Concerns about the new revenge reputation rule

[HotelUser]

(this is an x-post from another section, I thought it was worthy of it's on feedback thread)

*Be right back, I'm going to issue negative reputation to every person who's issued me negative reputation but it wont be considered revenge reputation because I wont mention any posts or other reputation comments.*

Okay, so I'm not going to do that, but a lot of folks are now. I'm not sure why this rule was revised because there was nothing wrong with the previous rule. It made more sense. It's human nature to want to get revenge on someone who's wronged you in your own eyes, and if you issue negative reputation to someone and then that person gives it to you right back then it's pretty obvious that it was out of revenge.

You've essentially rendered the revenge reputation rule completely redundant now because folks will just word their revenge reputation comments such that they don't violate the new revenge reputation rule. You might as well have just removed the revenge reputation rule altogether.

It seems like this was probably a split second decision because it doesn't seem like it was thought through very well. If you've had larger concerns about the reputation system in general then perhaps it should just be discussed as to whether or not the entire system should be revised, in lieu of changing one small rule arguably for the worse.

Oh, and to elaborate further as a user I'm now going to be quite timid in issuing negative reputation because I can pretty much promise you whoever I issue -reputation against will just issue it right back to me.

[The Don]

Whilst I think that rep should be allowed to be given based on ones particular opinion of somebody and not just based on any post, going by habbox's attitude to rep it is silly that they've done this since it contradicts habbox's overall opinion towards rep (and whether or not something is/n't a pointless rep) and makes it easy for people to get away with giving revenge rep (HI RED)

[GommeInc]

I would of guessed you were the person to create this thread, seeing as you remove rep claiming it as revenge rep.

If people are "faking" revenge rep, then they must have an actual reason if they are referring to a statement in a thread. People have to be extra creative, and if they can find a part of a post to comment on when giving negative rep then it's justified. It's that simple.


Whilst I think that rep should be allowed to be given based on ones particular opinion of somebody and not just based on any post, going by habbox's attitude to rep it is silly that they've done this since it contradicts habbox's overall opinion towards rep (and whether or not something is/n't a pointless rep) and makes it easy for people to get away with giving revenge rep (HI RED)
Previous to this, their policy to removing revenge rep was to go by what the person whose e-ego was bruised has said. If people are finding something in a thread when issuing "revenge" rep, then it's not revenge rep as they have found a justifiable reason to lower their reputation.

It's either that or not remove rep, which I would support :P

[The Don]

I would of guessed you were the person to create this thread, seeing as you remove rep claiming it as revenge rep.

If people are "faking" revenge rep, then they must have an actual reason if they are referring to a statement in a thread. People have to be extra creative, and if they can find a part of a post to comment on when giving negative rep then it's justified. It's that simple.


Previous to this, their policy to removing revenge rep was to go by what the person whose e-ego was bruised has said. If people are finding something in a thread when issuing "revenge" rep, then it's not revenge rep as they have found a justifiable reason to lower their reputation.

It's either that or not remove rep, which I would support :P

I agree that all rep should stay as it is, but since that isn't the case and habbox has this idea that ones opinion of someone shouldn't be the basis of giving +/- rep it seems absurd that they would edit the rule so that people can give revenge rep (whether or not there's something they can find in a post to use as a reason to issue that rep, they are still doing it in retaliation which falls into giving rep based on your opinion of someone and not the post)

[HotelUser]

It's either that or not remove rep, which I would support :P

I would either suggest one of the following courses of action to remedy the rule change:

1. The rule modification should be reversed because it implicitly allows revenge reputation to occur.

2. All rules against revenge reputation should simply be removed altogether (might not be wise, I could see a lot of arguments being caused here).

3. Completely remove negative reputation and only allow positive reputation (a like system of sorts, although I would find this saddening because personally I see the classic reputation system as a Habbox tradition).

Of course you may not agree with me on any of the above cases but it's just my $0.02!

[David]

can we not just disable negative rep in usergroups, this whole argument about pointless/revenge rep is boring

Can Leave Negative Reputation -> No

[The Don]

can we not just disable negative rep in usergroups, this whole argument about pointless/revenge rep is boring

Can Leave Negative Reputation -> No

people can disable their rep if they're that bothered by it

[David]

people can disable their rep if they're that bothered by it

yet the whole topic still comes up :P

[GommeInc]

I agree that all rep should stay as it is, but since that isn't the case and habbox has this idea that ones opinion of someone shouldn't be the basis of giving +/- rep it seems absurd that they would edit the rule so that people can give revenge rep (whether or not there's something they can find in a post to use as a reason to issue that rep, they are still doing it in retaliation which falls into giving rep based on your opinion of someone and not the post)
Ah, but they have to find something in a post to issue negative rep. If they can do that, it's not revenge rep because unknown to them is they're actually finding something to complain about rather than just the member - if that makes sense? It stops children who are having a temper removing valid negative rep all because they got their first. It's much fairer and works for people who think rep should stay as it is - at least with this there's a reason, rather than instant removal.

[HotelUser]

Ah, but they have to find something in a post to issue negative rep. If they can do that, it's not revenge rep because unknown to them is they're actually finding something to complain about rather than just the member - if that makes sense? It stops children who are having a temper removing valid negative rep all because they got their first. It's much fairer and works for people who think rep should stay as it is - at least with this there's a reason, rather than instant removal.

It's really easy to find something bad about almost every post on the forum.

(Not to be a negative ned, keep in mind it's also easy to find nice things in posts as well).

[FlyingJesus]

The main problem as I see it isn't that the rule's badly written (although that is a concern) it's that the rule and the action of it exists at all. Reputation should never be removed because that is 100% not the point of it - it's a form of user moderation allowing the members to reward or punish posts/people in a way that reflects their... wait for it... reputation.

I still think it's mad that -rep doesn't show on the posts the way +rep does, as if 1 person agrees with a disgusting view and 4 disagree, those disagreements are clearly not being noted as important and therefore it appears that the unpopular view is actually being praised overall. If you don't want negative figures showing then it should at least deduct from the total positive count that's displayed

[The Don]

Ah, but they have to find something in a post to issue negative rep. If they can do that, it's not revenge rep because unknown to them is they're actually finding something to complain about rather than just the member - if that makes sense? It stops children who are having a temper removing valid negative rep all because they got their first. It's much fairer and works for people who think rep should stay as it is - at least with this there's a reason, rather than instant removal.

Yes but it's still a revenge rep... In law, the but for rule is used to determine whether or not the injuries would have occurred but for the defendants negligent act. The same can be said here, in this case, if x didn't -rep y, y wouldn't have looked through all of x's posts to find one to -rep

[Inseriousity.]

As most reporting rep thread was based on the idea of "its revenge rep, just cos its been several months since I -repped them, that just means they decided to hold a grudge and wait before giving revenge so I couldn't say it was revenge rep but obv it clearly is so remove it please ty" I think the rule is justified.

[GommeInc]

Yes but it's still a revenge rep... In law, the but for rule is used to determine whether or not the injuries would have occurred but for the defendants negligent act. The same can be said here, in this case, if x didn't -rep y, y wouldn't have looked through all of x's posts to find one to -rep
On what grounds is it revenge rep? It's not revenge rep on the grounds that it was done shortly after the other person repped them, that would be ridiculous. In law, intention is important and the but for rule of law does not apply to such a circumstance. The but for (proximate cause test) does not come into this, as we're talking about actions that are controllable, unless you're suggesting people are repping others but not knowing it? It's sort of what that rule of negligence is based on, so it's not really relevant here :P Besides, this is a much more freely written part of the rule - if you think rep should be left untouched then this is one step closer, as it means repping now has to have a reason and that reason comes from the thread or post it relates to. Before the rule change, people were having rep removed for what is essentially no reason.

[HotelUser]

As most reporting rep thread was based on the idea of "its revenge rep, just cos its been several months since I -repped them, that just means they decided to hold a grudge and wait before giving revenge so I couldn't say it was revenge rep but obv it clearly is so remove it please ty" I think the rule is justified.

If months have passed it's not revenge reputation. If hours have passed it blatantly is 9 times out of 10.

[Inseriousity.]

That doesn't stop people from arguing that it is was my point and for the other person to argue that it's the 1 out of 10 where it isn't. If it therefore makes it harder for people to justify a 'this is a revenge rep' comment then I'm for it.

[HotelUser]

That doesn't stop people from arguing that it is was my point and for the other person to argue that it's the 1 out of 10 where it isn't. If it therefore makes it harder for people to justify a 'this is a revenge rep' comment then I'm for it.

It makes it easier by considering virtually nothing as revenge reputation. You don't fix a problem by throwing it all away, and I didn't see many people complaining about this "problem" to begin with.

[Inseriousity.]

On the contrary, it was a running joke that everything requested to be removed was removed without question or investigation simply on the basis of something being a revenge rep (the easiest argument to make and hardest to argue against).

[nvrspk4]

So the problem was that some people would call things "revenge rep" but it would have a valid reason, and there would be a grey area. This eliminates the grey area.

Problem: People can still revenge rep by finding a "reason to negative rep"
Response: Well, if they can find something valid to negative rep then it should count. If it's not a valid rep comment, it would be removed under pointless reputation.

Problem: But they could just work hard to find something...clearly if they rep me within 24 hours its a response.
Possible Solution: If it's within 24 hours and seems sketchy, it gets removed
Problem: What stops them then from doing it 25 hours later? And what if its a valid negative rep?

If they can find a valid reason to -rep you back, then so be it. If it's not valid, then it will be removed anyway, not necessarily because its revenge rep but because its pointless rep (ie: isn't directed at the post or clearly isn't sensible.)

[Grig]

It's how you look at it really.

That revenge rep, like nvrspk4 can be classed as pointless rep, so you can give that as the reason. Revenge rep goes into a wider umbrella of pointless rep, so it doesn't really affect much but the way you word it.

[Richie]

If months have passed it's not revenge reputation. If hours have passed it blatantly is 9 times out of 10.

Even if a moderator believes its revenge they shouldn't remove it if the user has a valid reason. If someone -reps a user then several hours later that person who got deducted rep decides to -rep them back but has a valid reason to do so i.e posting off topic then it should be left alone. For example, if you -rep me then I -rep you for posting off topic yet the rep I gave you gets removed it's basically saying 'You can't -rep this user even though you have a valid reason as they just -rep'd you so we believe it's revenge rep' it puts a cap on the rep you can give to that user and if people go around dishing out -reps they deserve what they give out, it'll show them they shouldn't be negative. I could never see moderators removing +reps, I +rep you then a few minutes later you +rep me, it's the same concept. To sum up my argument, there's no way to draw a line. The only changes I could see being beneficial but I wouldn't agree on nor others, would be to hide all negative rep usernames, vip or not.

[CrazyLemurs]

By that do you mean being able to still report the rep but giving the rep an ID (for example) rather than a name
"Can I report this -rep as I feel the reason isn't fair" as you cant know whether it's revenge because nobody sees the names.

Or do you mean not allow reporting rep at all? So the rep shows but you will never see who gave it to you.
Although personally, people could then be unpleasant on purpose and you wouldn't be able to know who to dislike as a result


I'm currently on my iPhone if you are seeing this message! I cannot participate in spam wars xx

[lawrawrrr]

The rule isn't the best worded I don't think, Chris (and possibly other AGMs) read all the rep removal requests and can refuse any of them. Even -rep that may be revenge worded in a different way is clearly revenge rep, the way I see it is if you can prove it's revenge or pointless, then it's fair to remove. If they have a valid reason then fair enough (only if it's the first time the user has -repped for the same post - you don't get multiple chances at -repping) but otherwise no.

[Kardan]

Just allow all reps, there are a lot more pointless +reps then -reps these days. If people are bothered by rep, they can disable it themselves.

[GommeInc]

Technically speaking, "e.g." means exempli gratia, or for example in English, so the "e.g. references negative reputation and not a thread or post" is simply just one situation where revenge rep is and can be used and when rep isn't in revenge.

If someone has good reason for thinking it is revenge rep, then whoever is dealing with the report can analyse the likeliness of it being in revenge. That said, the post the person is repping should be a big enough hint as to whether or not the rep is in revenge, and if they provide a rep comment then there must be more reason for it not being in revenge, as they have provided a reason (whether or not they actually agree with it, they've found a understandable reason).

[Samantha]

Can I just ask why we must give a comment for negative rep and not for positive when really positive AND negative rep can just be so obvious, why should we have to explain ourselves? Had an incident yesterday whereby the -rep was valid and it was obvious why it was given, didn't give a proper comment but it gets removed, it's like people want it spelling out for them.

[Catchy]

I don't see why people are SO bothered about rep? It isn't life or death, get a grip & deal with it tbh.

[nvrspk4]

Can I just ask why we must give a comment for negative rep and not for positive when really positive AND negative rep can just be so obvious, why should we have to explain ourselves? Had an incident yesterday whereby the -rep was valid and it was obvious why it was given, didn't give a proper comment but it gets removed, it's like people want it spelling out for them.

How difficult is it to type in a few words?

[FlyingJesus]

How difficult is it to type in a few words?

fohuns bivbib wuic

[Samantha]

How difficult is it to type in a few words?

Well in that case shouldn't it be applicable for positive rep?

[dirrty]

if pointless +reps are allowed, pointless -reps should be allowed. equally opportunities and that ****

[nvrspk4]

Well in that case shouldn't it be applicable for positive rep?

Sure, I don't have any opposition to that. But it seems you're arguing the requirement should be removed from negative rep.

[Samantha]

Sure, I don't have any opposition to that. But it seems you're arguing the requirement should be removed from negative rep.

Well I sort of was but I knew the other alternative would be to make it the same for positive rep. Either way I wouldn't mind :P.