|
| Author | Message |
|---|
brian9824
  
| | #1 posted April 19, 2008 at 12:49pm (EDT) |
EndlessPro is doing his 2nd rating request change to me after the mods denied his first one since its clearly in retaliation for feedback I left for him. I was just thinking wouldn't it make some sense to set it up so you can't file for multiple rating request changes on the same trade?
I can't think of any reason you would have to file more then one. |
gameplayer9
(frozen)
| | #2 posted April 19, 2008 at 3:16pm (EDT) |
true, a rating is about how the user did during the trade, nothing to do after the trade
--
act stupid forum |
brian9824
| | #3 posted April 19, 2008 at 9:01pm (EDT) |
Well i'm not even talking about during/after trade. It's already a BS reason. But if you file a rating change request it will either be accepted or denied. Either way there is no reason to ever file one again. |
bill
     
| | #4 posted April 20, 2008 at 6:40am (EDT) |
People have a right to gripe about stuff... as I said in email, I think you're being too hard on the guy. |
Admiral
 
| | #5 posted April 24, 2008 at 11:47am (EDT) |
True. And if he was denied once, he'll probably be denied again. What effect is a second, third, etc feedback request change having on your Frank? You probably don't even notice it right? |
brian9824
| | #6 posted April 24, 2008 at 12:07pm (EDT) |
Well he's up his third time now. Just funny to keep getting the emails. |
Admiral
| | #7 posted April 24, 2008 at 12:49pm (EDT) |
Yeah, I don't know why he would keep trying. what a douche |
brian9824
| | #8 posted April 24, 2008 at 1:03pm (EDT) |
Hence my original post though. He can do 5000 of these things and it would have to be denied every time and i'd get 5000 emails about it. I don't know if they auto time out if they are ignored or how they work but it would make sense if they keep trying to do it to get an error message stating something like
"You have already filed a rating change request on this trade. You are limited to 1 rating change request per trade. If you think this is an error please email the moderators at xxxxxxxx" |
Admiral
| | #9 posted April 24, 2008 at 1:05pm (EDT) |
Why the hell did I call you Frank? For some reason I thought Rleav made this thread 
Sorry bout that...
Anyway, I can see your point  |
brian9824
| | #10 posted April 24, 2008 at 1:16pm (EDT) |
I was wondering why you called me Frank too lol. |
bill
| | #11 posted April 24, 2008 at 2:18pm (EDT) |
brian9824, if it gets really bad, I can just suspend him... |
Admiral
| | #12 posted April 24, 2008 at 2:49pm (EDT) |
bill wrote:
> brian9824, if it gets really bad, I can just buttrape him
|
brian9824
| | #13 posted April 24, 2008 at 2:57pm (EDT) |
Nah he doesn't deserve to be suspsended. If he was posting on boards slandering, etc then thats different. 1 email every 3-4 days doesnt bug me. |
Nocturnalnerd
| | #14 posted April 30, 2008 at 9:12pm (EDT) |
No response to the buttrape comment though
|
brian9824
| | #15 posted April 30, 2008 at 9:50pm (EDT) |
I had no objections to that |
Systematik
 
| #16 posted May 1, 2008 at 9:55pm (EDT)
edited May 1, 2008 at 10:02pm (EDT) |
You shouldn't have to leave a rating until the trade is absolutely complete, meaning BOTH users have received their packages. I don't like being forced to leave a rating after declaring that I received, and yet the other user may not have received yet. In this case the trade is not complete, courtesy and honesty is still up in the air. Sometimes, especially with new users who must send first, I declare I receive and I must leave a rating; thereafter I've had guys speak to me like a real jerk off and yet I already gave them an excellent in courtesy. That's just one example. |
Systematik
| #17 posted May 1, 2008 at 9:58pm (EDT)
edited May 1, 2008 at 10:09pm (EDT) |
I also think if there is a poor to unnaceptable rating being given they should HAVE to state why. For example, let's say an unacceptable "honesty" rating was given... an option should come up something like:
Item damaged
Item not as described
other - "short message"
this also eliminates some of the bogus BTR's...like people giving BTR's because they feel the item was in good condition and not excellent (that's not worthy of a BTR in my opinion) |
bill
| #18 posted May 2, 2008 at 8:13am (EDT)
edited May 2, 2008 at 9:35am (EDT) |
Systematik:
re: rating when you receive
I understand what you're saying. The system is the way it is to prevent retaliation ratings from occurring. We used to have a looser rating system (years ago), but we also had a really bad problem with retaliation ratings (and related issues where people would bully others into giving them undeserved good ratings). Even now, I sometimes find cases where a trader will delay marking the trade received so they can rate them for the entire trade (as you say). But, in almost every case, when I've seen this, I've also found evidence that this was being done to retaliate or hold threat against the other trader.
Lets take your example where someone received from a trader, rated them, then was treated rudely by them. Why were they treated rudely? Usually, there's a reason. Usually, it means the trader who received first was slow to send or something like that. This is what I'm talking about. Trader A sends first. Trader B receives without any problem. Trader A should get an excellent rating. If Trader B then messes up (slow, dishonest, discourteous) and Trader A expresses displeasure over this, it should not be OK for Trader B to then rate Trader A badly, since it was Trader B who is the cause of the trouble and Trader A has good reason to be upset since A sent first without issue and now B is causing trouble.
I hope that didn't get too confusing. It's a little hard to write it all out. We've seen this sort of thing happen a number of times, as well. So, I feel pretty strongly about this. If I catch someone delaying marking a trade received (thus their rating), I come down pretty hard on them.
re: poor to unnaceptable rating being given they should HAVE to state why
You must supply a descriptive comment when you give a 'poor' or 'unacceptable' rating. The system doesn't allow ratings to be submitted without a comment if they have 'poor' or 'unacceptable' as one of the values. Of course, it's fairly easy to get around this too. We'd have to check every rating by-hand to know the rater really did leave an appropriate comment (explaining the bad rating). Still, it doesn't seem like much of a problem. We rarely get specific complaints about this. More often, the complaint is usually "I don't deserve that rating". We do look into every case where someone complains about a rating. But, it's often a very tricky situation.
> bogus BTR's
BTRs? I thought we were talking about ratings. BTRs are really quite different. |
brian9824
| | #19 posted May 2, 2008 at 9:19am (EDT) |
Well bill i know you all have issues when it comes to complaints because its all he said, they said. Unless its an issue of shipping speed and DC# shows when items were shipped it makes it very difficult for you and mods to really tell who is telling the truth.
I personally like this system better of rating when you recieve. 99% of the time you won't have any issues after you have recieved and in the rare case you do then a rating change request works well |
Rules Help 
