Just thought I'd ask what the whole point of the feedback system is if everytime someone gets a negative feedback it gets removed? If the user was scammed by the person that is receiving the negative feedback, shouldn't that be up to the user? Obviously if there's solid proof it was an impostor (i.e the @ledzeppelin case) then it should be removed, but myself and a couple of other people have been scammed by @Reaper and I clearly remember giving him a negative feedback for scamming, along with my dispute, and now he's still at 100%? Sorry, but I don't agree with that. If someones known for scamming by multiple people in the community they should not be allowed to use the market section or have negative feedback inflicted upon their forum user.

 

I mean I don't give a shit about the fact that he scammed me specifically anymore, I care more about the fact that he's still allowed on this community and can still own a "VIP Shop"

 

Here's just enough proof...

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry. If positive feedback is at users discretion, why can't negative? I'm going to give him another negative feedback, and if it gets removed I'm done.

 

Shoutout to my homeboy @Kyle for fighting for change

 

 

Disclaimer: This thread is not meant to be a flame thread towards Reaper, and I'm not 'calling Reaper out' I'm simply making a discussion thread as to why negative feedback is always just voided in the community. Mods please leave this open and do not remove

Edited July 30, 201312 yr by ScorpioZ

"I'm going to give him another negative feedback, and if it gets removed I'm done.'' - Quote scorpioz.

 

I guess I will see you on the flip side man.

Reaper is a scam. 

I agree, mods are removing for no reason.

If he didnt refund it still should be there but if he did refund then it should be removed.

This reaper kid needs suspended.... nuff said

If he didnt refund it still should be there but if he did refund then it should be removed.

Reaper tried scamming me too, and rejected Nick as MM

 

 

____

 *been more than a week ;)*

 

Also, if a super mod named Ely or somebody wants to PM me on skype, do it pl0x

If he didnt refund it still should be there but if he did refund then it should be removed.

Did not refund, did not receive what I paid for, gave negative feed back, got removed.

Guys, while I agree totally with everything that you are posting. I have to follow a set of rules. I am fighting for this change though. 
The feedback system should give a broad view of the person as a whole. Negative feedback should be for those who had a "negative" time trading. If they got scammed, or if the other trader was rude, or what other things you could throw under "negative". Neutral should be more along the lines of hey trade went ok,but wont be trading with him again for these reasons. I have no idea what you would put under neutral, but I'm sure people could think of stuff. And positive should not be just for every trade. I mean sure you traded and things went ok, but if that's all that positive means, then it means practically nothing when you are trying to choose someone on the market place to deal with. 

I am totally against removing negative feedback unless it is a clear false feedback. I am going to support this through and through. We need a broader definition of our marketplace and we need it soon. 

 

 

____

 *been more than a week *

 

Also, if a super mod named Ely or somebody wants to PM me on skype, do it pl0x

I'd still actually like you to do firecape for me but for now I am botting to 99 strength. So why would I need fire cape?

Guys, while I agree totally with everything that you are posting. I have to follow a set of rules. I am fighting for this change though. 

The feedback system should give a broad view of the person as a whole. Negative feedback should be for those who had a "negative" time trading. If they got scammed, or if the other trader was rude, or what other things you could throw under "negative". Neutral should be more along the lines of hey trade went ok,but wont be trading with him again for these reasons. I have no idea what you would put under neutral, but I'm sure people could think of stuff. And positive should not be just for every trade. I mean sure you traded and things went ok, but if that's all that positive means, then it means practically nothing when you are trying to choose someone on the market place to deal with. 

I am totally against removing negative feedback unless it is a clear false feedback. I am going to support this through and through. We need a broader definition of our marketplace and we need it soon. 

Guys, while I agree totally with everything that you are posting. I have to follow a set of rules. I am fighting for this change though. 

The feedback system should give a broad view of the person as a whole. Negative feedback should be for those who had a "negative" time trading. If they got scammed, or if the other trader was rude, or what other things you could throw under "negative". Neutral should be more along the lines of hey trade went ok,but wont be trading with him again for these reasons. I have no idea what you would put under neutral, but I'm sure people could think of stuff. And positive should not be just for every trade. I mean sure you traded and things went ok, but if that's all that positive means, then it means practically nothing when you are trying to choose someone on the market place to deal with. 

I am totally against removing negative feedback unless it is a clear false feedback. I am going to support this through and through. We need a broader definition of our marketplace and we need it soon. 

 

First actual post I have read that makes sense.

 

However, I never scammed Scorpioz, so that is why my feedback keeps getting removed.

 

http://gyazo.com/83c154eda829f93278ff924941dcb7a7 I sure hope Scorpioz got a warning aswel otherwise you would be contradicting what you just said.

 

''The feedback system should give a broad view of the person as a whole. Negative feedback should be for those who had a "negative" time trading.''

 

I had a negative time trading, hence my negative feedback on scorpioz.

 

 

Edited July 30, 201312 yr by Reaper

 

Guys, while I agree totally with everything that you are posting. I have to follow a set of rules. I am fighting for this change though. 

The feedback system should give a broad view of the person as a whole. Negative feedback should be for those who had a "negative" time trading. If they got scammed, or if the other trader was rude, or what other things you could throw under "negative". Neutral should be more along the lines of hey trade went ok,but wont be trading with him again for these reasons. I have no idea what you would put under neutral, but I'm sure people could think of stuff. And positive should not be just for every trade. I mean sure you traded and things went ok, but if that's all that positive means, then it means practically nothing when you are trying to choose someone on the market place to deal with. 

I am totally against removing negative feedback unless it is a clear false feedback. I am going to support this through and through. We need a broader definition of our marketplace and we need it soon. 

 

First actual post I have read that makes sense.

 

However, I never scammed Scorpioz, so that is why my feedback keeps getting removed.

 

Actually, why don't we talk to a Super Mod or Administrator to find out how many times the member @Reaper purchased a $10 voucher, or how many times a $10 voucher that @Reaper purchased was redeemed by @ScorpioZ. I think you'll that that that number is ZERO.

 

Guys, while I agree totally with everything that you are posting. I have to follow a set of rules. I am fighting for this change though. 

The feedback system should give a broad view of the person as a whole. Negative feedback should be for those who had a "negative" time trading. If they got scammed, or if the other trader was rude, or what other things you could throw under "negative". Neutral should be more along the lines of hey trade went ok,but wont be trading with him again for these reasons. I have no idea what you would put under neutral, but I'm sure people could think of stuff. And positive should not be just for every trade. I mean sure you traded and things went ok, but if that's all that positive means, then it means practically nothing when you are trying to choose someone on the market place to deal with. 

I am totally against removing negative feedback unless it is a clear false feedback. I am going to support this through and through. We need a broader definition of our marketplace and we need it soon. 

 

First actual post I have read that makes sense.

 

However, I never scammed Scorpioz, so that is why my feedback keeps getting removed.

 

http://gyazo.com/83c154eda829f93278ff924941dcb7a7 I sure hope Scorpioz got a warning aswel otherwise you would be contradicting what you just said.

 

''The feedback system should give a broad view of the person as a whole. Negative feedback should be for those who had a "negative" time trading.''

 

I had a negative time trading, hence my negative feedback on scorpioz.

 

 

OH YOU JUST SCREWED YOURSELF MATE

 

"However, I never scammed Scorpioz, so that is why my feedback keeps getting removed."

"I had a negative time trading, hence my negative feedback on scorpioz."

 

Admitted to trading. Thanks for the proof 1 Hit M8

 

 

(proof of this post before he edits it)

Edited July 30, 201312 yr by ScorpioZ

PiP for possible scammers/unresolved disputed members:

This topic went from asking for a change on feedback to discussing whether or not Reaper scammed. 

Please sort this out or I will close this thread.