love to see what you say.
Last edited:
The problem is that older users will not be recognised to be reputable by newer users. (This is especially significant for reputable older members who leave the site and return later on)
Some of the very reputable users will drop from a couple of hundred reputation to 14. Does that mean he is equally reputable as you? Of course not. But that would seem true for newer members (who are more active now than ever) that do not recognise the older user.
I don’t see the point in making them legacy rep. The rep4rep situation isn’t that extensive as staff point it out.
Doing this change will get rid of most, if not all, of old false reputation. If you care so much about the rep, you will, as I said, go back and find proof that it's legitimate and it will be added back to your total if you have legacy rep toggled off.
a majority of my (and others’ deals) took place over discord. And as you know, people change usernames and delete accounts. It’s not easy to keep track of whose who. In addition to that, I personally don’t keep old discord conversations and have switched discords before. You can’t expect everyone to have a backup of text for all their previous deals.
when you purge all old reputation, it is undeniable that you will rid this site of all previously false reputation (which is very minimal, that’s the point I’m trying to make). However, at the same time you also remove all the valid reputation that had been given, a large proportion of it related to deals. Older members will no longer have this reputation which they have built up OR no longer have it count to their total (which at first glance, is how people usually define generally how reputable a person is). So why waste, 2 years of MCM members’ hard work? Your compromise of having it removed from the total and greyed out at the bottom (in my opinion) does not acknowledge or appreciate legacy members’ hard work and dedication in becoming a well known and reputable member.
- Status
