Offer rough guidelines on ratings [Done]

[PLAYER57832]

Concise description:
Offer rough guidelines/descritions in ratings explanation

Specifics:
Example, Attendance:

1 star might mean someone repeatedly deadbeats, without giving any reason (or reason rejected); leaves consistantly when losing, etc.
2 stars deadbeats on occasion, misses turns consistantly
3 stars would be if someone misses an occasional turn, deadbeats repeatedly with reason , especially if no warning given.
4 stars no deadbeating or missed turns, unless notification given and agreed in advance of game (i.e. if someone cannot play Saturday, but tells you before starting the game);
5 stars takes turns quickly, doesn't miss turns except in emergency (up to rater to accept or reject)

OR, even just a rough: 1 is for those who consistantly deadbeat, particularly those who deadbeat when losing or who deadbeat team games without warning.

3 is for people who deadbeat occasionally without reason or who miss a LOT of turns, with reasons.

5 is for those who don't miss a turn or who don't miss unless they have what the rater accepts as an "emergency".

NOTE: The actual descriptions are definitely "up for debate" --

ALSO, it since the mods will NOT be involved, it should be noted up front that these are rough guidelines and that people may interpret them how they wish.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Right now, it is hard to really know how to rate someone or what the ratings others give really mean. I mean, I got a 4 from one person, a 3 from another ... but absolutely no clue as to why the difference.

In PARTICULAR, there is no way at all to sort out those issues that only matter to a few people.

For example, there was already a tendency, for some people (mostly non-premiums) to think 1v1 or freestyle are "supposed to" be "real time" and who would "neg" people who took the allotted time. Previously, it was easy enough to weed these things out of the negatives. Now, that is impossible.

Similarly, there is no room to distinguish things like bad language and such that some folks think just fine, but others do not. Again, in the old system you could look through and read the negs/nuetrals and get a decent idea if this person thinks f*** is a nice greeting. If it mattered, you could avoid that person. If it did not ... nothing really lost. note: I never thought you should give a neg simply for swearing, Nuetrals are more appropriate. I just think knowing the kind of person with which you are dealing is a decent idea.

[Fluffums]

I would really, really like guidelines.

I've personally adopted a system where 4 stars is good and indicates no complaints, whereas 5 is reserved for excellence. But I don't want to be taking away stars from good players if 5 is considered normal, and 4 is considered to indicate that I had a problem with the player. Is 3 supposed to be average? 3 kinds makes me feel like there was a problem with the player.

Seriously, please post guidelines.

[Riazor]

Agreed, now people use their own guidelines on how to rate. Some give a 4 as very good, some a 5 but some even think 3 is fine if someone is average. It would be better if there was an explanation about the amount of stars.

[yeti_c]

0 is actually a not rated level - so it doesn't affect your stats at all.

1 is the lowest - 5 is the highest.

C.

[Ditocoaf]

yeah... even a one-word description of the numbers would be nice

[wcaclimbing]

I've been sticking to 4=average.

[killmanic]

I've been sticking to 4=average.

Oh i have been leaving 5s if they are respectful and dont miss turns, and and dont use cheap tactics.

[zimmah]

i would like guidelines, just look here at my poll, it proves the ratings given out by different players are quite random, even more random then the dice

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53393


btw there is no 0 ranking or is there?

[wicked]

You don't have to rank every category, so can leave a 0.

[zimmah]

You don't have to rank every category, so can leave a 0.

yes but he said the worst player would be rated a 0, which is impossible, well not impossible but it doesn't make sence at all

[PLAYER57832]

I have changed the 0 to a 1

As I said, my main point is just that we need some official guidelines.

[Hrvat]

New rating system is completely useless :!:

One of the players I am playing with received 3 Star average.
3 for attendance (he never missed a turn)
3 for attitude (never said a word in a chat)
3 for fair play (and what does that mean??)

How does that help anyone to decide:
Does this player deadbeats?
Is he abusive?
Why or how is he/she not fair in his games?

And Mods' please, do not say it all averages out... Because if it all averages out, how can we tell who has a bad attitude in their games, who is abusive, who deadbeats.... etc

New rating system, Scrap It

[Ditocoaf]

New rating system is completely useless :!:

One of the players I am playing with received 3 Star average.
3 for attendance (he never missed a turn)
3 for attitude (never said a word in a chat)
3 for fair play (and what does that mean??)

How does that help anyone to decide:
Does this player deadbeats?
Is he abusive?
Why or how is he/she not fair in his games?

And Mods' please, do not say it all averages out... Because if it all averages out, how can we tell who has a bad attitude in their games, who is abusive, who deadbeats.... etc

New rating system, Scrap It

Yeah... we need some sort of way to know what these ratings are supposed to mean. Not only do we not know whether a 3 is good, basic, mediocre, or whatever, I personally can't see the difference between "fair play" and "attitude". Perhaps one of these should be "strategy" or "skill" instead?

[PLAYER57832]

I actually got to the point where I suggested an entirely different system, becaue the more I thought about the changes needed to make it work ... the more I realized it really wasn't going to work.

Guidelines will absolutely help, but the biggest problem is not the honest players who want to know whether 3 or 4 or 5 should be the " basic" rating, the problem is those jerks out there and how to figure them out.

In fact, even just who is a "jerk" varies somewhat. Some people really, really do not like swearing. Some want folks to chat. Some want everything to be a "spam fest" and consider snide/rude remarks and such to be "just part of the game". Before we could read the negs, get a general ide and, more or less, know with whom we were dealing. And, by that I mean that often it was the person LEAVING the negative comment who got ignored, not the person left the comments. (or both)

[lozzini]

as there are currently no guidlines if there is an 'averige' player with nothing to make them better or worse, i am just not rating them, as if i give a 3 this may appear bad in anothers view, which is why we need guidlines

[yeti_c]

I just found this...

http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?m ... tructions5

C.

[kingkoswyn]

I've been leaving a 5 if the player didn't skip any turns and was pleasant to play with/against. But, yea, should 3 be average, 4 be very good, and 5 be left for just those that were exceptional?

I do agree that perhaps there should be a rating for 'SKILL' as I think that would give you a better indication as to whether or not you want to play with or against that player. I think 'Skill' would be better than 'FAIR PLAY' - because what does that mean?

[RedRover23B]

I can see the point of this post. Even with this suggestion even with what Yeti just posted how is one to know which sub catergory of "attendance" that the player violate? The rating system does not tell players much at all.

[lackattack]

Guidelines are now posted on the rating form and on Instructions -> Ratings:

The number of stars given should be based on this scale: 1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.

[PLAYER57832]

Thank you.

Now we will have to see if people actually follow them..., but that is an entirely different issue.