[09-Jun-2008] Ratings & Medals

[Night Strike]

so, does the roman numeral at the bottom of the plac change as you run more and more tournaments?

Yep. Go check out Optimus Prime.

[wpg27offsuit]

why do some people have medals and some people don't?

HERE HERE!!!!

And more pointedly - why do all the higher ranks have medals.. it looks about Seargent first class and above from what I have seen.

I KNOW my stats deserve medals (based on your description) - but I have none.. WTF .. is this a "clique" Only the upper class get the medals.

No one has even responded to how often the stats are updated..

Communication folks.. communication....

Have you won a game yet? Once you win a game, your medals will be all updated to what you have earned over your CC career.


--Andy

I have won 359 games. I guarantee 20 unique players .. or more
And I won a Canada Game just yesterday I believe... so... yes.. I have won a game since the new system went into place

[AndyDufresne]

At your next win, if you still don't receive the medals, file a bug report in the Bug Reports Forum...you may have won the game during a time of Limbo.


--Andy

I have won 359 games. I guarantee 20 unique players .. or more
And I won a Canada Game just yesterday I believe... so... yes.. I have won a game since the new system went into place

[Night Strike]

I have won 359 games. I guarantee 20 unique players .. or more
And I won a Canada Game just yesterday I believe... so... yes.. I have won a game since the new system went into place

You won that Canada game at 9 AM Monday morning (my time), but the update wasn't until 5 PM Monday evening (my time). So you haven't won since the update.

[Mr_Adams]

OP has 15? I thought he'd have many more with all the tourny's he's taken over from other people.

[Night Strike]

OP has 15? I thought he'd have many more with all the tourny's he's taken over from other people.

Those are only the ones that I've done so far. I think Steelhorse is going the other half.

[Optimus Prime]

OP has 15? I thought he'd have many more with all the tourny's he's taken over from other people.

As a note: I've only ever taken over 2 tournaments.

Secondly, I've actually got 27 finished, but Steelhorse has to add the rest.

[-BAS-]

im sorry but i do perfer the old system. this point system is just to vague.

[Neoteny]

Whoa. Interesting. I have two questions: I can't be arsed to look through all this, but is there a petition complaining about this yet? Can I make fun of it?

[Ditocoaf]

Whoa. Interesting. I have two questions: I can't be arsed to look through all this, but is there a petition complaining about this yet? Can I make fun of it?

I think most people like the medals. There is a movement in the suggestion forum to get a definition for the numbers, though. There's a quite heated debate over what a normal player who did nothing wrong should get-- a 3 for average, or a 5 for no deductions, or a 4 for "great, but not perfect".

The petition for removal should arrive soon, however.

[Nigelus]

A little research on Likert scales would possibly have helped this work better. A Likert scale without descriptors for the individual ratings (i.e, 1 - Strongly Disagree, 2 - Disagree, 3 - Neither Agree or Disagree, 4 - Agree, 5 - Strongly Agree) makes this a nearly useless tool that leaves its users flying blind as to what they are rating.

Bring back the feedback. That is the only way that a player can really know what kind of people that they are joining games with.

CPTMO

Kudos CPTMO,

I said the same thing earlier - I'm a counselor/researcher in psychology (We almost exclusively use social feedback & subjective rating scales; e.g., Likert-type scales) & I suggested the same thing.

If we can't have the old system back, then continue to tweak the new system to make it more reliable & especially valid as it evolves. I especially liked the suggestion someone made about checking boxes for DBers/suiciders/foul-mouthed, etc. At least a checked box does give more valid information than just the stars - And, as someone else stated, the star tends to clutter the screen during play... I sometimes have trouble finding what color I am when I'm playing 20-30 at a time - And, I don't play nearly as often as some of "the vets."

Thanks for trying to listen to the feedback guys, but I think the Positive - Negative ratio on this subject forum is probably 50-1. Waivers are signed for reasons - Are you having trouble enforcing all the issues people have about their feedback? Or, has someone applied legal pressure on you b/c of what some loudmouth said to someone else... You've covered your bases in your examples, your waivers & when people check"ed" the feedback box - How strictly have you upheld these contracts? - Or, are these people who get ejected crying "discrimination?" Just curious & want a system that will let me stray clear of people who are abusive in chat, suicide or DB...

Cheers,
Nigelus.

[on we go]

WHAT ABOUT US WHO ONLY PLAY 1V1?

[endar1077]

Okay, I've been reading 80% of the responses on this thread, and I think that the popular opinion is pretty clear. Medals were a great idea, let's keep them. But I'd say only about 5% of the responses I've read actually approve of the new feedback system. I think it's pretty obvious now that it should just be switched back until you all can figure out a mod that will fly better than this, because this is crashing and burning really quickly. So come on already, restore our feedbacks and bring back the old system, at least for the time being. Please?....

[snufkin]

A little research on Likert scales would possibly have helped this work better. A Likert scale without descriptors for the individual ratings (i.e, 1 - Strongly Disagree, 2 - Disagree, 3 - Neither Agree or Disagree, 4 - Agree, 5 - Strongly Agree) makes this a nearly useless tool that leaves its users flying blind as to what they are rating.

CPTMO

I went with 3 - agree, 4 - strongly agree and 5 - absolutely outstanding..

3 out of 5 always meant something like "good job" to me but if it´s meant to be used differently (with 3 meaning neutral or even slightly negative) then I´ve been cheap with my ratings so far..

[jiminski]

Okay, I've been reading 80% of the responses on this thread, and I think that the popular opinion is pretty clear. Medals were a great idea, let's keep them. But I'd say only about 5% of the responses I've read actually approve of the new feedback system. I think it's pretty obvious now that it should just be switched back until you all can figure out a mod that will fly better than this, because this is crashing and burning really quickly. So come on already, restore our feedbacks and bring back the old system, at least for the time being. Please?....

they can't change it back.... the old system was so subjective and subject to mean-spirited tussles that they needed to make it automated and uniform.
And it really has been a very good try so far.

It is though, rather unsatisfactory ... and I genuinely don't care about bloody feedback ... damn-it i must do for some reason, oh yes! i care about this stupid site whose environment i spend too much time in.. .. that must be it!

The old system, as obviously flawed and in need of a change as it was, allowed for so much more!
It allowed you to address heinous behaviour (with a negative). It allowed you to talk about specific skills and qualities of great players. It allowed you to write gibberish if you wanted.

All this system allows for is judgement on rude behaviour.. and as such it is very limited!

Now I understand that the Gibberish had to go and i understand that the all-purpose nature of the written feedback had to go due to logistics.
But where is the ability to mark on playing the game?

Lack has been quoted:

We don't want attributes based on skill because the goal of ratings is to encourage good behaviour. For skill we already have score, rank and medals.

But why!?
Have you looked at the threads recently (rhetoric) scores are often based on games-type as much as skill.
A meaningful word on fine play made in a good spirit, from a respected player meant more than score in many ways!

And the medals reward so many other things other than skill!
Mainly they are like air-miles .. they are a loyalty reward for playing more games than anyone else. So i refute that they are a meaningful register of skill anyway!..
They are like the medals Prince Philip (husband to the Queen of England) has on his army dress-uniform.. "here you are Pip ... one for services to Queen and Count-try.. one for walking the corgi's... and here's one just for being you!"

And anyway Skill is behaviour
Surely it is one to be encouraged!

How can i mark a lovely person who behaved with the tactical acumen of a slow-brained goat?
How can i mark a total arse whose strategic behaviour may have been taken from the mind of Napoleon?


the old system, which we were used to, allowed you to come from the heat of the battle (i realise a collection of geeks pressing buttons, whilst looking for 'mates' to stalk on Facebook is not much of a battle!) and give glory to a genius play.. it allowed that feeling of humility you get when you are beaten into respect for a creative mind!

At this moment everyone gets a 5, unless they are a totally obnoxious cock (make it our of 10 to give nuance without insult) and you can only mark someone on attitude, attendance and the other one.....
It is not 'completely' pointless but it is unsatisfying.


It is a real shame that we are always such ungrateful whiners! I really like what you have done and it may well "all be all right in the morning" but i think you have missed an opportunity if you leave it exactly as it is.

Medals - are a lovely touch
The easy Rating system - works for you ..but not quite for me.

[suggs]

Okay, I've been reading 80% of the responses on this thread, and I think that the popular opinion is pretty clear. Medals were a great idea, let's keep them. But I'd say only about 5% of the responses I've read actually approve of the new feedback system. I think it's pretty obvious now that it should just be switched back until you all can figure out a mod that will fly better than this, because this is crashing and burning really quickly. So come on already, restore our feedbacks and bring back the old system, at least for the time being. Please?....

they can't change it back.... the old system was so subjective and subject to mean-spirited tussles that they needed to make it automated and uniform.
Suggs: That, in a nut shell, is why it is rubbish. Automated and uniform=soulless and not as fun.

It is though, rather unsatisfactory ... and I genuinely don't care about bloody feedback ... damn-it i must do for some reason, oh yes! i care about this stupid site whose environment i spend too much time in.. .. that must be it!

The old system, as obviously flawed and in need of a change as it was, allowed for so much more!
It allowed you to address heinous behaviour (with a negative). It allowed you to talk about specific skills and qualities of great players. It allowed you to write gibberish if you wanted.

All this system allows for is judgement on rude behaviour.. and as such it is very limited!

Now I understand that the Gibberish had to go and i understand that the all-purpose nature of the written feedback had to go due to logistics.
But where is the ability to mark on playing the game?

Lack has been quoted:

We don't want attributes based on skill because the goal of ratings is to encourage good behaviour. For skill we already have score, rank and medals.

But why!?
Have you looked at the threads recently (rhetoric) scores are often based on games-type as much as skill.
A meaningful word on fine play made in a good spirit, from a respected player meant more than score in many ways!

And the medals reward so many other things other than skill!
Mainly they are like air-miles .. they are a loyalty reward for playing more games than anyone else. So i refute that they are a meaningful register of skill anyway!..
They are like the medals Prince Philip (husband to the Queen of England) has on his army dress-uniform.. "here you are Pip ... one for services to Queen and Count-try.. one for walking the corgi's... and here's one just for being you!"

And anyway Skill is behaviour
How can i mark a lovely person who behaved with the tactical acumen of a slow-brained goat?
How can i mark a total arse whose strategic behaviour may have been taken from the mind of Napoleon?

the old system, which we were used to, allowed you to come from the heat of the battle (i realise a collection of geeks pressing buttons, whilst looking for 'mates' to stalk on Facebook is not much of a battle!) and give glory to a genius play.. it allowed that feeling of humility you get when you are beaten into respect for a creative mind!

At this moment everyone gets a 5, unless they are a totally obnoxious cock (make it our of 10 to give nuance without insult) and you can only mark someone on attitude, attendance and the other one.....
It is not 'completely' pointless but it is unsatisfying.


It is a real shame that we are always such ungrateful whiners! I really like what you have done and it may well "all be all right in the morning" but i think you have missed an opportunity if you leave it exactly as it is.

Medals - are a lovely touch
The easy Rating system - works for you ..but not quite for me.

[suggs]

Yeah, junk it. The new system is just puerile and bland -it leaves no room for seflf expression. Big thumbs down.

[zimmah]

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53393&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read this carefully please, and HELP US TO GET A FAIR AND GOOD RATING FOR EVERYONE!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like you can see in this poll, there is a lot of confusion around the rating!

what exactly does getting a 4 star mean? did i behave pretty good to get such a good rating, or did i actually behave pretty bad to get such a bad rating? there is no way to figure out but to pm all your raters and ask them yourself. however this makes no sence at all, we have a rating system to SAVE you the time and work you need to check the complete background of a person, instead of making you spend more time on it. it should be so clear that you can see in just a matter of seconds if someone is worth playing or not! right now this is not the case.

let's get the GO's/WM's to fix this problem A.S.A.P., because NOONE has any advantage of this rating, and the future updates will only make it WORSE THEN IT EVER WAS BEFORE do NOT let this happen to conquerclub! i'd suggest the following updates:

1) make the star system more clearly to everyone, like on youtube, whenever you mouse over your cursor above any number of stars, you'll see what the meaning of the star is (either really good or really bad, or something in between) make it so clear that there can not be any discussion about it. because what we NEED on this website is a rating that is fair for everyone, and everyone understands. because now whenever you see somoene with like 3 stars, you will never know if he has behaved 'just normal' or 'pretty bad' and that sucks.

2) add the option to leave a comment along with your rating, like 'i gave this player 4 stars on teamwork, because he was really good to team with and he fortified his troops to me even without me asking for it, also communicates very well and plans the next moves. this will say MUCH more about a player then just a few stars could tell!

3) link the rating to a game. so all the games are archived on CC, but there isn't even a link towards them? what's the point here? why archive them if you ain't gunna look em up anyways? i think you should be able to see for yourself what made that player that outstanding to deserve a full 5 star, or a 1 star for behaving that bad, you should be able to look at the game and see for yourself 'he deservered to get that rank' or 'i think there is no reason to give him X amount of stars'

i thnk the new ratings are flawed, and mostly by the USERS

half of the users thinks 5 is perfectly fine to hand out as 'average behavior' while the other half thinks 3 stars is for this purpose. so we have the whole side giving out different ratings for the EXACT SAME BEHAVOIR i got someone to pm me 'why did you leave me such a bad rating, i didn't do anything wrong, i took my turns in time etc. WHILE I GAVE HIM A FUCKING 4, WHICH MEANS I PRETTY MUCH LIKED HIM, BECAUSE I GAVE 3'S TO EVERYONE ELSE!

there really needs to be things changed here. espiacially if you want the future 'blocking a low rating' system to work.

the ratings now don't tell ANYONE, ANYTHING about a player

THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL A GOOD BEHAVING PLAYER APART FROM A BAD BEHAVING ONE, because a 4 handed out by Player A isn't the same as the same 4 handed out by player B, hence even a 5 by player C could mean the same as a 2 by player B for example, it's complete bullshit and i would like to see it changed ASAP

highest priority times 1000


besides i think all ratings should be reset, the ratings don't mean ANYTHING now since noone knows what a 4 star rating means now for example, everyone just hands out random stars to random persons for random reasons. i have like 4.something stars or so i guess, and i think it's fine, because i think the player handing them out thought i played well as a team, but not really 'outstanding', at least not in that particular game. he gave me like all 3's and some 4's if i'm correct but now some people might think 'i did something wrong, because i don't have 5 stars' while it's in fact perfectly fine to have 3 stars by 40% of the CC players, but on the other hand, 40% of the same CC players thinks it's a bad thing to have 3 stars. so i think the ratings should be updated AND reset!

[Magiw]

I have to agree with some of the other folks who gave the medals a thumbs up and new rating system a need for more tweaking. PM's have to be on the rise from people, I know I've seen them and that never happened before. You knew where you stood right away before and as has been said before, the new system is very ambiguous. Appreciate the effort and keep at it!

[jiminski]

Yes only marking out of 5 leads to much of what undermines the system:

with a mark out of 5 it goes:

1. i hate you! i hate you! i hate you!
2. May as well give a '1'
3. i really want to offend you but i can't justify a '1'!
4. you bug me, so i will hold back the 5
5. Average to Sainthood


Marking out of 10 is so much better!

with 10 it is easier to not give someone 10 without leading to offence!

1. Hitler Clone
2. Crikey you must have insulted my Mother
3. I want to insult you
4. Very poor
5. Poor
6. Not quite right
7. Average
8. Good
9. Very good
10. Outstanding.. you made me laugh so hard i pooped a little!



People may say, "no the '5' should be average out of 10!" well it is not, due to Human nature and our desire to please, a '5' is very much a sign of displeasure!
so because of the unspoken nuances of social subterfuge and duplicity for diplomacies sake, we need more gradation.
That way we can say it how it is, without really saying it how it is *wink wink*

[Hellmanns]

I don't think rates will translate fairly the player profile. Look what is happening to me now:

At the moment my rate is 1, only because I played a game with two multis (Pending status by the mods) and gave them:
1 for fairplay (no reason to explain)
2 for attendance (they have missed at least two turns each)
1 for attitude (They kept acting like nothing was happening)

The result is that he (two multis) gave exactly the sme rates, but I wasn't the one cheating, I haven't missed a single turn and have been always polite (even wanting to send he to hell!).

With the previus system, I left a neg and they couldn't do anything, because people would look into the game and chat logs and verify the information... Now there isn't even the game nunber to check if the rates make justice...

This new system is wonderful for the multis! There should be a space to imput justificatives for the rates. This way it would avoid people give bad rates only to harm others...

Game:
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2529237

Players (multis):
Enderhall
GLNGF

[cre8tiff]

I don't think rates will translate fairly the player profile. Look what is happening to me now:

At the moment my rate is 1, only because I played a game with two multis (Pending status by the mods) and gave them:
1 for fairplay (no reason to explain)
2 for attendance (they have missed at least two turns each)
1 for attitude (They kept acting like nothing was happening)

The result is that he (two multis) gave exactly the sme rates, but I wasn't the one cheating, I haven't missed a single turn and have been always polite (even wanting to send he to hell!).

With the previus system, I left a neg and they couldn't do anything, because people would look into the game and chat logs and verify the information... Now there isn't even the game nunber to check if the rates make justice...

This new system is wonderful for the multis! There should be a space to imput justificatives for the rates. This way it would avoid people give bad rates only to harm others...

Game:
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2529237

Players (multis):
Enderhall
GLNGF

Case in point. This "upgrade" needs to be rolled back and better thought out. This is the exact behaviour I was talking about. There has to be a better way, and rolling back this part of the change to allow for proper planning is the only course of action.

Else, just come to the realization that rating are worthless clutter on the screen.

[quackaddict]

"With the previus system, I left a neg and they couldn't do anything, because people would look into the game and chat logs and verify the information... Now there isn't even the game nunber to check if the rates make justice..."

This is an excellent point that I had not thought about till I read this. I used the ability to look at the game in question anytime someone had a negative. On more than one occasion was able to see that the reply to a negative was more honesty than the negative and new to ignore it.

The current ratings have to be scrapped. You don't have a level playing field as many have pointed out so you have a 3 meaning drastically different things to different people. I have purposely not left any ratings yet. I used to not leave feedback unless the game and player were noteworthy before either.

[WilliamMac]

I have no "leave ratings for" link. What happened to it????

[zimmah]

1) not everyone has the same standard, about 40% thinks a 3 star rating is supposed to be 'average' while another 40% thinks 5 should be 'average' and a handfull of people thinks 4 is 'average' and 1 dumbass thinks 1 star is 'average' (or he misclicked or something)

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53393&start=30&st=0&sk=t&sd=a here is a poll i created along with some discussions going on about this topic

I agree and hope to address this today!

thanks, that would make it far better, make sure to reset the old ratings tho, because they are far from logic, i got someone whining all over my inbox because i gave him a 3 star rating, while i think it's perfectly fine to give out 3 stars

2) lack of ability to comment on your rating. maybe the greatest part of rating/leaving feedback to someone is telling what you like about someone or what you don't like/would like to see improved (constructive feedback) the new rating system doesn't have this option, and that's really a shame. the wall doesn't help a single bit as noone ever reads it anyways.

yes, there are downsides to losing comments but the downsides of keeping them are far worse. people will always disagree over written comments and if you delete one to keep someone happy it will piss off the guy who left it. moderating feedback has proven to be a terrible job that i wouldn't want to impose on anyone and now we'll have much more capacity for answering support emails and multi-hunting. i think ratings will prove more useful than the critics think and if you leave constructive feedback on a wall they sure will read it - [1 NEW] will appear next to the wall link.

i think a comment on a rating should be something else then just plain old feedback, it must be more like a short description why you left someone a 2 star rating, and maybe what you'd like to see improved (it adds a lot of information about someones playing style too, but the main reason is just constructive feedback and not an alternative for leaving negs if you know what i mean. they shouldn't be moderated, just like the ratings, you can only take back the comment/change the comment along with the rating (so you'll have either to both agree to delete it, or to play another game and change it. why not make a poll for it or something? i think it's not as bad an idea as you might think it is. especially not if you do it like i stated above. there is a reason for me complaining about the ratings, and it's not that i think the feedback system was flawless, and it's not that i want to have the complaints about negatives again on the forum, but it's because i think we should have a rating system that has the following features:

1) you should have a quick and easy overview to accuratly judge a players behavior (which is not the case atm because of differnent rating standards, which i'm sure you'll change with point 1 discussed above) so this one is going to be perfectly fine with the new rating system.
2) you should get an overview of 'what exactly' make a player outstanding either in a good way or a bad way. and the only way to do that is with a small description. this does not have to mean you should flame a person all over (fact is, most people even put the person flaming in somoene elses feedback on ignore! so basicly leaving a negative makes the one that left it a bad guy rather then the one that recieved it unless of course the person that recieved it deserved it, which you can see in the comments. now please consider someone leaving 1 stars all over (just because he lost the game for example and is pissed for that, basicly just like leaving a neg because you lost the game) (and i have ALREADY seen people doing this, even though the rating system is just online for like 1 day or something!) this is not a sollution for negative feedback at all! please consider leaving a comment rather then leaving it out, or at least give the community the abitily to vote on it or against it. remember why you made this update in the first place, to serve the community so ask them! and really, what could possibly go wrong if you just add comments, the new system is basicly more like: "you can still leave positives (5 stars/4 stars), you can still leave 'negatives (1 star/2stars for the 'not truly a negative, but still not positive and also not neutral) and you can even still leave 'neutrals' however, because of too many complaints, you cannot comment on them, because it will take to much work to edit them. please understand that this is not a good sollution, in fact it will only make it worse! now people will not only still get 'negatives' (since getting 1 star is basicly the same as getting a negative) they will also don't know why the hell the got a 1 star rating for do you really want people to feel bad because they have got a bad rating, and don't even know why the hell they got it? or do you want a rating where you can see why someone left it, and the person looking at it can see for himself whether it's the rater, or the one being rated to be ignored? you get the point? it doesn't even have to be moderated anymore. it shouldn't even be mandatory to leave a comment, just optional. i'd really like to comment on my ratings, while i guess most people leaving bad ratings won't even take the time to put a comment with it anyways (maybe some flaming, and maybe some good construcive feedback) so let's say someone left a 1 star rating at someone, and stars flaming in the comment, now someone else checks his rating and sees a 1 star rating along with several 4 stars ratings, the 4 star rating have comments with them like 'well played, plans moves like a team, is nice on chat etc etc. and the one star being the only one of it's kind got the comment: 'player sucks and isn't nice at chat and attacks me for no reason while he could have attacked someone else but he only attacked me because i'm pink and he is blue and he hates me cuz he is gay and he wanted pink' or anything. then if you'd look at that rating, would you really put the guy that rated him on ignore? or the guy that recieved it? i guess most guys would even laugh if they got such comments and ratings. yeah sure it takes your average down a bit, but who cares? everyone can get a bad rating every now and then. i don't think you'll get too much complaints about it really. and besides, whether you leave a comment or not, you'll still get the very same rating so leaving the comment out is totaly bullcrap in my eyes, because people will still complain for getting a bad rating, but now they will also even don't even know why they got it. and the wall might be read by the player itselfs, but i'm not gunna read everyone's wall to see if somoene 'might or might not have left some important feedback on it so i can see if he's a good guy or a baddie' please...

it's not only construcitve feedback to the user, it's also an indicator to the other players whether someone deserves his rating or not. and really i think hardly anyone will read the wall of someone else. especially not to get a 'quick few' of someone's behavior, which a rating is supposed to do, give you a quick overview of someones behavior. allong with the comments. and a wall might be a nice guestbook, but is in no way a rating system.
3) ratings linked to games, so you can see for yourself. the best way to judge someones behavior, is to see it with your own eyes. that's just a fact. and the games are archived anyways. i can imagine you don't want to score to be linked to 1 single game, but have the players leaving a rating select a game they want to leave rating/comment for and make only the most recent games apair to click on, like the most recent 3, and if you click some link or button you can see all the other games those two players have played together....

3) ratings not linked to games. either link the ratings to 1 game again just like the old feedback, or link it to all games player by player A + player B (the one who left the feedback + the one who recieved it) so you can check for yourself why someone left that specific rating. with the old feedback system i often looked at negatives and then blocked the one leaving the negatives, because the one leaving the bad rating often is the one with the baddest behavior, the new system doesn't have anything like it and therefore in my eyes isn't as good as it should be)

ratings are not specific to any game, but i would consider a link for "games with both players"
that might work, at least better then nothing.

sorry for the long reply, but it's just basicly because i want to show you that i know what i'm talking about, unlike much of the others.

it might be much to read, but it's a series of PM's between me and lack. please read them and answer for yourself. what do you think?