Conquer Club

Personally I am guilty of not leaving ratings every game, i tend to do it in spurts, rating whatever players/games i can every week or so. I rarely give a BAD rating. As long as the person takes his turns in timely manner doesnt miss too many or deadbeat. i rate him 5 stars.

Deadbeating will definately get you a negative rating from me. So will missing alot of turns especially "strategic" missed turns although i tend to deal with this in games by busting the bonus of a missed turn.

Ive never left a bad rating on the basis of "CHAT" because noone forces me to read it or respond to it. I have a thick skin and their life is tough enough living in their parents basement, asking if you want fries with that and wondering what kissing an actual girl you dont have to inflate without me pointing it out and then trashing their ratings for emotional spite like a 3 year old child.

However in two seperate games ive been rated as a sore loser when I WON the game. How is this ossible and can i get the rating removed on that basis ? in another game i was rated a 'suicider' because I took out someone who attacked me every round turned down multiple peace/ceasefire offers and my personal offer to provide free therapy to him. I went on to win this game also.

I have a weird sense of humor some people like some dont, but we are supposed to rate a persons skill at risk not interpersonal relationships. I do in fact have a masters in counseling and some players on here are emotional children who would benefit greatly from some therapy. I can only assume their part time minimum wage job wont pay for it and its probably hard to get there on a bicycle

NO answer ?????..............................can I have a "sore loser " rating removed if i won the game i was rated that in ?

kublia khan wrote:NO answer ?????..............................can I have a "sore loser " rating removed if i won the game i was rated that in ?

Bad ratings piss you off at the time, but eventually you forget about them. Statistically, the number will have a vanishingly small impact on your overall rating, and the tag itself means little. Few people read them and even fewer care.

You can always ask the person to withdraw the rating, but if he won't just accept that it's one idiot's opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

Dukasaur wrote:

kublia khan wrote:NO answer ?????..............................can I have a "sore loser " rating removed if i won the game i was rated that in ?

Bad ratings piss you off at the time, but eventually you forget about them. Statistically, the number will have a vanishingly small impact on your overall rating, and the tag itself means little. Few people read them and even fewer care.

You can always ask the person to withdraw the rating, but if he won't just accept that it's one idiot's opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

Who cares, the ratings system is broken anyway.

Most players should have an average rating (3.0). Somehow the average rating has shifted to about a (4.5)... So now we have an effective bandwidth range of (4.5-5.0).

Like I said, meaningless.

who cares? i have over 1200 games, only rated 44 players...

demonfork wrote:Who cares, the ratings system is broken anyway.

Most players should have an average rating (3.0). Somehow the average rating has shifted to about a (4.5)... So now we have an effective bandwidth range of (4.5-5.0).

Like I said, meaningless.

And yet you have 3.9

kublia khan wrote:NO answer ?????..............................can I have a "sore loser " rating removed if i won the game i was rated that in ?

No you can't.

Only way to get the rating removed is, as Dukausar said, asking the one that gave you the rating.

It's definitely not meaningless.

At my job, I get rated on a 1-5 scale. If I earned a 3, I'd probably get a warning. A couple of 3s, and it would be time to start polishing the ol' CV.

3.9 is borderline. 4.0 is acceptable. 4.2+ is the target.

Just shift that up for CC. 4.7-4.9 ratings are for good to great players. Subtract a few tenths for more speed games. Add a few tenths for having a good attitude.

Bollocks, ratings are a load of bollocks. A medal for rating is just retarded.

demonfork wrote:
Who cares, the ratings system is broken anyway.

Most players should have an average rating (3.0). Somehow the average rating has shifted to about a (4.5)... So now we have an effective bandwidth range of (4.5-5.0).

Like I said, meaningless.

Looking at your ratings Rating:
3.9 | View demonfork's ratings

4.5-5.0 for good fair honest contributing human beings and you have 3.9 - I would say the current system is accurate and NOT broken.

jefjef wrote:

demonfork wrote:
Who cares, the ratings system is broken anyway.

Most players should have an average rating (3.0). Somehow the average rating has shifted to about a (4.5)... So now we have an effective bandwidth range of (4.5-5.0).

Like I said, meaningless.

Looking at your ratings Rating:
3.9 | View demonfork's ratings

4.5-5.0 for good fair honest contributing human beings and you have 3.9 - I would say the current system is accurate and NOT broken.

You obviously don't understand what average means.

demonfork wrote:

jefjef wrote:

demonfork wrote:
Who cares, the ratings system is broken anyway.

Most players should have an average rating (3.0). Somehow the average rating has shifted to about a (4.5)... So now we have an effective bandwidth range of (4.5-5.0).

Like I said, meaningless.

Looking at your ratings Rating:
3.9 | View demonfork's ratings

4.5-5.0 for good fair honest contributing human beings and you have 3.9 - I would say the current system is accurate and NOT broken.

You obviously don't understand what average means.

An average is not a midpoint.

Just as one basic example: Men range from 1'9" to 8'1". The midpoint between those two extremes is 4'11", but 4'11" is not the average height of a man. The average height of a man is almost a foot taller than that, at 5'10". Tall men are much more common than short men, which skews the distribution toward the higher end of the range.

If ratings were random, they would tend toward the midpoint, but they are not, and therefore they show a skew which reflects the human tendency to be nice to each other. The fact that the average is skewed by no means makes it worthless. One has to find where the average is (around 4.6 I believe) and consider that when interpreting the results.

i warned 2 guys not to hit me or i would strike back....so it happened and now i am 2 ratings a backstabber,sore loser and more nonsense.Instead i should be called a man of my words,brave and knight in shining armour!Only thing i can do is rate them back badly.With other words;ratings are stupid,tend to abused.Look at sports with ratings,if the atletes would rate eachother it would be a laugh.

Dukasaur wrote:

demonfork wrote:

jefjef wrote:

demonfork wrote:
Who cares, the ratings system is broken anyway.

Most players should have an average rating (3.0). Somehow the average rating has shifted to about a (4.5)... So now we have an effective bandwidth range of (4.5-5.0).

Like I said, meaningless.

Looking at your ratings Rating:
3.9 | View demonfork's ratings

4.5-5.0 for good fair honest contributing human beings and you have 3.9 - I would say the current system is accurate and NOT broken.

You obviously don't understand what average means.

An average is not a midpoint.

Just as one basic example: Men range from 1'9" to 8'1". The midpoint between those two extremes is 4'11", but 4'11" is not the average height of a man. The average height of a man is almost a foot taller than that, at 5'10". Tall men are much more common than short men, which skews the distribution toward the higher end of the range.

If ratings were random, they would tend toward the midpoint, but they are not, and therefore they show a skew which reflects the human tendency to be nice to each other. The fact that the average is skewed by no means makes it worthless. One has to find where the average is (around 4.6 I believe) and consider that when interpreting the results.

Nice strawman Gary... Remind me again where I said that average = midpoint? Thanks for the lesson though.

Continuing on... If you want to believe that reducing the effective resolution of the ratings system is a good thing for producing meaningful results then more power to you.

The ratings guideline clearly states the following...

The number of stars given should be based on this scale: 1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.


According to this scale my rating of 3.9 is above average, yet it is considered to be a poor rating.

Which is it Gary? Poor or above average?

demonfork wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

demonfork wrote:

jefjef wrote:

demonfork wrote:
Who cares, the ratings system is broken anyway.

Most players should have an average rating (3.0). Somehow the average rating has shifted to about a (4.5)... So now we have an effective bandwidth range of (4.5-5.0).

Like I said, meaningless.

Looking at your ratings Rating:
3.9 | View demonfork's ratings

4.5-5.0 for good fair honest contributing human beings and you have 3.9 - I would say the current system is accurate and NOT broken.

You obviously don't understand what average means.

An average is not a midpoint.

Just as one basic example: Men range from 1'9" to 8'1". The midpoint between those two extremes is 4'11", but 4'11" is not the average height of a man. The average height of a man is almost a foot taller than that, at 5'10". Tall men are much more common than short men, which skews the distribution toward the higher end of the range.

If ratings were random, they would tend toward the midpoint, but they are not, and therefore they show a skew which reflects the human tendency to be nice to each other. The fact that the average is skewed by no means makes it worthless. One has to find where the average is (around 4.6 I believe) and consider that when interpreting the results.

Nice strawman Gary... Remind me again where I said that average = midpoint? Thanks for the lesson though.

Continuing on... If you want to believe that reducing the effective resolution of the ratings system is a good thing for producing meaningful results then more power to you.

The ratings guideline clearly states the following...

The number of stars given should be based on this scale: 1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.


According to this scale my rating of 3.9 is above average, yet it is considered to be a poor rating.

Which is it Gary? Poor or above average?

Yeah, 3.9 is a poor rating. The average is somewhere around 4.6.

That being said, the average for players who play a lot of speed games is lower than for people who don't. Tempers tend to run hot in speed games, and there's some vindictive rating at play there. Still, even among speed game players the average is probably somewhere between 4.2 and 4.5.

Almost nobody follows the guidelines. I know I did for maybe my first two weeks on CC. After taking a shitload of abuse for giving people what I thought were very fair ratings, I caved in and started giving most people 5 stars, really inept players 4 stars, and reserved scores lower than that only for those who broke deals in diplomacy games, which I don't play often.

Just to be clear -- I've never said I like the ratings system. I think it's poorly designed and badly in need of an overhaul. I was just challenging your assertion that it provides no information because the average isn't where it's "expected".

I try to rate right .... and i even invite people to ask me why... almost noone does ...
I agree this need an overhaul! it needs a bit of thinking through and wor k:)

Dukasaur wrote:

demonfork wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

demonfork wrote:

jefjef wrote:

demonfork wrote:
Who cares, the ratings system is broken anyway.

Most players should have an average rating (3.0). Somehow the average rating has shifted to about a (4.5)... So now we have an effective bandwidth range of (4.5-5.0).

Like I said, meaningless.

Looking at your ratings Rating:
3.9 | View demonfork's ratings

4.5-5.0 for good fair honest contributing human beings and you have 3.9 - I would say the current system is accurate and NOT broken.

You obviously don't understand what average means.

An average is not a midpoint.

Just as one basic example: Men range from 1'9" to 8'1". The midpoint between those two extremes is 4'11", but 4'11" is not the average height of a man. The average height of a man is almost a foot taller than that, at 5'10". Tall men are much more common than short men, which skews the distribution toward the higher end of the range.

If ratings were random, they would tend toward the midpoint, but they are not, and therefore they show a skew which reflects the human tendency to be nice to each other. The fact that the average is skewed by no means makes it worthless. One has to find where the average is (around 4.6 I believe) and consider that when interpreting the results.

Nice strawman Gary... Remind me again where I said that average = midpoint? Thanks for the lesson though.

Continuing on... If you want to believe that reducing the effective resolution of the ratings system is a good thing for producing meaningful results then more power to you.

The ratings guideline clearly states the following...

The number of stars given should be based on this scale: 1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.


According to this scale my rating of 3.9 is above average, yet it is considered to be a poor rating.

Which is it Gary? Poor or above average?

Yeah, 3.9 is a poor rating. The average is somewhere around 4.6.

That being said, the average for players who play a lot of speed games is lower than for people who don't. Tempers tend to run hot in speed games, and there's some vindictive rating at play there. Still, even among speed game players the average is probably somewhere between 4.2 and 4.5.

Almost nobody follows the guidelines. I know I did for maybe my first two weeks on CC. After taking a shitload of abuse for giving people what I thought were very fair ratings, I caved in and started giving most people 5 stars, really inept players 4 stars, and reserved scores lower than that only for those who broke deals in diplomacy games, which I don't play often.

Just to be clear -- I've never said I like the ratings system. I think it's poorly designed and badly in need of an overhaul. I was just challenging your assertion that it provides no information because the average isn't where it's "expected".

Once again Gary you have are having a hard time with reading comprehension...

I didn't say that the broken ratings system provides "no information"... clearly there is information there.

I said that the information is meaningless or provides information of little value. You even admitted that you quit giving out correct ratings because of the backlash that you were receiving. Can you explain to me the value of a rating that doesn't reflect the actual measured condition?

If you and everyone else give out ratings of 5's to a players that deserved a 3's, for fear of backlash, then on what fucking planet is that 5 meaningful data?

Just because you are a spineless coward that lacks the courage of his own convictions and willingly doctors data for personal gain, it doesn't afford you the privilege of also claiming that the data is meaningful.

demonfork wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Yeah, 3.9 is a poor rating. The average is somewhere around 4.6.

That being said, the average for players who play a lot of speed games is lower than for people who don't. Tempers tend to run hot in speed games, and there's some vindictive rating at play there. Still, even among speed game players the average is probably somewhere between 4.2 and 4.5.

Almost nobody follows the guidelines. I know I did for maybe my first two weeks on CC. After taking a shitload of abuse for giving people what I thought were very fair ratings, I caved in and started giving most people 5 stars, really inept players 4 stars, and reserved scores lower than that only for those who broke deals in diplomacy games, which I don't play often.

Just to be clear -- I've never said I like the ratings system. I think it's poorly designed and badly in need of an overhaul. I was just challenging your assertion that it provides no information because the average isn't where it's "expected".

Once again Gary you have are having a hard time with reading comprehension...

I didn't say that the broken ratings system provides "no information"... clearly there is information there.

I said that the information is meaningless or provides information of little value. You even admitted that you quit giving out correct ratings because of the backlash that you were receiving. Can you explain to me the value of a rating that doesn't reflect the actual measured condition?

If you and everyone else give out ratings of 5's to a players that deserved a 3's, for fear of backlash, then on what fucking planet is that 5 meaningful data?

Just because you are a spineless coward that lacks the courage of his own convictions and willingly doctors data for personal gain, it doesn't afford you the privilege of also claiming that the data is meaningful.

The clock in my car used to be 18 minutes fast, until we went to Daylight Savings. Now it's 42 minutes slow. I don't even think about it, I just automatically add 42 minutes to whatever it says. If it says 5:15, I know it's 5:57 and it just isn't a problem. It's just an automatic process in my brain.

If you know that a measurement system is off by a predictable amount, it is useful information.

I know it's really hard to get people to give a low rating. If I see a player below 4.5 I know there's something wrong. I don't always know what's wrong without looking closer at them, and I don't usually care, but if I look I will find a problem. Maybe they have a trail of broken alliances behind them, maybe they deadbeat a lot, whatever. In your case, it's an unfortunate tendency to speak in an extraordinarily ungentlemanly fashion in game chat.

Again, I don't usually care, but if I do, a player with a rating below 4.5 will always have some kind of problem like that.

Dukasaur wrote:

demonfork wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Yeah, 3.9 is a poor rating. The average is somewhere around 4.6.

That being said, the average for players who play a lot of speed games is lower than for people who don't. Tempers tend to run hot in speed games, and there's some vindictive rating at play there. Still, even among speed game players the average is probably somewhere between 4.2 and 4.5.

Almost nobody follows the guidelines. I know I did for maybe my first two weeks on CC. After taking a shitload of abuse for giving people what I thought were very fair ratings, I caved in and started giving most people 5 stars, really inept players 4 stars, and reserved scores lower than that only for those who broke deals in diplomacy games, which I don't play often.

Just to be clear -- I've never said I like the ratings system. I think it's poorly designed and badly in need of an overhaul. I was just challenging your assertion that it provides no information because the average isn't where it's "expected".

Once again Gary you have are having a hard time with reading comprehension...

I didn't say that the broken ratings system provides "no information"... clearly there is information there.

I said that the information is meaningless or provides information of little value. You even admitted that you quit giving out correct ratings because of the backlash that you were receiving. Can you explain to me the value of a rating that doesn't reflect the actual measured condition?

If you and everyone else give out ratings of 5's to a players that deserved a 3's, for fear of backlash, then on what fucking planet is that 5 meaningful data?

Just because you are a spineless coward that lacks the courage of his own convictions and willingly doctors data for personal gain, it doesn't afford you the privilege of also claiming that the data is meaningful.

The clock in my car used to be 18 minutes fast, until we went to Daylight Savings. Now it's 42 minutes slow. I don't even think about it, I just automatically add 42 minutes to whatever it says. If it says 5:15, I know it's 5:57 and it just isn't a problem. It's just an automatic process in my brain.

If you know that a measurement system is off by a predictable amount, it is useful information.

I know it's really hard to get people to give a low rating. If I see a player below 4.5 I know there's something wrong. I don't always know what's wrong without looking closer at them, and I don't usually care, but if I look I will find a problem. Maybe they have a trail of broken alliances behind them, maybe they deadbeat a lot, whatever. In your case, it's an unfortunate tendency to speak in an extraordinarily ungentlemanly fashion in game chat.

Again, I don't usually care, but if I do, a player with a rating below 4.5 will always have some kind of problem like that.

Your clock analogy is preposterous.

You are clearly delusional and unable to admit when you are wrong and will go to great lengths, using mental gymnastics, to maintain a false position.

This debate is pointless. Continue to champion a broken system.

Peace.

The ratings system was implemented (I believe) to get rid of the old feedback system that created eternal bad blood among players and groups.

Since the rating process is presented when you are done with a game, and it's 5 clicks away and it's optional, rarely people rate others, except when they feel gay and want to give 5 stars to a player due to a fun game they just won or when they feel angry/frustrated/offended and want to "punish" another player.

I don't remember someone using the rating system right. And if someone new does, people will get upset and ask why they got 3 in gameplay, even if they did play badly, and in no time he'll be rating 5s.

I wouldn't say 4.5 is the average, most people is over 4.5, I'd say it's a mental line we've all created to guess who will be a "average" player, meaning who will not be an ass or be an idiot in the game.

a really easy fix:
you have a window to rate players. You shouldn't be able to see how they rated you until you've rated them too or until the deadline for ratings is passed.

So 3 phases:
1) player rate eachother, blind to what they've recieved
2) the time for ratings and amendments is over. player can now see how they've been rated
3) responses to rating can be written but that's it. ratings can only change after subsequent games with eachother

i assume someone's thought of this before? what was the problem with it?

Good luck.

Dukasaur wrote:Just as one basic example: Men range from 1'9" to 8'1". The midpoint between those two extremes is 4'11".

Speak for yourself, I range from about 3 inches to a solid 8 inches depending on the temperature of the water.

I give people 5 stars if they behaved decently, and rarely rate the irritating ones. I figured out early that most people just use it as a means of recognising fellow players rather than judging them. I rarely get bad ratings, and those are mostly from angry types, and usually predictable. I wouldn't fret over it too much.