If you are the Drama Queen I DO NOT WANT to play with you

Context.

The use and success of a system depends on the context where it is used.

Ebay is not a mmorpg.

Ebay is a service strictly defined, based on conventions. There are no relationships. It is not a community.

But for all intents and purposes it is. You register, you interact, you build a reputation. You're not having full-blown conversations but it's still a community of sorts.

Even if Ebay doesn't meet our definition of a community, why does the system work for them but not for an MMO? What is different about the context that makes it possible to use this kind of system? I would imagine that, since Ebay mishaps are dealing with real money and not magical swords, any bitterness and vengeful abuse of the feedback system would be even MORE likely. The loss of real money really ought to be more important to people than having their kobold stolen, so the feedback ought to be more vitriolic than it would be in an MMO.

Again, I'm back to wondering if the only difference in the two contexts is that MMO players act like bigger jerks.

Why that is, I'm not sure. Perhaps they feel more anonymous and therefore less likely to be punished. I don't know too much about Ebays policies and execution thereof, but I'm assuming they readily ban people who do nothing but give bad feedback. Perhaps if the MMO could hand out punishments (temporary suspensions at least) for the same thing, it might have an effect. Currently most MMOs seem to let the players run riot, or perhaps I've just been playing too much WoW.

Really, I'm genuinely not sure why the Ebay system would be so much more successful than an MMO variant. The only problem with the entire proposal is the vulnerability to abuse, but I can't see why Ebay is less vulnerable to it than an MMO. Simply saying that an MMO is a community doesn't convince me.

I'm not even going to attempt an analysis.

Firstly because I don't know well e-bay, so I don't know the details of its scheme.
Secondly because what I wrote was in "rant mode". It wasn't a dissertation trying to convince someone. It was just to explain my opinion, that is actually more clear in the last part (I would keep these systems as far away as possible because I think they are detrimental to the experience, and not simply because they wouldn't work. I DON'T WANT to see them work. And I hope they never will).

But what I meant in the comment is that e-bay is strictly codified. It's a service with strict rules. The behaviours aren't rich and varied like those in a community.

The service is impersonal there, in the same way of the auction house works in a game. It is strictly related to the exchange and the exchange is again strictly codified.

A game is much different because there are less rules (and it is fun because of this). So it wouldn't be the same rating how a player plays compared to an impersonal transaction on e-bay.

And I definitely DO NOT WANT to see and treat the other players (and group mechanics) just like "services" for my own needs. I hate that type of design and it's one of the very first critiques I make when crafting systems or group mechanics are planned around a dependence instead of around truly communal goals.

Ah, ok.

Yeah, if the crux of your point is that these systems would or could turn the community slightly more 'artificial' and 'hollow', then I can see where you're coming from. It's essentially the same sort of criticism that some people have towards "Speed dating", because they believe that dating and falling in love should be a magical and emotional experience, not pared down to a quick and efficient service. I can't really argue with you on that front, although I will say that the systems are probably already pretty artificial. In WoW, for example, I regularly buy crafted items from people I'll never see again. On the forums, too, people label each other as ninja looters and the playerbase will blacklist them from all future groups. I'd say the system already has its ersatz aspects and its potential for abuse. But I do at least see what you're saying.

I still think the system, in SOME form, can work though. I'll continue that below, though, to split the two objections...

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.

I felt that there were some problems that rendered most reputation systems unusable for MMOs. Abalieno hit a few more with his rant. While the author of the article on GamaSutra had a few ways to try to fix problems, they revolved around time (decaying reputation, time grouped before you can render an opinion).

The problems I found were with Anonymity (any time there is an aggregate value for reputation, it anonymizes the reviewers), Lack of Feedback (note that eBay lets you post reasons why you received a negative review), and Popularity (only popular people will have large numbers of reviews, and those reviews will always be inaccurately skewed positively or negatively). The real killer, though, is that people will game any reputation system, as is evidenced by eBay and shill reviews. Making a reputation more complex (such as through decaying reputation over time, or weighing reputation reviews based on length of time associated) only makes it easier for the system to be gamed. For example, I own four accounts in World of Reputationcraft, one of which I regularly use to ninja while the others are lily white. Reputation ratings decay by one influence per hour logged in and active, so I log my ninja in and farm long enough to reduce the negative ratings to a point where my other three accounts with good reputations can vote and overcome the negative rating. Now, I have a net positive reputation, join a raiding group, and go ninja the final pieces of my Armor of the Devoted Catass. (Remember, in a system with reputation decay, you have to be able to provide a reputation vote to a character more than once, otherwise all reputation will eventually decay to 0 and be unable to be adjusted.)

My problem with that post is that you're deliberately envisioning a flawed system and then criticising an entirely different system for it.

Who said World of Reputationcraft wouldn't let you leave a reason for your reviews? Who said reputation decays by one point per hour logged in? The things you're suggesting would be TERRIBLE design decisions. Of course it's flawed if you can just log in another account and farm until your reputation reaches 0 again. You're arguing against a system entirely of your own creation.