Add new comment

I'm sure Ebay is abused, but I also think it evens itself out. Instead of requiring absolute 100% perfect feedback, you simply start putting your trust in people who have 98% or higher ratings. So long as you're pleasing more people than you're pissing off, you end up with a relatively decent rating. Amazon.com, too, has a user rating system which is open to abuse, but by and large it works itself out. Digg.com works in a similar but slightly different manner, with the best-rated and therefore most immediately interesting articles floating to the top of the front page. There is, theoretically, room for abuse, but unless you're the biggest jerk in the game you'd still have an okay rating.

However, the problem I can imagine with this system in an MMO is that unlike Ebay, if you've ever ninja'd an item even ONCE, most people won't group with you. That increases the lasting effects of abusing the system. I imagine you'd have to rely on victims of this sort of thing to open tickets with the GMs to have the offending rating removed. So long as it's not widespread, though, I think it's worth it.

You mention that Ebay requires a trade in order to leave feedback, and everyone understands a trade. I think I see your point, but then presumably you would have no objection to a feedback system which only let you leave a rating for someone who you had completed an entire dungeon with (as the original article specified)? Also, what if, instead of being able to rate people simply based on their playing ability ("this guy was the worst tank evar!!") you could ONLY flag them for serious offences like ninja'ing the loot or maliciously wiping the party? I'm sure just about everyone can agree that those things are bad. Wouldn't that system be almost identical to Ebay's?

Essentially, I think that the specific details of a feedback system might need some work, but the overall concept is a pretty sound one. It's actually an idea I had myself many years ago, and I'm absolutely thrilled that it's being considered.