Good Trader Feedback Removal for non-feedbackers

[JohnHwangBT]

Think about it MM, how can you make it retroactive?

Let's say, I got some neutral refs 3 years ago when they counted as +1, then all of a sudden everyone comes to a consensus that neutrals shouldn't get a +1. Should the ones I got 3 years ago go away? Would that be fair? Personnally, it sounds like a Grandfather Law to me.

Did Adam say it would be retroactive, or that for now on neutrals would count as 0?

@John: On a sidenote, if we make certain forums bumpable, then the issue of doubleposting will need to be relooked at. If it is an issue.

It's easy to make it retroactive - just run a batch program to recalculate the Feedback.

Should things be Grandfathered indefinitely? Perhaps not. A transition period of some duration is reasonable, perhaps to have all Feedback scores recalculated on Mar 1st, 2009.

I don't have what Adam said handy, but the Neutral = 0 started before November, and people got +1 after the announcement. How is that right, particularly as it doesn't give the Feedback that the giver was intending?

How would multi-posting be an issue on bumpable forums? If I have something to say to you today, and tomorrow, I decide I have something different to say to MM, and it bumps, I don't see anything wrong with that.

[JohnHwangBT]

So I suppose that you're willing to put your stuff where your mouth is and always send first, given that you only care about the deal, rather than having a higher rating?

He sent to me first during our first commission conversion. And then again on our second.... Stanislav is probably the least hypocritical person ive ever met in my life.. If he says something, he means it and stands by it himself.

And no john im not trying to get on your bad side, just giving my opinion on Stanislav.

---Matt

@Matt:

I don't see anybody trying to get on anyone's bad side, and I hope that I wasn't interpreted as calling him a hypocrite.

That's very cool that he's willing to send first. Me, I'm not as trusting and don't like the risk of sending first. Lower rating sending first is a perogative that I really am not interested in waiving. And with my Feedback, I'm going a step further by requiring partners with more Neutrals / Negatives to always send first, regardless of rating.

I suspect (but cannot prove) that the majority are more like me than him on this issue, and prefer that the other guy sends first. Just look at the_trader ...

/John

[Stanislav]

Since you want to TROLL John and twist things around to your all-knowing opinion (remember this isn't Dakka), I said not once but twice that it was a secondary reason for trading. And since I have been doing this a lot longer than you, I deserve my rating. I didn't use your "Top Ten List of Building Up Your References in A Short Time" that you posted in another thread, I did it over a long period of time and earned mine, suffering through the losers that never left me a reference, and still making it to above 500, and you know what? I never made a Simpering Whine that you seem to love doing so much. I guess that is the difference between us, oh...and the fact that I freely admit to things being my opinion and not the revision to the bible of trading. Quit twisting things into your vision of "What It Should Be" and actually read the whole post. Key words are secondary, opinion, troll, etc.
It is a novel concept, most of us learned it quite some time ago in our lives. I would never call you hypocritical, now maybe egotistical or a narcissist might fit a little better.

Why have I posted this? Because twice John, you have outright insulted me in your posts. If my experience and time invested to this site (read it again, time invested) evidenced by my trade rating means nothing, it does mean that I do have an opinion, whether you agree with it or not, and I don't have to put up with you as a noob with a high post count insulting me. Anyone can put PM sent 400 times in a trade thread.

[JohnHwangBT]

Excuse me, did I call you names? No.

Did I say or imply that you did anything improper to get your rating? No.

Are you being a d1ckh34d? Yes!

Go F*** yourself.

[MagickalMemories]

Think about it MM, how can you make it retroactive? Let's say, I got some neutral refs 3 years ago when they counted as +1, then all of a sudden everyone comes to a consensus that neutrals shouldn't get a +1. Should the ones I got 3 years ago go away? Would that be fair? Personnally, it sounds like a Grandfather Law to me. Did Adam say it would be retroactive, or that for now on neutrals would count as 0?

I don't know jack **** about programming (LOL), so I don't know "how" to make it retroactive... but it's happened before, so it should be possible to do it again.

Initially, it was +1. When the "0" went in place, it went retroactive and all neutrals downgraded to zero.
When the new phpbb software was initiated, they all went retroactive to +1.
I would think that another reversal to zero would be as simple.

Do I think it's fair? Yes. Yes, I do.
Compare it to stocks.
If I buy a stock at $10 a share, and it tanks to $1 a share, I don't get to sell at a retroactive $amount (because I'm not the CEO of the corporation it was for LOL).
How about the dollar? Anyone who converted their British Pounds to US Dollars when the US Dollar was at about a 2:1 ratio and now tries to convert them again, since it's at about 1.5:1 would make some money (a 33% increase, roughly). They shouldn't have to convert at the retroactive 2:1 amount. Should they?

References are the currency of Bartertown membership. It doesn't matter what your ref's USED to be worth. It only matters what they're worth, now.

IMO.


Eric

[MagickalMemories]

...and here we go...

**DING DING DING DING**

The referee has called an end to round one of this match, folks.


I am not placing blame, taking sides or pointing fingers. I'm making a simple statement (which, in fact, is pointed at EVERYONE):

If you want to disagree, do it here. It's fine for us to disagree on opinion.
If you want to call each other names, do it via PM.

A vacation will be suggested to Linrandir for the next person who calls someone a derogatory name in this thread... and suggested penalties would, probably, increase after that.


Eric

[ohioguy]

My personal view is thus, leaving refs should be a two-way street. There should be a system where I can go to leave a ref, submit, then the ref gets kept in limbo until the other person leaves a ref for me. That way if the other person doesn't leave a ref, then no one gets a ref. The balance is served.

I second this motion or something of this sort..... I just emailed (4 times total) a fellow on here not to long ago about leaving feedback after a purchase (I left positive feedback for him) and ive been ignored so far and he did open the PM.

Have you looked to see if he's even logged in since you sent it? It might just be that you aren't being ignored, but that he hasn't been online.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey MM .....He's been on everyday since the last email...but not yet today!!

[Ironhide]

I disagree MM, people should not lose their +1 neutral that they got back in say 2003-2004, just because it was decided in 2008 that neutral refs would become worth 0. Now I do agree with John that the neutral change should be retroactive to the date the change was implemented.

[KfunnyE]

I do find some irony in the fact that I have the exact problem with the trader that started this thread...great transaction, great communication, no feedback left for me, when I left feedback for them...

Though i understand this thread was created almost a year ago, it does go to show that leaving feedback can sometimes be overlooked by anyone. I know I've gotten PM reminders in the past because I've forgotten to leave feedback, I'm a fairly casual trader who didn't frequent the site like I do now.

Just my 2 Cents,
Phil

[Admin Edit - Sigh. Thread locked.]