[denied] Negative feedback and vouches rework

What would be considered as “justified for negative feedback” is not subjective.

 

I can't support this because of the damage this can do to legitimate businesses that have been around for years. There's many spiteful people who will enjoy nothing more than to put down another business using guest accounts/fake customers. Proof in these instances is vital to make a claim of their legitimacy when they're trying to tarnish someone's name.

I like @Jason's suggestion on the previous page, I'm going to suggest this in addition to it:

Currently we don't allow any negative feedback or experiences (even with proof) in someone's vouch thread, but only on their service thread which gets buried within a day or two after some bumps. My suggestion is we allow negative feedback/experiences, as long as they're backed up with proof within vouch threads. If a user has repeatedly delayed work, or been excessively rude/unpleasant, customers should have the ability to leave negative feedback (with proof) where it's easily accessible; their vouch thread and not their service thread.

 

I’m cool with this. I think it’s also 10x easier to implement. We might be able to add a sticky that sums up what is required for a negative feedback post to help things along.

---

Also, some more threads that this would be great for:
isRANDYasian Skilling Service

 

I'm not 100% sure what i support here. I understand those businesses that have been around forever that could be hurt badly by spiteful people just out to hurt them (i.e. ex employees, scam artists, other services etc.) but i currently have an easily provable negative experience with a longtime service owner that i'd LOVE everyone to see before they deal with this person. Not because I'm out to hurt their business, but because I've spent thousands on services here and have never been dealt with so poorly. Until I threatened to file a scam report, I was going to be out over 300m. Yet there is no way to report this so everyone can see how they deal with customers because the owner did end up paying (very well known service owner on sythe) Whatever you decide, I hope it's soon. I'd say do it like Ebay and require proof of transaction, and have requirements for negative fb.

 

If we have positive feedback, we should have an option for negative aswell. But then this would mean a rework of the vouch system... So maybe vouch for positive feedbacks, and on each users profile there is a negative feedback section maybe? just an idea. I would have to think more about this as I just saw this for the first time and am typing a quick answer!

 

As @Gladiator said: it's currently already so that you can post negative feedback but only on the threads themselves but it gets burried.

Won't this get solved if they work on the bump system itself?
Finally use sythe gold for something good and implement a bump button (for sythe gold that would to being able to bump sooner) and only bump via this button, posting on a thread won't push it forward and being able to report posts that cluster thread and this way negative feedback and positive feedback will finally be easily accesible to all people.
Then let people quote these to their vouch thread, bad & negative and rack up vouch count that way.

 

support, big sellers seem to do whatever they want and their vouch page is just full of praise

 

I'm personally against adding negative feedback to vouch threads as that is the easiest way of keeping track of your total amount of vouches for successful trades and i'm sure it's the same for a lot of people.

As well as the total amount of people who genuinely read vouch threads before a trade is so small that I don't think it would affect anything.

Implementing something that is easier to find like a feedback tab
Ex.
is my opinion of the best place for negative feedback that users may actually read.

 

Your photoshop skills are legendary.



(No infraction pls)

Edit: Support this idea as well

 

Yet another example of why this suggestion must be implemented. @Superfluous

Account banned @Faustinio

Faustino, the service provider, advertises a cheap, fast, and secure hand-trained service.
Burak chooses Faustino to train his ironman. Faustino farms the work out and the worker gets Burak's account banned for botting.

If you read through the report, Faustino is being a jackass and virtually denying all liability. He's placing it all on the worker. That's garbage. That's an abuse of trust - using his reputation as leverage, but avoiding liability when his service/company scams someone (IE his worker gets an account banned). If you read thru the posts, this isn't the first time Faustino has gotten away with it either (according to TrueAIO).

Not only that, but Faustino's worker paid a 100M deposit (what? >.>). The service alone was 130.1M + the value of the banned account was another 200M+. Why was that worker put on the account in the first place?

Something has to be done here. Service providers like this are shady and are abusing their reputation to fuck people over. He should 100% be TWC'ed for horrible business practices and there should be a way for future buyers to see feedback on these instances.

 

Reading some of the posts here, definitely support this, i am just starting out with a very small trusted team in which can provide all types of services and PVM activities, the issue is it does appear that some of the larger organisations are able to use "workers" as scape goats in most cases and continue to get significant business even after a significant issue has occurred. I understand that most people pay deposits for certain services but none the less this does not always repay what a customer has lost and going forward it shows the customer an extra level of caution prior to choosing a seller such as..

What are the risks?
Is cheaper better than more expensive?
Previous issues with a specific seller.

No doubt over time some sellers will experience issues but ultimately i would want to be held accountable if one of my team did something in which effected someones account in a negative way. I get that sometimes you cant control everything but you are exactly right some of this negative information will get buried in bump threads amongst service pages. in which doesnt prevent the issue in being addressed, its a black mark and a risk that should be calculated prior to the buyer making an informed decision.

 

I think people will use negative feedback to ruined people's names/rep, Some people will create bots to spam your feedback thread with Negative feedback as well so If negative feedback system get added, it will need be higher Moderation

 

A certain level of authentication/ proof should be required to leave this type of feedback in my opinion to get round this, it shouldn't be as easy as leaving a positive vouch. For instance your negative feedback has to be verified prior to it actually having a negative effect on the seller. I guess the far bigger shops and services will then have to make wiser decisions when it does come to scalability and adopting new workers.

 

On relevant market threads:

• Bad feedback + valid proof = valid post (if the OP of the thread disputes it we'll deal with it privately)
• Bad feedback + no proof = staff will ask the user to provide proof
• Bad feedback + no proof provided = will be removed