Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:30 pm**

Directly from the Instructions -> Ratings page at the top. {CLICKY}

Instructions Page 5 wrote:Ratings
To encourage good sportsmanship, members can rate other members they have played with. Each rating consists of measurements from 1 to 5 stars on any of the following attributes:

Rating Attributes

Fair Play: Covers suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking or respecting alliances, chivalry, etc...
Gameplay: Measures the player's ability to play an enjoyable game (not the player's ability to win). Covers strategy, diplomacy, teamwork, etc...
Attitude: Covers behaviour in chat, foul language, sore losers, gracious winners, "great chatters!", whining about luck, etc...
The number of stars given should be based on this scale: 1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.

Ratings are valuable indicators of your reputation on Conquer Club. They are publicly viewable and stay on your record. Ratings can be useful to find good opponents and avoid bad ones.

I've bolded the most important part...surely everybody that you play doesn't deserve a 1 star rating as that would mean you suspected everybody had a secret alliance, they broke an alliance, etc., that everybody had terrible gameplay (which would be untrue if they beat you...especially since you are an officer), and that everybody was exceptionally poor in chat.

Now I leave mostly 5s and some 4s (a few others here or there), but when I rate somebody it's because I've played them multiple times and enjoyed all the games, I talk to them outside of the game I was in with them so I already have a good opinion about them, or they did something really memorable or exceptionally well in the game I rated them for.

Although you may not feel that anything would be done to change the current rating situation, many suggestions have been implemented on the site, and if you came up with something lack and the other administrators liked then I am sure it would replace the current system

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:35 pm**

I believe this is where we start the semantic debate over what is truly average. A small refresher off the top of my head; bell curve distributions, how do most players act, 5 is what everyone gives out so its the average, 3 should be average because its the its in the middle, how can fairplay even have a 3 isn't it yes/no, etc etc

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:38 pm**

Agreed PJ, I never said the system wasn't flawed/couldn't be improved upon, I just posted how the instructions state it was meant to be used.

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:07 pm**

how you define bad, average and excellent is probably very different to how i would.

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:34 pm**

I would like to announce a Sixth Bandwagon in Protest of the Fourth Bandwagon. This bandwagon will consist of giving everyone 5s and posting positive comments like "Friendly" even when they didn't do anything or cursed you out and flipped out about the assault intensity cubes.

I am now a TRAILBLAZER times two, making me at least 280% cooler than anyone wishing to jump on either of my bandwagons.

Also, the Third Bandwagon is merely the silent majority that such luminary and effective leaders as Richard Milhouse Nixon understood so thoroughly.

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:39 pm**

PepperJack wrote:I believe this is where we start the semantic debate over what is truly average.

The vast majority of people have an above average number of legs.

and

The vast majority of people have a lower than average salary

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:32 pm**

MrBenn wrote:The vast majority of people have an above average number of legs.

and

The vast majority of people have a lower than average salary

Benjamin Disraeli wrote: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:09 pm**

As what is said from our Ratings page:

Whenever leaving ratings, use caution and good judgement. You are responsible for the ratings that you leave and they become a permanent part of the other member's record, so be sure to leave only fair and factual ratings that relate to the member's behaviour in the game.

Limey Lyons consistently leaves ratings which are no longer based from what the other players are showing from the game. Even if Limey insist that "this represents his opinion", we all know what you are really doing and you will be accountable if you continue to abuse it.

Ratings abuse is not the way to change the system. By systematically leaving garbage ratings you degrade any system to the point where it is useless. This is what happened with the previous system.

To combat this, anyone found systematically leaving clearly inaccurate ratings, after having been warned, will be banned from giving ratings (permanently or temporarily, depending on the severity of the case).

As what Night Strike mentioned, if you do not like the ratings system, DON'T BOTHER USING IT. You are not obligated to use it.

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:31 pm**

I have two points to make, the first concerning the original topic title.
Conquer Club = Facist State. As one definition of fascist is a dictatorial person then I would have to agree to a point. Why have Limeys ratings warranted such a response from CC when written abuse is apparently acceptable? Look at the Demonfork topic and you'll see what I mean. Apparently it is fine for him to write "2008-11-07 06:00:30 - demonfork: i hope you get anally raped by an aids infested cock" but to leave people 1 ratings is a terrible crime. Can anyone explain this? Surely wishing rape and AIDs on someone is far worse but as a mod closed the Demonfork topic for no apparent reason I suppose we may never find out. So there you have two examples of CC being dictatorial, one instance of dictating the ratings that a member may leave and another instance of dictating that abuse is fine but we have to stop talking about it.

My second point is with the ratings themselves. I don't care who I play and take no notice of the ratings or leave any unless the person was particularly nice in which case I leave a 5. I agree that everyone getting 5's for nearly every game is ridiculous but as I've found out recently a lot of people take this game very very seriously. I think that ratings should be automatically set at 3 and if you want to award anything different then you have to justify it. That way the majority of ratings given would be the average - 3, which would make a lot more sense than the mutual arse licking that goes on at the moment.

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:55 pm**

the ratings system is a lame joke, it shows how lazy and apathethic lack and the mods truely are towards they're paying customers, one of many reasons for the declining membership

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:31 am**

Fascist State here? Yes, but ,we have a choice to be here, or not......play by the dictated rules, or be banned.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:25 am**

I've brought my own band wagon.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:00 am**

PepperJack wrote:
Benjamin Disraeli wrote: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I'm so glad someone quoted that correctly... the amount of times it gets attributed to someone completely different is mystifying!

C.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:25 am**

Limey Lyons consistently leaves ratings which are no longer based from what the other players are showing from the game.

- King Achilles

Again - your opinion only. i utterly disagree with this statement and frankly, would like to know what you're going to do about it. I haven't broken any rules.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:24 am**

Limey Lyons wrote:
Limey Lyons consistently leaves ratings which are no longer based from what the other players are showing from the game.
- King Achilles

Again - your opinion only. i utterly disagree with this statement and frankly, would like to know what you're going to do about it. I haven't broken any rules.

so you think everyone you play, have a bad attitude, play unfair and generally make the game unenjoyable?
how come your still here?

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:34 am**

not bothered reading anything but the first post, so if this ahs been said before - sorry.

CC has never pretended to be anything other than a fascist state;) but whoever claims that 1* is the appropriate average rating is just being a moron. You're blatantly just looking for an argument, so go do it somewhere else.

incidentally Limey... gotta love the way you protest the 1* ratings left for you like they're unfair?! Surely 1* is perfectly accurate going by your rules. Kinda ruins your own argument.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:37 am**

king achilles wrote:As what is said from our Ratings page:

Whenever leaving ratings, use caution and good judgement. You are responsible for the ratings that you leave and they become a permanent part of the other member's record, so be sure to leave only fair and factual ratings that relate to the member's behaviour in the game.

Limey Lyons consistently leaves ratings which are no longer based from what the other players are showing from the game. Even if Limey insist that "this represents his opinion", we all know what you are really doing and you will be accountable if you continue to abuse it.

Ratings abuse is not the way to change the system. By systematically leaving garbage ratings you degrade any system to the point where it is useless. This is what happened with the previous system.

To combat this, anyone found systematically leaving clearly inaccurate ratings, after having been warned, will be banned from giving ratings (permanently or temporarily, depending on the severity of the case).

As what Night Strike mentioned, if you do not like the ratings system, DON'T BOTHER USING IT. You are not obligated to use it.

Two major problems here. First, the ratings system is subjective in nature. For you to decide that his ratings are "clearly inaccurate" is... kind of ridiculous, at least. Second, you are correct in that we don't have to use the ratings system... but as I've already mentioned, we are encouraged/rewarded for using it. And we can use it however we want. If Limey is a world champion chess player who laughs at the puny "strategy" displayed by players on this site, considers attacking him unfair, and considers not speaking an indication of a bad attitude, he may well leave a lot of 1s perfectly legitimately. Now, when he's said that he's doing it as a blanket protest, you've got some grounds for complaint/mod action, but to get on him just for leaving ratings with which you disagree is... excessive.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:41 am**

Jeff Hardy wrote:
Limey Lyons wrote:
so you think everyone you play, have a bad attitude, play unfair and generally make the game unenjoyable?
how come your still here?

I enjoy bad attitudes.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:43 am**

Lhuth wrote:
incidentally Limey... gotta love the way you protest the 1* ratings left for you like they're unfair?! Surely 1* is perfectly accurate going by your rules. Kinda ruins your own argument.

Incorrect. I only protest the tags. I was called rude when i was not.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:28 pm**

Perhaps Limey Lyons just has way higher standards than most of you. Ever think that in reality he isn't rating players too low, you're just rating too high?

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:07 pm**

The main thrust behind the OP's argument seems to be "the ratings system is subjective and only I can know whether my ratings are accurate from my own perspective".

On the face of it that is quite rational. But when taken to the extreme - "I genuinely found all players worthy of a 1 rating in all categories" becoming a standard rating for example - then it is worth reconsidering ...

Let's consider myself and a friend, player X, who often plays in the same games as me. Other players may notice that I never or very rarely attack player X. I may well represent initially that "I genuinely have found in every game to date that it was not in my interests to attack player X". After 5 games that may be believable. After 50 games all those currently apparently supporting your gripe (as opposed to the majority who just love a selection of bandwagons) might well come to the same conclusion as King Achilles has here: It's abuse.

Oh and by the way ...

Limey Lyons wrote:
Limey Lyons consistently leaves ratings which are no longer based from what the other players are showing from the game.
- King Achilles

Again - your opinion only. i utterly disagree with this statement and frankly, would like to know what you're going to do about it. I haven't broken any rules.

I think you need to re-read your own first post to see what King Achilles did about it.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:11 pm**

In the end do the ratings realy matter? Has anyone not played with somone because Mr. Lyons gave them a 1 in attitude? And if so why? Because he gives everyone ones then one is the adverage for him. If he were to give anything higher than a one either he is trying to make a point or you realy impressed him. His system of giving everyone ones is just undermining it'self and getting rid of any relavince that his ratings used to have. If I could play as many games as I wanted I would play him every chance I get in order to try get rated a two because a two from him is better than a five from someone else.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:10 pm**

Will any mod please respond to the first point in my previous post about written abuse being acceptable according to CC but poor ratings considered unacceptable by the same people?
I feel a bit ignored. :cry:

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:23 pm**

walnutwatson wrote:Will any mod please respond to the first point in my previous post about written abuse being acceptable according to CC but poor ratings considered unacceptable by the same people?
I feel a bit ignored.

Perhaps you should start a new thread. Its tangential to the main point of this thread, ratings.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:29 pm**

walnutwatson wrote:Will any mod please respond to the first point in my previous post about written abuse being acceptable according to CC but poor ratings considered unacceptable by the same people?
I feel a bit ignored.

Because if you don't like how someone talks, you can put them on your foe list. If they abuse you via PM, you can set your inbox to delete their PMs automatically or post them for review in the C&A forum.

Conquer Club

Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?

Re: Conquer Club = Fascist State?