Conquer Club

Bruceswar wrote:Something needs to be SAID about people like this. The current feedback system allows for it.

Problem is people present their opinions as fact, as if there's is the only strategy that'll win the game. There are more disagreements over how to play this game than I can count. Your opinion of how good/bad your opponent is, is just that, an opinion. There were way too many problems with a text field: it's subjective, it's used for retaliation, and moderation is way too time-consuming and inconsistent. Hell, people can't even agree on the definition of "suicided". So if you say Johnny suicided, that could mean any number of different things to different people.

Numbers aren't subjective. If you think someone is a poor player FOR WHATEVER REASON, then rate them as such. If enough people agree, then that'll be reflected in his score. Maybe his "suicide" into you was because you were an ass in the game. Like I said, same word can have several meanings, and when that happens, it leads to disagreements, which is all we have now with the current system.

What about requiring written feedback for a score below 3? I know that if I was receiving poor scores in a certain area I would like to know why so that I could improve. I would think this would also be useful in weeding out opponents and in moderating poor scores.

wicked wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:Something needs to be SAID about people like this. The current feedback system allows for it.

Problem is people present their opinions as fact, as if there's is the only strategy that'll win the game. There are more disagreements over how to play this game than I can count. Your opinion of how good/bad your opponent is, is just that, an opinion. There were way too many problems with a text field: it's subjective, it's used for retaliation, and moderation is way too time-consuming and inconsistent. Hell, people can't even agree on the definition of "suicided". So if you say Johnny suicided, that could mean any number of different things to different people.

Numbers aren't subjective. If you think someone is a poor player FOR WHATEVER REASON, then rate them as such. If enough people agree, then that'll be reflected in his score. Maybe his "suicide" into you was because you were an ass in the game. Like I said, same word can have several meanings, and when that happens, it leads to disagreements, which is all we have now with the current system.

Fair enough as long as there is some tab for game play. Sportsmanship does not cut it.


And to Code, Would you rather have the player wreck your game as well or maybe having to chance to ignore the person before you ever even play. Players like Detorteg for example. Never played a game with him and never will.

Matroshka wrote:What about requiring written feedback for a score below 3? I know that if I was receiving poor scores in a certain area I would like to know why so that I could improve. I would think this would also be useful in weeding out opponents and in moderating poor scores.

Once the rating shows up on your list after the game has been archived if you are interested in improving and notice that you are consistently getting low marks, send that player a friendly PM such as:

Matroshka,

We played a game together a week or so ago, and I noticed you gave me a rating of 2 stars for attitude. That's been happening to me a lot lately, and I'm wondering what I could have done to get a better rating in that area.

Regards, Optimus

You will be really shocked to discover the wealth of information that will come your way if you just ask nicely and are willing to take the criticism they send back without pitching a fit.

pre-populate the wall!!

Tisha wrote:pre-populate the wall!!

hear hear!

Bruceswar wrote:

wicked wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:Something needs to be SAID about people like this. The current feedback system allows for it.

Problem is people present their opinions as fact, as if there's is the only strategy that'll win the game. There are more disagreements over how to play this game than I can count. Your opinion of how good/bad your opponent is, is just that, an opinion. There were way too many problems with a text field: it's subjective, it's used for retaliation, and moderation is way too time-consuming and inconsistent. Hell, people can't even agree on the definition of "suicided". So if you say Johnny suicided, that could mean any number of different things to different people.

Numbers aren't subjective. If you think someone is a poor player FOR WHATEVER REASON, then rate them as such. If enough people agree, then that'll be reflected in his score. Maybe his "suicide" into you was because you were an ass in the game. Like I said, same word can have several meanings, and when that happens, it leads to disagreements, which is all we have now with the current system.

Fair enough as long as there is some tab for game play. Sportsmanship does not cut it.


And to Code, Would you rather have the player wreck your game as well or maybe having to chance to ignore the person before you ever even play. Players like Detoorteg for example. Never played a game with him and never will.

Bruce, I guess we can agree to disagree. I play anyone once, even Detorteg as well as many others. In fact I have played detoorteg eight times with most recent being:

2008-05-23 20:15:48 - macnut loses 10 points
2008-05-23 20:15:48 - detoorteg loses 8 points
2008-05-23 20:15:48 - codeblue1018 gains 18 points

FYI, he is currently ignore listed!

After my game, if I find it was a bad experience, a suicide/team game, ignore list they go. Bruce you were witness to what you just described above. My fix to the situation, LISTED! I can win games, eventually I will recover the points. Just because someone has several negs doesn't mean they are an ahole; just because someone has several positives doesn't mean they are the nicest people, understand?

codeblue1018 wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

wicked wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:Something needs to be SAID about people like this. The current feedback system allows for it.

Problem is people present their opinions as fact, as if there's is the only strategy that'll win the game. There are more disagreements over how to play this game than I can count. Your opinion of how good/bad your opponent is, is just that, an opinion. There were way too many problems with a text field: it's subjective, it's used for retaliation, and moderation is way too time-consuming and inconsistent. Hell, people can't even agree on the definition of "suicided". So if you say Johnny suicided, that could mean any number of different things to different people.

Numbers aren't subjective. If you think someone is a poor player FOR WHATEVER REASON, then rate them as such. If enough people agree, then that'll be reflected in his score. Maybe his "suicide" into you was because you were an ass in the game. Like I said, same word can have several meanings, and when that happens, it leads to disagreements, which is all we have now with the current system.

Fair enough as long as there is some tab for game play. Sportsmanship does not cut it.


And to Code, Would you rather have the player wreck your game as well or maybe having to chance to ignore the person before you ever even play. Players like Detorteg for example. Never played a game with him and never will.

Bruce, I guess we can agree to disagree. I play anyone once, even Detorteg as well as many others. After my experience, if I find it was a bad experience, a suicide/team game, ignore list they go. Bruce you were witness to what you just described above. My fix to the situation, LISTED! I can win games, eventually I will recover the points. Just because someone has several negs doesn't mean they are an ahole; just because someone has several positives doesn't mean they are the nicest people, understand?

Fair enough. We can agree on this.

I think you should have to write on the wall after you give feedback, that makes the most sense to me.

Kaplowitz wrote:I think you should have to write on the wall after you give feedback, that makes the most sense to me.

i think thats the point

also, how are people going to be prevented from spamming requests and thus the other players inbox?

my suggestion would be a maximum of 5 requests a month (who gets more than 5 a negs a month with the current system without fishing anyway?) and the option to block the requests

theres also limiting the number of times a player can send a request to another, it needs to be more than once though because many people have a cool down period and after that they may be more willing to remove it

Herakilla wrote:theres also limiting the number of times a player can send a request to another, it needs to be more than once though because many people have a cool down period and after that they may be more willing to remove it

Agreed. We need something in place to prevent harrasment with repeated requests, but also the opportunity to let someone cool down over a period of time. It's going to be one week for the rating to show anyway, so keep that in mind. Any ideas?

Bruceswar mentioned that it would be nice to actually be able to say something about someone as the feedback system allows. I think that wall thingy that each player has should come with the option of writing whatever you want whether it be positive or negative, the comment can be put alongside the game, and mods can help moderate the comments part.

wrestler1ump wrote:Bruceswar mentioned that it would be nice to actually be able to say something about someone as the feedback system allows. I think that wall thingy that each player has should come with the option of writing whatever you want whether it be positive or negative, the comment can be put alongside the game, and mods can help moderate the comments part.

I think part of the point is to reduce the amount of bickering that the mods have to monitor by making the wall a self-moderated entity. The mods spend so much time dealing with whiny players who just want to complain they have little time to do much else. I for one would rather have the wall moderated by the player it belongs to and free the mods up to work on some other things.

I ssee all the mods pushing for this new rating and hardly any of the players wanting it. I think it all boils down to this;

@Mobajong - We can't keep the old system with the new one. The old system is too much of a headache to administer.

And i totally agree.

Ive beeen playing at CC for 2 years and have 3 negatives thats not bad. I probably gave 10 but didnt give anymore coz i couldnt be bothered. Cant we all just get along and play the shitty game without all these petty rules???

Furthermore the blocking idea is really bad. If your hosting a tournament its gonna prove a headache!! Shall we start blocking blocking players under 2 stars from tournaments now?? Has CC turned into a NAZI run establishment.

Ive played loads of players with 30 or 40 negatives and found them nothing but fun in a game. Who upsets me the most? coooks, lets ban cooks coz they dont know how to play the game. Hey lets ban privates as well coz they always make stupid moves. They dont attack when they are meant to and genreally defend when they have to attack!!

Actually, only let then play dubz games coz they are easy points

wicked wrote:

Herakilla wrote:theres also limiting the number of times a player can send a request to another, it needs to be more than once though because many people have a cool down period and after that they may be more willing to remove it

Agreed. We need something in place to prevent harrasment with repeated requests, but also the opportunity to let someone cool down over a period of time. It's going to be one week for the rating to show anyway, so keep that in mind. Any ideas?

i already said that on page 5

hardly any hulmey? really? I don't see that at all. Shall I go count?

Blocking will not affect tournament games. I believe that's spelled out on the first post.

wicked wrote:hardly any hulmey? really? I don't see that at all. Shall I go count?

Blocking will not affect tournament games. I believe that's spelled out on the first post.

hmmm, i thought u were super woman and saw everything. Havent you been eating your carrots today?

you've done very, very well, CC team!

wicked wrote:So we were in the middle of discussing changing the names of the ratings when Lack published this here. Since it's a public discussion now, I'm posting this here. Does anyone have reasonable objections to changing the wording of the ratings to this?

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Unsatisfactory

I'd prefer "Fair" was "OK" but maybe that's just me.

wicked wrote:Ruben, anonymity would lead to more abuse than being held accountable for your ratings.

I know but I never leave a negative feedback even if I want to because the guy retaliates with negative feedback. Then it's a pain to remove the negative feedback and once the mods did not want to remove it. I just had to contact the guy and we mutually removed the negatives even though I felt he really deserved it. From that day onwards I never bothered to leave negatives anymore...something which would change with anonymity.

Ruben Cassar wrote:

wicked wrote:Ruben, anonymity would lead to more abuse than being held accountable for your ratings.

I know but I never leave a negative feedback even if I want to because the guy retaliates with negative feedback. Then it's a pain to remove the negative feedback and once the mods did not want to remove it. I just had to contact the guy and we mutually removed the negatives even though I felt he really deserved it. From that day onwards I never bothered to leave negatives anymore...something which would change with anonymity.

I am starting to get that way. People have been retaliating a lot as of late. I have noticed this on many players feedback. Someone will leave a totally truthful neg and then get left a trivial one. Such as ... "Player suicided into me handing the game to the other player" Then this person retaliates with "Was rude and abusive in chat" Personally I would be a bit rude in chat as well if someone just suicided into me.

Anyhow with this new system it will be a non issue.

someone delaying their turn so you don't miss yours,

is this considered a good thing or a bad thing?

since sometimes i ask someone to do that for me, especially if i know i won't be able to play, but i know it might piss off others if 'someone take shis turn slowly' on the other hand, missing a turn is also pissing off both you and the other players around you.



btw this system looks very good to me and i can hardly wait till it get's updated

I dont know if ts been mentioned before: but the overall rating seems to count each vote (for each category) as a vote. Why not have eg: overall *3.00 (6 players rated)

Id also like to see a category for "strategy", because that may be important as well. And even if you dont like the strategy, it may be a valid and solid one, if it works out in the end. On the other hand, frustrated losers would be quick to assign them a very bad rating...

Riazor wrote:I dont know if ts been mentioned before: but the overall rating seems to count each vote (for each category) as a vote. Why not have eg: overall *3.00 (6 players rated)

Id also like to see a category for "strategy", because that may be important as well. And even if you dont like the strategy, it may be a valid and solid one, if it works out in the end. On the other hand, frustrated losers would be quick to assign them a very bad rating...

Which is exactly why a category for strategy will not be accurate using this rating system. It is far too subjective.