Why have rules about Retaliatory Feedback?
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:28 amAs far as i can tell, the rules regarding retaliatory feedback are a complete and utter joke. I recently gave someone a NEG due to the fact that among other things, they called me a "fucking pussy" in the game chat.
Of course, despite the fact that he left me no negative feedback after the game, after seeing mine over a day later (if this doesn't SCREAM retaliatory, what does?) , he gives me a negative saying all kinds of nonsense that was clearly untrue from the game chat. I filed the ticket and his feedback was removed.
BUT WAIT! That isn't the end of it. The beauty of the feedback system to those who leave retaliatory feedback is that you can leave anyone a negative, as long as you word it the right way so as to not appear retaliatory. So this guy changes his feedback to a more general (aka harder to dispute) statement that I am a "bad sport" and "piece of garbage" (don't ask me how these kids get so angry about an internet game) and VIOLA! According to the powers that be at CC, it is no longer retaliatory feedback, but "his opinion which we must respect". Pure genius.
A few questions:
1. When someone leaves you retaliatory feedback, does the fact that they change the wording to something marginally less inflamatory make it any less retaliatory? Isn't the standard for deciding whether something is "retaliation" (done as a response to something else) the motive of the writer, and not the content? If someone changes the content of their feedback they made in retaliation to yours, how does the fact that the content changed make the motive any different?
2. Do those responsible for regulating feedback not realize that by allowing this type of thing they are making a mockery of the entire process? Why have a rule if you don't enforce it?
If someone says, you left me a "negative so I am going to leave you a negative", why is it necessary to go into some nit-picky analysis of what is said in the feedback. It was clearly done as RETALIATION.
Here's an example of what happens on this site:
Player 1 and Player 2 have a game. Player 2 conducts himself like a jackass the entire game and suicides on player 1 at the end.
Player 1 feedback: Player 2 is very rude and vulger, he ended the game by suiciding on me.
Player 2 leaves negative feedback for Player 1: F*ck you, you are the worst player I have ever seen you whining baby. I did not suicide on you, eat sh*t and die.
Player 1 Files ticket and Negative is removed.
Player 2 re-submits his negative feedback saying: Player one is a bad sport and has very bad strategy.
Now take a look at the above and ask yourself:
Is the second feedback left by Player 2 any less "retaliatory" then the first? Of course not.
Of course, despite the fact that he left me no negative feedback after the game, after seeing mine over a day later (if this doesn't SCREAM retaliatory, what does?) , he gives me a negative saying all kinds of nonsense that was clearly untrue from the game chat. I filed the ticket and his feedback was removed.
BUT WAIT! That isn't the end of it. The beauty of the feedback system to those who leave retaliatory feedback is that you can leave anyone a negative, as long as you word it the right way so as to not appear retaliatory. So this guy changes his feedback to a more general (aka harder to dispute) statement that I am a "bad sport" and "piece of garbage" (don't ask me how these kids get so angry about an internet game) and VIOLA! According to the powers that be at CC, it is no longer retaliatory feedback, but "his opinion which we must respect". Pure genius.
A few questions:
1. When someone leaves you retaliatory feedback, does the fact that they change the wording to something marginally less inflamatory make it any less retaliatory? Isn't the standard for deciding whether something is "retaliation" (done as a response to something else) the motive of the writer, and not the content? If someone changes the content of their feedback they made in retaliation to yours, how does the fact that the content changed make the motive any different?
2. Do those responsible for regulating feedback not realize that by allowing this type of thing they are making a mockery of the entire process? Why have a rule if you don't enforce it?
If someone says, you left me a "negative so I am going to leave you a negative", why is it necessary to go into some nit-picky analysis of what is said in the feedback. It was clearly done as RETALIATION.
Here's an example of what happens on this site:
Player 1 and Player 2 have a game. Player 2 conducts himself like a jackass the entire game and suicides on player 1 at the end.
Player 1 feedback: Player 2 is very rude and vulger, he ended the game by suiciding on me.
Player 2 leaves negative feedback for Player 1: F*ck you, you are the worst player I have ever seen you whining baby. I did not suicide on you, eat sh*t and die.
Player 1 Files ticket and Negative is removed.
Player 2 re-submits his negative feedback saying: Player one is a bad sport and has very bad strategy.
Now take a look at the above and ask yourself:
Is the second feedback left by Player 2 any less "retaliatory" then the first? Of course not.