by PLAYER57832 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:08 am
I think we need to go even further and actually specify the behaviors that will make each rating.
I realize that there is a wide difference of opinion on what is OK and what is not. The whole "real time" issue.... swearing in chat or even chatting at all,... etc. BUT, if the guidelines were specified, while you would still get a few who would just "do their own thing", most would go along.
I still also feel we have a real need to distinguish those who have strong opinions outside the majority. Things like those who thing "slamming" and "talking crap" etc are all just "part of the game". If folks want to play that way, fine, but a LOT of folks just don't.
AND simply looking at the ratings, especially how they are now, just does not "cut it".
I can absolutely understand the need to keep mods out of the jury business, especially as CC grows so phenomonally. But, even if the old system was subjective, you could at least read the feedback and get a pretty good idea of what a particular person was thinking.
ALSO, I think there has been far too much attention placed on the positive end. I mean, it is nice to hear someone say "this is a wonderful player ... she actually HELPED ME understand the map" ... or "delightful conversation" etc. BUT, the real truth is few people actually read many of the positives other than the one to whom they are meant. The wall is a decent alternative to that, though I doubt I will use it. I just PM any pertinent comments.
I am actually OK with simply having 5 as the standard ... but 4 is good, too. I agree that 3 seems ... well, a bit of a come down. Remember, this isn't school.... and, a lot of times, a nice compliment goes a lot further to enhance someone's play. You know the old saying "you catch more flies with honey".
There are more than a few cases, especially with new players, where I have left a comment specifically because I want to be sure to specifically encourage good behavior. Giving someone "border line" a compliment often goes much further than an insult or criticism. I reserved negatives and even nuetrals for the really bad stuff. Even then, if I was dealing with a relatively inexperienced player, I would be much more likely to give a nuetral. I might say "strategy is OK, but I really could have done without the language ... a personal choice issue" or something of the sort.
And that, I guess is the biggest problem. We are such a diverse community with so many different ideas and ways of doing things that uniformity is impossible. That is why explanations are so important.
I did submit a suggestion. It was probably too early, quite possibly too complicated. BUT, I also clearly stated it was just one attempt.
I support the above idea, and anything else that will offer at least some improvement. However, I don't think it goes nearly far enough. And, I think that the changes that are required to make this current system really and truly work are more than just minor tweaks.
I also, as I have said before, still think that this needs to be somehow broached with the wider community, no matter what the polls here in the forum say. I liked the open poll put in place for the Risk change. ANYONE could just click "yeah" or "nay", without having to enter the actual forum. Because is was so easy, anyone with any opinion at all was likely to contribute. In the forum, you get the "regulars" .. folks like myself who just like to "chat" and so forth ... and those with a gripe. It is just human nature. THAT is why the response to the community is so often at variance with the responses engendered within the forum.
