Suggestion Thread Neutral Feedbacks

[ITALY]

Goodmorning everyone,
Currently Neutral feedbacks are seen as bad feedbacks, because it usually means that you had a bad experience. I believe it is tied to the fact that any scam report leads to a ban or neutral feedback.
I believe some scam reports deserve to have a negative feedback if the vendor is acting in bad faith, because it is a terrible experience for the costumers and let other users know it.
Look at this garbage for example :
https://www.epicnpc.com/threads/scammer.1413840/
-Ignores the costumer for 1month
-Ignores the scam report
-Tries to close it by abusing his powers and banning the costumer

Or this :
https://www.epicnpc.com/threads/you...ed-need-help-i-only-logged-in-1-time.1424600/
Ignored for 2days, but surely it will go on for weeks

Now i am referring to the first one particularly, i struggle to believe that such a "reputable" vendor would go to that extent in order to avoid refunding a costumer to whom he refused to disclose all informations about the account, whichj were previously asked to him (look at the skype convo, sky refused to answer), i also struggle to believe that he would ban a member just for his own benefit.

That is acting in BAD FAITH, and i believe we should have ruling that acting in BAD FAITH should lead to a negative feedback, not a neutral.
I got a neutral because i refunded the guest 24hours after the boost did not start, that's what a neutral is for, not for this garbage behavoir, we should really have negative feedbacks for that.

So the suggestion : Add a "in bad faith" rule, in which if the vendor is acting in bad faith he should receive a negative feedback rather than a neutral one. The definition of acting in bad faith should be made clear by the admins, so that we have limits in this rule could be applied, but i truly believe it would help future buyers know with what kind of vendor they're talking to, and it will make vendors try to be reasonable instead of entilted brats

 

[Blue Kat]

Banned - scammer - chargeback scams

First off, just noticed your country and name match. Nice.

Second, looks like the feedback was moved to negative. I don't believe that based off of one user's actions that a whole section for rules should be added, however it is a good incentive for consideration.
User SkyisTheLimit, a forum moderator, someone who is representing EpicNPC with their actions, should never act like this, however, what would I know, right?

You make a good point, however in scenarios like this, I believe the user themselves should be punished, not the system.

 

[EpicNPC]

The general rule has always been that if a user fully resolves the issue, they won't get a negative feedback. We used to delete the feedback, but about a year ago we decided to change them to neutral instead.

The main reason is to provide incentive for the user to resolve the issue. I understand what you're saying about members acting poorly during a dispute, but I disagree that they should get a negative. These members don't want to accept the decision we make, so they delay or argue to prolong the situation. However often enough they will eventually resolve the issue. If they know that the negative won't be removed, I'm sure we'll end up with more disputes that are unsuccessfully resolved.

I would prefer to have a resolved dispute, then one where we ban someone. That said, if there's a history of someone doing this, we will of course take action, but a one time event can be forgiven.