Site Wishlist Forum

Got some ideas about how to make the site better? Post them here

Allow session groups to vote out revenge negative feedback

AuthorMessage
ClassierPompano
Posted on 31 August 19 at 19:49, Edited on 31 August 19 at 19:58 by ClassierPompano
I have just received negative revenge feedback from someone who only joined this site 2 days ago, who did not communicate and follow the host instructions. He has now left everyone in that session negative feedback.

There should be a mechanic where the participants in a group can flag up a group members feedback. If the feedback given by an individual has been flagged by a certain number of participants (let's say a third), then all feedback left by that individual for that session will revert to a permanent neutral.

Once this action is performed it could be seen by a moderator who could then decide if this should be upheld
Spilner
730,021
Spilner
Posted on 31 August 19 at 20:13
Or as some might call it bullying...
Pom poms at the ready, cheerleaders!
ClassierPompano
Posted on 31 August 19 at 20:25
Spilner said:
Or as some might call it bullying...
No it's nothing like bullying. It would be bullying if the person being silenced was innocent, being a team player, playing by the rules and the rest of the group were the vindictive ones.

This is referring to revenge feedback where someone has not followed instructions etc.
Spilner
730,021
Spilner
Posted on 31 August 19 at 20:29
Still all your words against theirs only now you're giving power to a group, still abuse there.
Pom poms at the ready, cheerleaders!
ClassierPompano
Posted on 31 August 19 at 20:33
I see what you're saying in that case.

I still would weigh in the side of the group here: I mentioned there being some sort of minimum group percentage as reported so that people still feel they can leave negative feedback without retaliation.

Perhaps this would encourage people to leave their grievances with the host or concerned individuals rather than fire bombing the entire group
Inferno118
1,063,343
Inferno118
Posted on 01 September 19 at 02:22
I agree with this. I’ve gotten a few negative votes from people JUST because I gave them a negative for no showing, doing something wrong, etc. My only 3 negatives are all revenge! I literally don’t leave negative feedback anymore because of this, it’s just not worth the risk. It’s tainted my feedback and it may sound like a minor issue to some people but I don’t like having BS negative feedback for no reason from angry people who hate their lives and have to take it out on others.

You could argue it’s bullying If the group teamed up and left neg feedback on one person who did something wrong, like cane to the session w/o the dlc installed. I think this is a great idea
Living Legends
Posted on 01 September 19 at 03:42
I don't like the idea that few people can team up and give bad feedback.

Revenge feedback happens but not giving it away just contributes to the problem of letting them get away.

Give them a negative if they deserve it especially if they screw a session over and made the session go bust. Some can't even respond to a message. Just time it right and revenge is not even a possibility
Throni360
1,163,647
Throni360
Posted on 01 September 19 at 06:53
Nobody cares about a few negs if your general feedback is positive. Everyone who has hosted or taken part in several sessions got his fair share of neutrals and negs. The only way to avoid negative feedback is to not boost.

I got a neg from a guy who left early, a neutral from a backup who didn't even show up and guess what? It doesn't prevent me from joining sessions because the others check my feedback and know that I'm a good booster.
planting42
1,317,861
planting42
Posted on 01 September 19 at 18:08, Edited on 01 September 19 at 18:09 by planting42
I agree with the others here. Negative feedback happens but when you look at the overall picture, its not a big deal. Note that the member was disruptive, perhaps note their gamertag to avoid future issues. If you host, I recommend using the application process to weed out disruptive members when working on achievements that really require concentration.

This could cause more problems than it solves through the very nature of allowing gang mentality to rule. It fixes some issues and opens new ones as well. Best leaving it alone IMO.
Beanpotter
980,886
Beanpotter
Posted on 02 September 19 at 07:49
It sounds reasonable but it's not much better than what we have. If people were honest enough to use your proposed system, we wouldn't have this issue in the first place.

Please use the feedback system honestly and label the unjust feedback givers to help others make an informed decision next time. The blemish on your record is annoying but it will be obvious you are a good booster if you have plenty of good feedback.

Keep reporting revenge feedback givers as it helps build a picture and we can ban the most obvious abusers.

Thanks.
Play nice!
StK I
543,502
StK I
Posted on 02 September 19 at 14:00
Eh I don't really see this helping, like others are saying it only puts the power in the hands of the majority. Leave notes about WHY you're giving/receiving bad feedback and people who care/check will see that and realize what happened. It's just a number in the end
Living Legends
Posted on 02 September 19 at 19:27
Beanpotter said:
If people were honest enough.
pretty much would solve all of our problems
Spilner
730,021
Spilner
Posted on 02 September 19 at 19:45
Apparently its not a thing people want, i get moaned at all the fucking time for doing it laugh
Pom poms at the ready, cheerleaders!
A Dreadful Shot
Posted on 03 September 19 at 01:13
Would be nice if the feedback percentage was fixed to reflect people removing negatives/neutrals they’ve given. My fb percentage should be much higher, the site just still seems to think I have a few extra negatives.
JohnnyInterfnk
Posted on 13 September 19 at 19:14
Throni360 said:
Nobody cares about a few negs if your general feedback is positive. Everyone who has hosted or taken part in several sessions got his fair share of neutrals and negs. The only way to avoid negative feedback is to not boost.

I got a neg from a guy who left early, a neutral from a backup who didn't even show up and guess what? It doesn't prevent me from joining sessions because the others check my feedback and know that I'm a good booster.
Ditto this. I do a LOT of session hosting, and 200 positive feedback vs 199 positive feedback 1 negative feedback are virtually identical to me. Essentially, anyone with 95%+ feedback gets into session automatically, and those with 90-95% will be more heavily scrutinized, but will usually get in as well, barring some big red flag.

Below that, I get very judgmental. What I look for are patterns in the negative feedback. In the 85-90% feedback range, I'll often take a risk on those with histories of no-shows but absolutely will not take a person with a pattern of disruptive behavior. Below 85% don't get in, as its VERY hard on this site to get sub 90%, much less sub 85% (new accounts notwithstanding).

(I also use these rules of thumb when joining a session and looking at the participants, though nowadays I mostly host sessions)

In the OP's case, one clearly revenge feedback negative point won't even show up on my radar. If you try to join my session, you're an automatic add.
Joshi 82 AT
784,386
Joshi 82 AT
Posted on 22 September 19 at 12:11
Well, as Revenge feedback is an abuse of the system in place and voting out revenge feedback a means to prevent said abuse I'm all for it.
If this goes to far for some people than at least add a button to session feedback to "call" a moderator to have the issue investigated.
Throni360
1,163,647
Throni360
Posted on 22 September 19 at 12:22
Joshi 82 AT said:
If this goes to far for some people than at least add a button to session feedback to "call" a moderator to have the issue investigated.
It's one word against the other. Mods only interfere if someone is obviously abusing the system like joining sessions just to neg everyone. But with random sessions? Just deal with it.
Joshi 82 AT
784,386
Joshi 82 AT
Posted on 22 September 19 at 13:17
Throni360 said:
Joshi 82 AT said:
If this goes to far for some people than at least add a button to session feedback to "call" a moderator to have the issue investigated.
It's one word against the other. Mods only interfere if someone is obviously abusing the system like joining sessions just to neg everyone. But with random sessions? Just deal with it.
Where to start on so many wrong statements from one short post...
Throni360 said:
It's one word against the other.
It's one word (revenge feedback) against a group of people affected by the bullying behavior of the person abusing the feedback system. If only one person were affected than this specific thread would not exist.
Throni360 said:
Mods only interfere if someone is obviously abusing the system like joining sessions just to neg everyone.
A session participant giving negative feedback to everyone else in the session after receiving negative feedback (most likely with a comment being a noshow or something similar) is obviously an abuse of the system. Therefore the creation of the thread. And, if this goes to far for some people than at least add a button to session feedback to "call" a moderator to have the issue investigated.
Throni360 said:
But with random sessions?
There is no such thing as random sessions. It is not possible to create or join a random session as with both instances you see what you're getting yourself into.
Throni360 said:
Just deal with it.
The ignorance in that comment speaks against every reason of having a Site wishlist. Being it a wish to have something new or change an existing process.
Beanpotter
980,886
Beanpotter
Posted on 22 September 19 at 13:32, Edited on 22 September 19 at 13:35 by Beanpotter
He may have been curt, but the sentiment was correct.

We cannot verify what happened in sessions and therefore it would be unfair to take action based upon any assumptions made. We'd love to believe every sob story presented to us but when we have investigated, there's always another side to things which makes it impossible to choose who's right.
Play nice!
Joshi 82 AT
784,386
Joshi 82 AT
Posted on 22 September 19 at 13:54
Thank you. Thank you sincerely for your reply. From your point of view, being a moderator and may have directly be involved with those kind of issues, I fully understand what you are saying.

The one argument I stay behind, unless it can be factually or at least reasonably be argued is that the current system in place is flawed and a change to it, only may be flawed. Worse or equal. We don't know and gathering the necessary date might prove difficult. Therefore the idea for change should not be dismissed so easily with emotional/sentimental (my english is not as good as for me to know which verb is correct for a factless statement, based only on someones personal preference) statements only.
Want to join in the discussion? Please log in or Register For Free to comment.