Rating system

[barterer2002]

I agree with the elf here. From where I sit the purpose of the rating system is to find players that I'd rather not play with. Since I know that most players are going to have ratings in the 4.5-5.0 range, those that do not are ones that I'd be more reluctant to play. I usually go and find their negatives to see why. Usually its for deadbeating or abusive language, and I'd prefer not to play games with people who do either on a consistent basis. Those that claim that the system is broken must be trying to use it for a different reason than I am and I'd welcome their opinion to say what they wish it would do.

[Gold Knight]

Thanks for the summary Fitz, wish i could have taken a picture of my face when i thought Id have to read that entire master's thesis you just wrote...

But agreed, most solid players stick to playing other good players. Eventually you get the player that gives 1's across the board for no reason, but it really doesnt matter because the true ratings receieved will eventually balance this out. The reason I liked the old feedback system was because there a pretty clear line if someone was being truthful in their feedback, and it was personalized. Generic one-word feedback doesnt really do justice for most players, and I would like to see more descriptive of why they get rated the way they do. Along with Bruce, I'd be willing to help out as well with these feedback issues if we were to revert back to the old system.

[AAFitz]

Thanks for the summary Fitz, wish i could have taken a picture of my face when i thought Id have to read that entire master's thesis you just wrote...

But agreed, most solid players stick to playing other good players. Eventually you get the player that gives 1's across the board for no reason, but it really doesn't matter because the true ratings received will eventually balance this out. The reason I liked the old feedback system was because there a pretty clear line if someone was being truthful in their feedback, and it was personalized. Generic one-word feedback doesn't really do justice for most players, and I would like to see more descriptive of why they get rated the way they do. Along with Bruce, I'd be willing to help out as well with these feedback issues if we were to revert back to the old system.

Well believe me.. I was a big fan of the old feedback system.. most of the time I had more positive feedbacks than anyone on the whole site, and gave out more than anyone by a large margin. Its very possible that it was one of the main reasons for me enjoying CC. I also fought pretty hard to not have it changed at the time....very hard. However, I did see how much work went into regulating it, and as much work as this one is, it doesn't represent one hundredth of the number of complaints that the feedback system generated. People literally complained about every negative feedback...and so many left unfounded and abusive ones that many were justified.

Forget the possibility of an open ended feedback system.. it isnt feasible or worth it. It would take a team of ten people, and even then it wouldnt be enough, and there would still be complaints that would never end.

The rating system we have now is very effective...It achieves every goal that it is meant to. People dont use it perfectly, but people arent perfect, and the stakes are not high. Besides...people leaving too many positives is a good thing...building a positive environment is what CC is and what it has always been about. Those complaining about too many positives being left are just losing sight of the point of playing a game for fun with people from around the world. We arent here to click armies....we are here to play with other people...and most of us are here to have fun doing so, maybe even make friends, and at the very least...not annoy as many people as we can.

The ratings are just ratings. Any individual rating means nothing. And no individual positive rating means nothing. The tags are meaningless except to the giver, because no one reads them...its just a way to vent for players with no real consequence.

[AAFitz]

So your argument is this:

Most players deserve good ratings, Most players give out good ratings, Most players receive good ratings,
Therefore the rating system works.

I don't see the logic in that.

Well you wouldn't. You have a poor overall rating. It only makes sense that this logic would not make sense to you.

And, that is only half of the logic. the other half, is that it shows us the players that do not give good ratings and do not get good ratings and alows us to avoid them if we want to...or at least, know what to expect. For the majority that get and give good ratings, it makes perfect sense. It also allows us to know what to expect with a player like yourself that has lower ratings. You are actually an example of why the ratings work, as am I.

[Jatekos]

I can think of several uses of the ratings:

a) Feedback from the rater to the rated player: Highlights strengths and areas for development, 'encourage good sportsmanship'. (Instructions)

b) 'Spreading positivity', 'people should recieve a high number of good ratings'. 'It's just great that everyone leaves great ratings.... It's the way it should be on a fun game with fun people.' (AAFitz)

c) A tool that enables you to revenge yourself on your defender. Give them the lowest rating possible, with negative tags.

d) A record of the rated player's gameplay, attitude and fair play, based on the rater's personal rating criteria: Checking how you previously rated someone gives you the best information, because it is based on your special point of view.
Could be used more frequently with this:
Place a link to view only your own ratings left for players
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=106833&p=2440733#p2440733

e) A reference that the other players can check before joining a game with the rated player: 'Ratings can be useful to find good opponents and avoid bad ones.' (Instructions)

f) A source of information for the mods, which can help them to find questionable games of an accused player (e.g. when they are checking for secret alliances or multis).

g) Something to complain about. See C&A forum.

h) Get a medal for ratings achievement after rating 40/200/500 players.

i) The rating system is completely useless, never rate anyone or care about any ratings.

j) Is there a rating system? How can I use it?


This list is not exhaustive, I'm sure that there are several more uses of the ratings.
It just shows that it can be used for different reasons. Previously I argued for deleting extreme ratings, but now I think that we should leave the whole system as it is. Everyone should use it as he/she intends to.

I mainly use it for a) and d), and would like to see the implementation of the 'link to view only your own ratings left for players'. As soon as it is done, I will be satisfied with the rating system.

[jefjef]

The Elf has spoken. Discussion over.

Please lock this thread.

Meh. Just stating my opinion and you know it funny man.

Not being funny Elf. I agree.

[nippersean]

The Elf has spoken. Discussion over.

Please lock this thread.

Meh. Just stating my opinion and you know it funny man.

Not being funny Elf. I agree.

For my tuppence I agree with both of you two too.
It's not perfect, it's pretty good. It's a guide....it's an opinion, no more no less.

Bad losers that consistantly rate 1* to everyone that they get beaten by get warned / noted / barred from giving ratings.

While I think ratings abuse isn't the most pressing use of C&A mods time....they do matter to new players, who haven't got hundreds of games to average out silly or vindictive ratings and also tend to care about their ratings more (naturally).

I'm sure the spate of C&A reports will die down.

As for spurious stuff - I don't remember seeing too many either, though I do believe the odd spurious person jumping on the bandwagon with total nonsense. The same folk will post almost anything to cause trouble (usually with bad spelling / "LMFAO" or "noob" in the text). You're just gonna get that unfortunately, whatever the subject.

[elfish_lad]

The Elf has spoken. Discussion over.

Please lock this thread.

Meh. Just stating my opinion and you know it funny man.

Not being funny Elf. I agree.

Oh. Well. Erm... I agree with jefjef's agreement then!

[Snowgun]

per KS's request, i'm gonna cut and paste this from a C&A thread....not that anyone will read this/care

Just want to throw this out here, regarding deadbeat tags....

If you are winning a game, and you have maybe 1-2 turns left before you finish the guy, and the guy just stops playing....Thats fucking deadbeating in my opinion, even if i kill them before they can miss all three turns..

just because I spent the time between his deadbeats to kill him off, and therefore finished the game before he could deadbeat the FULL 3 TIMES doesn't make him less of a deadbeat.

I think for future reference, the deatbeat tag should be ok if less than 3 turns were missed at the end of a game.

I think you would find that 70% of deadbeating happens at the end of the game but is cut short of 3 misses due to the other person using the time to finish them off.

I completely agree with this.

Submit a claim in suggs & buggs that for all accounting purposes the deadbeat definition should be refined to include this sort of thing. See if it is taken in, if it is then that situation will from now on be that, if not then deadbeat stays as a player that has missed 3 consecutive turns and was kicked from the game.