[09-Jun-2008] Ratings & Medals

[animorpherv1]

Nice job lack, but two things that you mentioned in the rating system explaination conflict, you said you can change the ratings ANY time you wanted, but a few bullet's later you mention not being allowed to change the ratings after the game is archived, can you make sense of this please?

[Esn]

Thank you for providing the link to games with the two players! This is very helpful.

Until further notice, I'll be using the system in this fashion: anyone who doesn't break any rules gets a "5" on "fair play". Anyone who doesn't say anything bad in chat gets a "5" for "attitude" (anyone who doesn't speak in chat gets no rating). The "attendance" ranking will be "5" unless they've missed turns. If they missed three in a row, they get "0".

actually that's considered 'average behavior' should be rated 3 stars IMHO (look at the instructions page)

Well, as I see it, you either have "fair play" or you don't. So the automatic score for playing fair should be 5, with points removed depending on how badly the rules were broken.

You know, it's like being "a little pregnant". No such thing.

It would be nice, though, if someone is giving a score less than a "5" on "fair play", to make them check off a box or something for which rule was broken (having them write a comment to explain would be best, but I gather that this is out of the question).

[lackattack]

you said you can change the ratings ANY time you wanted

Where did I say that?

[Night Strike]

Thank you for providing the link to games with the two players! This is very helpful.

Until further notice, I'll be using the system in this fashion: anyone who doesn't break any rules gets a "5" on "fair play". Anyone who doesn't say anything bad in chat gets a "5" for "attitude" (anyone who doesn't speak in chat gets no rating). The "attendance" ranking will be "5" unless they've missed turns. If they missed three in a row, they get "0".

You would have to give them a 1 rating. A 0 means you didn't provide a rating and is not calculated into the average.

[Esn]

You would have to give them a 1 rating. A 0 means you didn't provide a rating and is not calculated into the average.

Yes, you're correct. I meant to say "1".

[thedriver]

NICE UPDATE !!! TY !!!!

[Raf_THFC]

Great - the 'Find Games' option gives the ratings some meaning now - thanks for the quick update

[william18]

Yay! Thank you!

[jangler3]

Well, here is a crappy problem. I left a 4.3 rating. That player left me a 5.0 rating. I guess when he saw my lower rating for him he withdrew his rating for me. If that keeps up. the rating system is flawed and means nothing!

i thought you both had to agree on withdrawing?

Nope. His was gone. So I withdrew mine. I should have just lowered his attitude. But.... EH!

[Esn]

It is more difficult to find the reasons behind a rating than it once was (because game chat is often long and it's hard to see the situation by just glancing at it), but at least it's doable now. So kudos for that.

Maybe people will start summing up the game at the end of the game chat, to make it easier for those looking for the reason that they gave negative feedback? On the other hand, that would negate the whole "no tit-for-tat feedback" idea, because then the other person would know from the comments what kind of feedback will be given to him, and respond accordingly.

[rallison]

The find games link is way cool. A very good way to see how many games they have played and determine the validity

[Esn]

I think putting the ratings and the wall on the same page might be a good idea (side by side or one below the other). It would gather the feedback in one place.

[lackattack]

I think putting the ratings and the wall on the same page might be a good idea (side by side or one below the other). It would gather the feedback in one place.

The wall has nothing to do with feedback!

[zimmah]

Thank you for providing the link to games with the two players! This is very helpful.

Until further notice, I'll be using the system in this fashion: anyone who doesn't break any rules gets a "5" on "fair play". Anyone who doesn't say anything bad in chat gets a "5" for "attitude" (anyone who doesn't speak in chat gets no rating). The "attendance" ranking will be "5" unless they've missed turns. If they missed three in a row, they get "0".

actually that's considered 'average behavior' should be rated 3 stars IMHO (look at the instructions page)

Well, as I see it, you either have "fair play" or you don't. So the automatic score for playing fair should be 5, with points removed depending on how badly the rules were broken.

You know, it's like being "a little pregnant". No such thing.

It would be nice, though, if someone is giving a score less than a "5" on "fair play", to make them check off a box or something for which rule was broken (having them write a comment to explain would be best, but I gather that this is out of the question).

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53431 now that's what i call 5 star FP and no, i don't think everyone does that.

besides, if you leave all 5's for FP, then the average rating will increase, causing the ratings to be corrupted, especially if you play more non-team games then teamgames. consider the following: you leave all players an average of 3's on all ratings, however for fair play you'd rate them a 5. so in team games the average will be: (3+3+3+5)/4 = 3.5 while in non-team games the average will be (3+3+5)/3.7 so you'd be better of playing non-team games so your rank will go up just by the 5 star rating on fair play?

5 star fair play means you do something 'not written in the rules' but still common sence. like viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53431 for example, something you won't see everyday.

[zimmah]

It is more difficult to find the reasons behind a rating than it once was (because game chat is often long and it's hard to see the situation by just glancing at it), but at least it's doable now. So kudos for that.

Maybe people will start summing up the game at the end of the game chat, to make it easier for those looking for the reason that they gave negative feedback? On the other hand, that would negate the whole "no tit-for-tat feedback" idea, because then the other person would know from the comments what kind of feedback will be given to him, and respond accordingly.

therefore i think you should be able to put a comment with your rating.

[jiminski]

they can't do it Zimm, due to the problem with 'having' to moderate anything written and with the potential to slander or abuse. (not a legal thing, just a service thing!)

Well the rating system is capable of slander in a sense but as it is wholly subjective and based upon behaviour, they have slipped out of any responsibility for it. I don't blame them, as i have already said, it must have been an impossible task!

Eureka! i believe we have the reason that they will not include strategic ratings!
It is entirely more tangible..... if a player wins and receives a '1' for strategy, the mods may be asked to intervene.

But we have a strawberry flavoured sweety to replace a bowl of fresh strawberries!

Therefore I give-up, i will not be using the system.. it is pointless but it is no biggy really, it is not a time for martyrdom .. i know who i like to play with and who is good.

[Hound]

Seems to me the problem is that the transition was not well handled. We have moved from a binary system (positive or negative, since neutrals didn't show) to an arbitrary scale with no real guidance. (I know guidance has been added now, but really the cow is out of the barn already).

I assume that like most folks, under the previous system I'd tend to look at someone's pos-neg rating to determine if I wanted to play them, if they have more than about 5 or so negs I'd usually pass. Less then that and I'd spend some time reading the comments to determine if they were the problem or some idiot just sore about losing.

I don't know you'd fix this system now that you have thousands of ratings posted where people were assuming that anything less than a 5 meant you'd screwed up somehow. I'm afraid that this rating system will be useless, ignored and/or severely abused and unfortunately you don't usually get a do-over on something this integral to the system.

[DukeToshiro]

I'm afraid that this rating system will be useless, ignored and/or severely abused...

You're exactly right. 100% useless.

[Esn]

5 star fair play means you do something 'not written in the rules' but still common sence. like viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53431 for example, something you won't see everyday.

Yes, the person in the thread went "beyond the call of duty". But that was a unique situation. When I just finish a game with someone, I have no way of knowing if he would have done something like that if that situation had arisen. All I can see is that he did what was required of him, and it would be wrong to penalize that player just because he didn't get the chance to prove himself in such an unusual circumstance.

I will rate him based on how he behaved given the opportunities available to him. It would be unfair to do it otherwise.

[Esn]

I think putting the ratings and the wall on the same page might be a good idea (side by side or one below the other). It would gather the feedback in one place.

The wall has nothing to do with feedback!

Is it forbidden to talk about the game on the wall? If not, then it seems to me that... well...

[zimmah]

they can't do it Zimm, due to the problem with 'having' to moderate anything written and with the potential to slander or abuse. (not a legal thing, just a service thing!)

Well the rating system is capable of slander in a sense but as it is wholly subjective and based upon behaviour, they have slipped out of any responsibility for it. I don't blame them, as i have already said, it must have been an impossible task!

Eureka! i believe we have the reason that they will not include strategic ratings!
It is entirely more tangible..... if a player wins and receives a '1' for strategy, the mods may be asked to intervene.

But we have a strawberry flavoured sweety to replace a bowl of fresh strawberries!

Therefore I give-up, i will not be using the system.. it is pointless but it is no biggy really, it is not a time for martyrdom .. i know who i like to play with and who is good.

like i said, don't moderate it. it will moderate itself.

persons writing shit in the comments or otherwise abusing will only make a fool out of themselfs. i mean, if someone leave a comment like:

"I l3ft you a 1 st4r r4ting becauze your a freaking noobish asshole who has no strategy and you just smell like rotten fish" now would you take him seriously? i bet not. so instead of asking a moderater to remove it, just ignore it. 99% of the CC members will ignore such ratings, and 99% of CC members will eventually get such ratings, so go figure, it will avarage itself out. i don't think comments like that are that harmfull, and i don't think they will occur that much either. since most people who read such comments put the poster on ignore. eventually after a while the ratings+comments become more and more trustworthy, satisfying and accurate, AND you will be able to see why someone has a better/worse rating then others. so what's wrong with that?

you must be able to comment on a comment (like with feedback) and you must be able to withdraw a comment the same way you can withdraw a rating, you can edit it only if you play a second game as long as that game isn't archived.

simple as that. efficient, simple and satisfying.

at least that way you can truly get a good view on someone's behavior. and the mods will be happy too, because they won't have to moderate a single thing anymore.

and since we are paying customers, i think they must find a way to satisfy us as a community (so the mayority needs to be satisfied) and clearly the mayority is complaining, so go figure... like you said, they give us a strawberry flavoured sweety instead of a bowl of fresh strawberries. and now they added a few extra sweeties and that's very nice, but still i miss the option to place a comment. there really is nothing wrong with comments.

[zimmah]

5 star fair play means you do something 'not written in the rules' but still common sence. like viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53431 for example, something you won't see everyday.

Yes, the person in the thread went "beyond the call of duty". But that was a unique situation. When I just finish a game with someone, I have no way of knowing if he would have done something like that if that situation had arisen. All I can see is that he did what was required of him, and it would be wrong to penalize that player just because he didn't get the chance to prove himself in such an unusual circumstance.

I will rate him based on how he behaved given the opportunities available to him. It would be unfair to do it otherwise.

and that's exactly what a 5 star rating is for, a pretty unique situation.

i don't consider giving someone a 3 star rating (even on fair play) to be a punishment.

[Magiw]

Seems like there would be a lot less difficulty in determining a rating if we changed from 5 stars to 3 stars.
1=bad
2=neutral
3=good

Sounds familiar doesn't it? A lot less shades of gray as well!

[Esn]

they can't do it Zimm, due to the problem with 'having' to moderate anything written and with the potential to slander or abuse. (not a legal thing, just a service thing!)

Well the rating system is capable of slander in a sense but as it is wholly subjective and based upon behaviour, they have slipped out of any responsibility for it. I don't blame them, as i have already said, it must have been an impossible task!

Well, here's the thing... if I understand this correctly, they changed the system for two main reasons:

1) To free up staff time from moderation
2) Some people were unhappy

The situation now is:

1) Staff time has been freed
2) MANY people are unhappy

It seems to me that keeping the comment system but removing the moderation (or adding some kind of user-moderation system like on Youtube, letting users rather than staff do the moderating) would have brought about similar results. Except maybe that fewer people would have been pissed off.

[Dr Mengele]

i think this is a bad idea, I liked the old feedback system idea