Conquer Club

written responses to ratings are not enough, ratings and feedback should be completely incorporated so we have all of the elements of the two systems...
but I'm not sure if that's possible...

if this is done it should be a mandatory thing.. meaning. if u rate some one less then 5 stars it should prompt u leave a comment on why. and if u leave 5 stars then it should be an option to leave a comment or not to. i dont belive it should be a clear cut to just leave a rate and move on.

I don't believe that this is a good thing. The new star system is a nice, easy thing. Easy to use and read, easy for the moderators to moderate (as they don't have to moderate). Introducing comments, nah. Stars will even out in the long-run.

Better to introduce a moderation function. If people get 3-3-3 they shouldn't complain. Rather perhaps the 1-1-1 occassions. Introducing a moderation function for such scores, why not? Wouldn't take that much time (as most people are not complete jerks) and would be reasonably quick to moderate.

This seems to have gotten way off topic. The point of the suggestion is not to allow people to say something when they leave a rating. Rather, it is to allow you to say something when someone else rates you. For example, you are left 1-1-1, then you can comment saying the guy is just leaving the rating because you killed him first in the game.

I got a 1,1,1 because I beat someone twice in a row.

I'm sorry, but even this is no magical solution. Not only does it inconvenience the slighted player (who has to put more effort into negating the unfair feedback than the abuser did), but sometimes you just don't know why the person slammed you. Was it because they didn't like your tactics? Because they're just a sore loser? Because you genuinely did something wrong?

I tend to take a lot of calculated risks, and when the dice backfire, people seem to be retaliating by leaving poor rankings. Before, that wasn't really a problem, because people knew that they'd sound stupid leaving feedback that criticized a valid strategy that just happened to backfire. Now people can take out their petty greivances, paranoid suspicions of secret alliances, and simple frustration with losing points on other players with impunity.

lexie3000 wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

lexie3000 wrote:so do i have this right? we'd have two opportunities for commentary - one related to the ratings and the other on the Wall. If the issue was the logistics of having to moderate negative and unpleasant comments wouldn't the simple answer have been to give each player the capability to delete unwanted comments and block their authors from further utterances?

No - cos then no-one would have any negative comments... thus the feedback would be utterly useless.

C.

that begs the question. just how useful are negative comments anyway? i for one wouldn't bother removing negative comments and i'm sure there's quite a few others who aren't that precious about the negative comments they get either. but either way what's the big deal? allowing people the ability to delete negative comments would have solved the problem the moderators had with the system.

I would say that OVER 99.9% of CC players are wonderful folks. But, those 0.1% can be real jerks. I had one guy recently post on my wall AND pm me several times (before I blocked him) some pretty nasty comments ... why?

Because I waited all of 5 minutes to join a casual game ... and then said (granted, I should have said nothing) that insulting someone was probably not the way to get folks to speed up.
Out of several thousand games, I have only had maybe 3 bad experiences.

Under the old system, I would have given him a negative saying, essentially, this guy is a jerk, avoid. And a lot of folks would/could. Now .... no one knows the difference between my 1's and his. Except that mine will be buried under a ton of positives.

Exactly! Under the old system, there was a clear difference between someone with a rating of 6-6 and one of 58-6. Now they could theoretically have much the same rating.

I have a complaint. I am normally very quiet, but this star system has issues.
I finished playing a game and one player "sneedorien" gave EVERYONE 1 star?
Now lets look at this star issue.....
If you NEVER miss a turn than you should get 5 stars for Attendance. What else is there?? We all get 24 hours to take our turn and the time shouldn't matter, some of us wrok or go to school. So WHY would anyone get 1 star if they do not miss a turn??

Fair Play, this is a subjective one. I feel that if no one gangs up on someone or picks on just one player this should also be 5 stars. But I can see someone giving 4 or even 3 if they thought they were picked on.. (For the record, I didn't even attack that guy that much, I wasn't the one that took him out).

Attitude, another subjective one... This I think should come from the game chat. If they say nothing, well maybe they should get 2 starts, or maybe not. If they talk trash and complain then, hell YES they should get 1 star. This guy sneedorien is an example of a sore looser... To this moment I have lost many games and have given 5 stars to almost everone. Except one guy that missed 2 turns I gave him only 3 on attendance.

Sorry guys I think this system is too flawed. Sore loosers make some of us players look bad. I know not everyone will give 5, but let the punishment fit the crime.

Acespirit99

By the way THIS is his reply to my email to him
---------------------------------
From: sneedorien
To: acespirit99

i gave you bad ratings because i am a sore loser
i have bad sportsmanship

shit happens man

___________________________________

acespirit99 wrote:I have a complaint. I am normally very quiet, but this star system has issues.
I finished playing a game and one player "sneedorien" gave EVERYONE 1 star?
Now lets look at this star issue.....
If you NEVER miss a turn than you should get 5 stars for Attendance. What else is there?? We all get 24 hours to take our turn and the time shouldn't matter, some of us wrok or go to school. So WHY would anyone get 1 star if they do not miss a turn??

Fair Play, this is a subjective one. I feel that if no one gangs up on someone or picks on just one player this should also be 5 stars. But I can see someone giving 4 or even 3 if they thought they were picked on.. (For the record, I didn't even attack that guy that much, I wasn't the one that took him out).

Attitude, another subjective one... This I think should come from the game chat. If they say nothing, well maybe they should get 2 starts, or maybe not. If they talk trash and complain then, hell YES they should get 1 star. This guy sneedorien is an example of a sore looser... To this moment I have lost many games and have given 5 stars to almost everone. Except one guy that missed 2 turns I gave him only 3 on attendance.

Sorry guys I think this system is too flawed. Sore loosers make some of us players look bad. I know not everyone will give 5, but let the punishment fit the crime.

Acespirit99

which is probably why Lack began several threads specifically asking for suggestions to fic the problem

I completely agree, there are some people who have given me below average when there was nothing said, yet under the current system sore loosers can give whoever they want a bad rating and there is no way we can defend ourselves.

Here's one more option.
How about having the chance to mark bad ratings (1,1,1, or even a single 1) as 'undeserved' (or some catchier word)?
There will always be jerks leaving everyone all 1's and stuff, how about we give them a medal for it? "Left 20/50/100 incorrect ratings"... Or maybe a marker on the player's profile page or something? This way less people will be jerks. And it could go together with the comment system.
(Only obstacle: some people might tag all their bad ratings as injustified... But since those all came from different people, they won't quickly turn those players into 'wrong raters'. Right?)

I agree. Low ratings should be allowe to be answered.

In game http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... full_log=Y I kill billydigital and then he gives me low ratings. Isn't that unfair?

Or even better. Ratings lower than 3 should be justified with a written text that someone could check and decide if the player really deserves that low rating, or he is just receiving retaliatory low ratings.

DAMN STRAIGHT!!!

I have the right to answer back towards a rating that is completely unfair, it doesn't have to be mandatory, it can be optional if people want to comment back.

One of the problems I see with the rating system is the ease of rating with no consequence for unfair ratings. There are enough losers out there that you're bound to run into a few. When they leave you 1's and 2'a because you beat them, it takes many 5's to offset those bad ratings. The comment section at least gave you a recourse for a bad ranking. It also made the person leaving the comment validate why they did so. With three mouse clicks a disgruntled player can leave you a bad ranking.

alow wriiten responses it would make ratings so much easier

Anyone else notice there's a "respond" to the left of your ratings? Anyone?

Haha
This 40kguy is incredible...