Rate players before death

[General Anarchy]

Concise description:

• The ability to Rate players before one is eliminated.

Specifics:

• Normally one has to wait until one is eliminated to leave a rating. I propose allowing players to rate others while they are still active in the game.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Players will be more likely to leave ratings. I only go back to a game when I'm surprised to be dead. Furthermore, by the time the game is over I rarely remember all the details of that particular set of players. If I could rate a player as soon as I had a reason, I would probably do it every time.
  
• It could possibly discourage unsportsmanlike conduct during gamely. Often players threaten to downrate someone who is being rude; not only does this often encourage someone who is looking for attention, but results in ratings revenge. However, I suspect if a group of people could downrate a rude player during gameplay, peer pressure would more often win over. The extra incentive is that those ratings can be changed before the end of the game.

[riodeishere]

would result in more rating but rating is at end of game so u can judge them for the game not a turn. it might also result in gross abuse of ratings by 100's of player. multi hunters don't need any extra work.


possible suggestion, during game u can set a rating but u must comfirm after game aswell?

[Halmir]

This would occasionally be the cause of a bitch-slapping fight in the chat box, with one player boasting that he'd already marked someone down, who then kicks off in return, and it would easily get very childish.

I try to make a point of looking through my finished games and making comments as appropriate - but only if someone has bothered to talk in the chat during the game. Otherwise I rarely rate them, and I don't think this would change my approach if implemented.

[K-dub]

this has no point...u can simply rate after the game...be pationt

[Kalano Sanchin]

Would result in more rating but rating is at end of game so you can judge them for the game not a turn. It might also result in gross abuse of ratings by 100's of player. \Multi hunters don't need any extra work.


Possible suggestion, during game you can set a rating but you must comfirm after game aswell?

Rideishere seems to be on to something there with confirming the rating. Possibly you could leave a not within the rating for your self for why you left the poor rating so when it came time to confirm you could see why you left that poor feedback.

[AndyDufresne]

I think the reasoning for not being able to rate players before death---also factors in deadbeat new recruits and those that deadbeat out of the game...


--Andy

[stahrgazer]

...
Possible suggestion, during game you can set a rating but you must comfirm after game aswell?

Rideishere seems to be on to something there with confirming the rating. Possibly you could leave a not within the rating for your self for why you left the poor rating so when it came time to confirm you could see why you left that poor feedback.

If the reason the op wants ratings during the game is partly because he forgets to go back and leave ratings now, why would he remember to go back and confirm the rating? Such a system would require setting up files of "temporary ratings" that expire unless moved (by confirming at the end of the game) to non-temporary ratings; and since ratings will not show until the game is expired beyond "recently completed," to "Finished" what's the point?

So if "must go back and confirm," is eliminated as pointless, a proposal like this suggests that players should rate opponents and mates for a single turn rather than the entire game; which in turn invites a lot more ratings abuse than people complain about now.

Instead of this, players could develop a habit of leaving notes for yourself (you can leave notes for yourself in a game now, to help determine the ratings you think you should leave,) then reviewing your "eliminated" and "recently completed" games to see what ratings notes you made.

[natty dread]

One thing that sucks about the ratings... they don't matter. They don't mean anything. Why? Because everyone is giving everyone 5:s or maybe 4:s, sometimes 3:s if they're really bold... I mean come on... What kind of rating system is this where 5 is the standard, and 4 is given if you have some complaints??

Granted, there are some people who use it as it should, that they give 3:s for average performance, but these people are in minority because most people don't want to get into fights over ratings...

And, because we have a possibility of getting a charge of "ratings abuse" for giving bad ratings. But perhaps that is necessary. It's just that it makes everyone step on their toes, not daring to give too bad ratings because they're afraid they could get accused of ratings abuse... I mean, how do you objectively define whether a rating is justified or not, since ratings are always based on subjective opinions?

So here's what I propose: make the ratings so that the ratings of those with a lower average rating count for less than ratings of those with a good average rating. This way, if someone is a ratings abuser, he's bound to get lots of bad ratings himself, thus lowering his own average, and making his ratings abuse ultimately ineffective, as the ratings he gives won't affect other people.

I saw this implemented on a certain web forum which used ratings, where there was constantly people who were complaining about receiving bad ratings from someone. I believe this would work well enough on this site as well. It would solve multiple problems at a time:

- No more need to worry about getting accused of ratings abuse, so everyone can be more free with their ratings, and the rating system would actually mean something.

- Less work for the multihunters for not having to deal with ratings abuse charges, since ratings abuse would no longer be a crime.

[the.killing.44]

So here's what I propose: make the ratings so that the ratings of those with a lower average rating count for less than ratings of those with a good average rating. This way, if someone is a ratings abuser, he's bound to get lots of bad ratings himself, thus lowering his own average, and making his ratings abuse ultimately ineffective, as the ratings he gives won't affect other people.

It already works this way.

[natty dread]

So here's what I propose: make the ratings so that the ratings of those with a lower average rating count for less than ratings of those with a good average rating. This way, if someone is a ratings abuser, he's bound to get lots of bad ratings himself, thus lowering his own average, and making his ratings abuse ultimately ineffective, as the ratings he gives won't affect other people.

It already works this way.

Really? This isn't mentioned anywhere. If this is really true, then we should just get rid of the whole "ratings abuse" concept.

[jefjef]

Bad idea. If you can't remember or go bak and check the game maybe you shouldn't rate anybody.