Conquer Club

Concise description: A review and update of the current explanatory tags which can be used when leaving ratings.


Specifics/Details: Ok so I've seen a few threads recently around suggesting changes to some of the ratings explanatory tags so I am proposing a review and update of the tags.

We currently have 35 tags available when leaving ratings for our opponents. These tags are Quick or Slow, Deadbeat, Friendly, Funny, Helpful, Talkative or Silent, Rude, Complainer, Paranoid, Bully, Trustworthy or Backstabber, Good Teammate or Bad Teammate, Teammate Killer, Cooperative or Uncooperative, Brave or Coward, Irrational, Reckless, Suicider, Vindictive, Sore Loser, Quitter, Clueless, Balanced Play, Secret Diplomacy, Cheap Tactics, Leader or Follower, Good Strategy or Poor Strategy.

I believe that some of these are irrelevant, unneccessary, pointless, and we could use some new ones, as well as removing some of the current ones. It would be beneficial if there was some way to collect data and log how many times each tag has been used since the ratings system came out.

Explanatory tags I have scrutinised (with notes), there are eight in total.

• Cooperative or Uncooperative - I don't think we need these two tags as you could use Good Teammate or Bad Teammate. If you are talking about non-team games I think that these tags are irrelevant. We could quite easily find other tags to replace these two tags.
• Irrational - Matter of opinion as to what is, or is not, rational surely? This could also be thrown in with Reckless below. Make way for a new tag?
• Reckless, Suicider - These two are kind of similar or could at least be misconstrued as the same sort of thing. Could we not remove one?
• Vindictive, Sore Loser - These two are also kind of similar. Vindictive could be changed to "Bad Sport" or "Poor Sportsmanship".
• Secret Diplomacy - For me, the most controversial tag. If you rate a player and use this tag you should be filing a C&A report and the player should be banned. If you don't then you are just throwing accusations about. Therefore this tag is unneccesary and, in my opinion, should be removed.

Proposed changes to the explanatory tags.

• Remove six of the eight explanatory tags above and/or replace them with new ones.
• As of now, I am not going to list any, but new tags such as "magnaminous", "noble", or "honourable" are some that I have been thinking about.
• It would be great to have lots of input and ideas from the community.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments: A much more relevant and "user friendly" ratings system. Besides, it's always good to be updated.

That's my thoughts, all input and feedback is welcome!

Anyone?

well for one. vindictive would be if someone suicides into you, then you decide to get them back and follow through. sore loser would be whining. i would say those should both stay. i think that a couple more tags should probably be brought it. I remember seeing a thread around somewhere with some good suggs on new ones. also reckless could be where i leave very little to defend territories i own and push others hard, which is different from suiciding i think. I agree that some of them should be either or. Perhaps instead of removing tags just adding a few more if they're good suggestions? I can't agree about the secret diplomacy tag tho. sometimes ppl are accused but because of lack of evidence are only noted. this is like another way to show others they use cheap tactics.

You make some fair points but I think that we could maybe cut back on the current tags, then add new ones in, so as not to give too many to choose from.

However....

Darwins_Bane wrote:also reckless could be where i leave very little to defend territories i own and push others hard, which is different from suiciding i think.

Surely that could be tagged as poor strategy?

Darwins_Bane wrote:I can't agree about the secret diplomacy tag tho. sometimes ppl are accused but because of lack of evidence are only noted. this is like another way to show others they use cheap tactics.

Then just tag them with cheap tactics, poor strategy etc. I stand by my statement that we should not have this particular tag.

To be honest, I think that most people will agree that we could probably add one or two really good new tags.

JoshyBoy wrote:You make some fair points but I think that we could maybe cut back on the current tags, then add new ones in, so as not to give too many to choose from.

However....

Darwins_Bane wrote:also reckless could be where i leave very little to defend territories i own and push others hard, which is different from suiciding i think.

Surely that could be tagged as poor strategy?

what if it works? then it would no longer be poor lol. but still reckless.

JoshyBoy wrote:

Darwins_Bane wrote:I can't agree about the secret diplomacy tag tho. sometimes ppl are accused but because of lack of evidence are only noted. this is like another way to show others they use cheap tactics.

Then just tag them with cheap tactics, poor strategy etc. I stand by my statement that we should not have this particular tag.

To be honest, I think that most people will agree that we could probably add one or two really good new tags.

and i think you're prob right here.

I like your suggestion.
I especially like lumping a lot of stuff into "good sport"/"bad sport".

Because there is so much controversy over tactics, I think more detail is warrented there, perhaps. Instead of "forms unnannounced alliances", maybe "forms legal alliances", or "uses tactics I dislike"... etc.

I would also like to see a reference to language, since this is a biggie for some people. That is, some people really don't like swearing and so forth, others consider it "just a part of the game". Tags allow people to identify this, without making it a "bad" or "good rating".


The problem with the "bad teammate"/goodteammate is that too many people use it for non-team games OR they use it for opponents.

I would like to see some tags ONLY allowed for specific games -- teams, assassin, etc. AND I would like to see people within a team be allowed to judge their teammates -- "cooperates well in a team", (or other wording), as opposed to a general "plays team games well" or "plays team games poor", which could come from either opponents OR teammates.

Similarly, for Assassin, I think we need a tag that says "needs to read Assassin rules before playing again!"

Unfortunately, though, unless the tags are more accessible -- are "sortable" for example, any tag will do little good except for players who have played few games. Then, you always wonder if they got real, honest rankings or just happened to get a few people who generally rate bad/good.

perhaps also adding a tag for patient/impatient? and i dont just mean about whining cuz ppl arent taking their turns fast enough in a FS game. but rather gameplay-wise. this could be easily miscontrued tho.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Similarly, for Assassin, I think we need a tag that says "needs to read Assassin rules before playing again!"

I like this sugg. there should be more like it

Great feedback guys. I think a tag for patient/impatient would be great. "Needs to read the rules" could be phrased as naive? Sounds a little harsh but still....

I really like the idea of a tag for a player who is a "good sport", since we already have "bad sport" as "sore loser", and we don't have anything for the opposite of someone who is a bad sport.

Finally, I agree with you on the subject that some tags should only be available for specific games, particularly for team games ie. Good/Bad Teammate.

Secret Diplomacy - For me, the most controversial tag. If you rate a player and use this tag you should be filing a C&A report and the player should be banned. If you don't then you are just throwing accusations about. Therefore this tag is unneccesary and, in my opinion, should be removed.

I think mods might base verdicts on the amount of secret tags some player got as an indication of noticiable foul play. Also it is the only way to make this kind of thing/record known.
however, yes its all subjetive, an allegation without need for proof, so maybe it should go..

SirSebstar wrote:

Secret Diplomacy - For me, the most controversial tag. If you rate a player and use this tag you should be filing a C&A report and the player should be banned. If you don't then you are just throwing accusations about. Therefore this tag is unneccesary and, in my opinion, should be removed.

I think mods might base verdicts on the amount of secret tags some player got as an indication of noticiable foul play. Also it is the only way to make this kind of thing/record known.
however, yes its all subjetive, an allegation without need for proof, so maybe it should go..

Secret Diplomacy should definately go. Just to stop any unpleasantries. Now what are we thinking for new tags?

i really agree with adding good sport. i think we need more positive tags. they tags currently provided seem more for criticizing than praising players. we also have waaaaay too many tags.

other tags that i agree with or want to add:
patient
impatient
gracious winner
fun player? (this is a game afterall, don't we want to have fun?)


tags that i agree/suggest should be eliminated:
secret diplomacy
reckless
brave/coward (this is a game, not a real war)
backstabber (cheap tactics or bad teammate cover this)
paranoid
teammate killer (bad teammate covers this)
clueless (poor strategy covers this in a less mean way)
talkative (confusing as to whether this is a positive or negative, friendly covers the positive and there's no need to criticize someone for talking in game chat, it's irrelevant)
vindictive (covered by poor strategy)
follower (covered by poor strategy or good teammate depending on whether its positive or negative)

JoshyBoy wrote:Cooperative or Uncooperative - I don't think we need these two tags as you could use Good Teammate or Bad Teammate. If you are talking about non-team games I think that these tags are irrelevant. We could quite easily find other tags to replace these two tags.

I use these tags regularly, although I do not play team games. There is a stage in each game when one of the players starts to dominate the map, but can be stopped from winning if the others work together. This is a very important feature (i.e. if someone is able to realize the danger and put feud aside for a common short term goal or not), and I would like to continue using these tags. What other tags would you like them to be replaced with? Would they apply more to the situation I described above?

JoshyBoy wrote:

• Vindictive, Sore Loser - These two are also kind of similar. Vindictive could be changed to "Bad Sport" or "Poor Sportsmanship".
• Secret Diplomacy - For me, the most controversial tag. If you rate a player and use this tag you should be filing a C&A report and the player should be banned. If you don't then you are just throwing accusations about. Therefore this tag is unneccesary and, in my opinion, should be removed.

You are suggesting to use general terms instead of specific ones. True, 'bad sport' could be used instead all of these, but then we would miss the details. I would rather keep the specific tags and avoid using e.g. poor sportmanship, because it is too general. If someone received a 'poor sportmanship' tag how would we know the reason? Do we want to check the relevant games to find it out or would it be better if there were a couple of tags for the main cases, and we could use them instead?

It is probably not the right word, but I would add something like liar or deceptive. You know, there are people who are so deceptive and exaggerate so much that it becomes annoying. It is also one form of bad sportmanship, but it is quite different from e.g. being vindictive, which would be also categorized as bad sportmanship according to your suggestion.

deceit is part of the strategy of the game. i strongly oppose adding that tag.

after sleeping on it, i retract my vote for patient/impatient. if someone is being outwardly impatient, then they are being rude. if someone is being patient, good sport or friendly would cover it.

One positive tag I would like to see is "helpful".

PLAYER57832 wrote:One positive tag I would like to see is "helpful".

You should check your ratings more carefully? (It's there)

squishyg wrote:deceit is part of the strategy of the game. i strongly oppose adding that tag.

Yes, I know that it is, for part of the players. However, there are ones that can win without using it, and maybe not everyone likes it (some may even honour it with an appropriate negative tag ).

Jatekos wrote:

squishyg wrote:deceit is part of the strategy of the game. i strongly oppose adding that tag.

Yes, I know that it is, for part of the players. However, there are ones that can win without using it, and maybe not everyone likes it (some may even honour it with an appropriate negative tag ).

i get what you're saying, but can't we just tag that player with cheap tactics then?

squishyg wrote:

Jatekos wrote:

squishyg wrote:deceit is part of the strategy of the game. i strongly oppose adding that tag.

Yes, I know that it is, for part of the players. However, there are ones that can win without using it, and maybe not everyone likes it (some may even honour it with an appropriate negative tag ).

i get what you're saying, but can't we just tag that player with cheap tactics then?

I agree. If I'm playing a foggy game I like to shout out false claims in chat if someone else is revealing stacks. if they do reveal stacks they get a cheap tactics tag.

squishyg wrote:

Jatekos wrote:

squishyg wrote:deceit is part of the strategy of the game. i strongly oppose adding that tag.

Yes, I know that it is, for part of the players. However, there are ones that can win without using it, and maybe not everyone likes it (some may even honour it with an appropriate negative tag ).

i get what you're saying, but can't we just tag that player with cheap tactics then?

We could, but then it could refer to multies and secret diplomacy as well (and maybe more). There could be very different reasons why a player is using this tag. Why should we use general terms that do not reveal what the rater thought to be important? E.g. if you are OK with deceit used, then you probably would not mind joining a game with someone who received a lot of deceit tags. On the other hand, you may not want to join a game with someone who e.g. received a lot of secret diplomacy tags.
I think we should distinguish a couple of key cases that incorporate cheap tactics, and use those specific terms instead.

Nothing more specific then being able to write your own feedback

alex951 wrote:Nothing more specific then being able to write your own feedback

Already a thread asking for that

TheForgivenOne wrote:

alex951 wrote:Nothing more specific then being able to write your own feedback

Already a thread asking for that

Yeah unfortunately I think the old feedback system, like Flame Wars, will not be returning. A shame really because I liked the feedback system.

I have always tried to use the ratings sytem fairly. If I have an overrepresentation of 5stars and "good ratings" it's because I try not to rate unless I get a real feel for the persons playing style. ie, a escalating game thats "over before it begins" I don't rate except the winner, because, it's very hard to form an objective opinion about the other players, somtimes hard to form one about the winner too.

I really like freedom of choice with ratings, so I'm very much *against* taking AWAY options. They are never irrelevant, and Can be used to describe the subtulties of varying situations. (eahc game is after all unique)

I would like to make the more offtopic suggestion of creating MORE *positive* options. There are plenty of options for poor/rude players, but fewer tags to describe the great/honourable players one meets

my five cents.

Trouble is, how many people ever actually take the time to READ other people's tags?

I know I check other peoples ratings every day for a wide variety of reasons.