All right, I know I am asking for it by starting this thread, but so far, I am seeing lots and LOTS of complaints and no solutions. Here is a stab at a solution and a poll to see what people (at least those visiting here) think.
VOTES CAN BE ALTERED SINCE NEW IDEAS WILL BE ADDED
I only just realized that when you change a poll all the old votes are eliminated. It sort of makes sense, but unless someone comes up with something really and truly different, I will NOT be editing the poll further. If I do edit it, I will mark the date as I did today. You CAN still edit your own vote.
[b]Concise description:[/b]
Do we want to keep new system, return old system, except with no mod changes to feedback (what someone says, stays ... unless THEY change it) OR the system I describe below (an expansion of the current system, including more details) OR another (MUST POST IDEA!)
Specifics:
First two options self-explanatory.
Link to "community moderation" idea thread (Jiminski's idea)
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=53597#p1382343
"current system with feedback" self-explanatory. Except that I believe the feedback would have to be unmoderated for practical reasons, unless, perhaps community moderated as Jiminski suggests.
The system I envision :
First, an automatic Pos/neg/nuetral/# negs a person has left. It would be a numeric count. The default would be "decline to rate" and would not be included in the rating. You WOULD be able to re-rate someone after each game.
IF you give a neg or a nuetral (?) then (and only then) you would get a drop box of additional options:
Note .. a positive drop down could be added as well. I was just trying to save time/database space
Neg options, for things that few people choose to deal with, would include: Deadbeat casual game without reason I accepted or when losing
JUST DID NOT LIKE THIS PLAYER or decline to specify any reasons.
Keeps missing turns in multiple games
Rude in chat
Made an unannounced alliance
Poor strategy
etc.
TEAM ONLY options: did communicated with partners
attacked teammates for no strategic reason, without apology (everyone goofs on occasion)
Got angry at teammates when they did not follow this person's directions, though this person had no where near as much experience.
SPEED GAME OPTIONS:
Neg: Deadbeat, started game and never played
Nuetral: seemed to miss turns intentionally
ASSASIN: attacked the wrong person
Nuetral options, primarily for issues that might matter if they continue or that might matter to some, but not others. Folks WOULD be able to check more than one. Further, if they give a negative, they can check the nuetral boxes. BUT, if they give a nuetral, only the nuetral drops would be accessible.
They would include:
Deadbeat or missed a lot of turns, but gave a reason or I am giving them the "benefit of the doubt".
Swore in chat (other than the occasional sh*t or cr*p)
takes "double" freestyle turns
does not play "real time" or takes more than I like in casual games
Announced alliance in a three person game or "suspicious" actions with another player.
Played in a way I did not like or consider "stupid"
seems to miss turns as strategy
bad strategy
Assassin only: attacked the wrong person, but in fog or it was the first time this person played assassin.
Positive drop down This is another option (added to poll 6-13, per request)
Just generally good .. no details (default setting)
Extremely pleasant in chat
helped me understand game
excellent strategy
very quick to take turns in non-speed game
TO ACCESS the drop downs , you would click on any rating number, then you would see a listing of the items with numbers, indicating the number of people making this particular comment
ie. NEG total people who left neg 3
just did not like 1
deadbeat - 2
rude - 1
Teammate -- N/A
Speed ----- N/A
POS total 100
just liked player, no specifics 70
friendly in chat 29
helped me understand game 15
great strategy 50
ETC.
I think I have covered the big ones I saw mentioned. HOWEVER, the nice thing is that other options can be added... either to this poll or to the system if established.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
[list] I suggest if we go back to old system, NOT allowing any objection to feedback because I understand the time involved in monitoring disputes was a big issue. Granted, this would mean some obnoxious and unwarranted comments stand, but in truth, those sort of comments are more likely to result in the person LEAVING them getting on a bunch of "ignore" (oops "foe") lists, rather than the receiver. Even if a way to exclude those with high negative feedback is instituted, the number of UNWARRANTED negs is going to be small. If you get more than a few, I'd strongly suggest considering that maybe "they" are not really the problem!
I don't like the new system (the poll will tell what the community thinks). It is way too subjective and doesn't tell any of the things we really want to know about how someone played or acted in general. I made this clear in other threads, so I won't reiterate here.
If you want to/ need to just do away with comments entirely, then I think going to a more meaningful rating system is warranted. With my proposal, you would have the same basic rating system, except nuetrals and the number of negs a person has left will be included. This last is an important number. I am far more wary of someone who GIVES 20 negs than someone who got them, especially if I can see its an "attendance" issue.
I am putting this idea forward as something concrete, rather than just criticism. However, I would suggest, if the poll favors my system, to temporarily go back to the old system, with no modification of feedback, and do a more thorough check of the CC community to see what items they really want included. Or, you can just put it out and see what happens.
One important feature is that a drop-down would be easier to modify. Things could be added if needed, without having to change the entire system. This could be important if/when really new things are brought into play.
Most of details are self-explanatory. EXCEPT, I think it is important to seperate the "deadbeat"/missed turns issue in speed games because speed games are about speed.
You would still have some folks who have their "own ideas" about what makes good play and what doesn't, but at least this is more specific. Also, though there will be no objections/editing, the fact that each person will have a count for the number of negatives they have left will have a self-corrected effect for those who care. For those who don't ... others will be warned.
On NEWER ideas:
I am OK with Jiminski's community moderated idea. However, I think the real point is that there is just a wide range of opinions on what does and doesn't constitute someone you want to play. Some folks don't want to play anyone who cannot talk chat. Some don't want to play anyone who cannot play quickly, or have low tolerance for someone who deadbeats because of computer issues, etc.
Some people think it is just fine to call each other names, lie, etc... others would prefer not to deal with all that.
THAT is why I would just as soon have comments left (with the possible exception of deleting extremely profane or racist/threatening remarks. In that case, the only modification would be to change the words for #@$, etc. and either the insertion (profane, racist or threat) by EXTREME, I mean something a great deal more than sh*t, cr*p, etc. In fact, there could even be a "clickable" list. This would, of course lead to some creative folks doing all they can to subvert it ... but it can actually be fun to read someone saying "your mother is born of a pig, your father a goat, you cheat, you lie, you steal ... but good game anyway!" (or whatever) Much more interesting and original anyway than you $#@%%%$
I guess the bottom line is that no system can really and truly control how people act. What we really want is a system that will allow EACH PERSON to judge for themselves.
