Ratings [merged threads]

[FabledIntegral]

Johnny, you said yourself you don't view yourself as average.

If you don't view yourself as average, dont' give an average performance. But you contradicted yourself directly in your previous posts. You play at work. You can't give your entire focus while at work. Therefore, because you are being limited, you are giving an AVERAGE performance. If you aren't giving a "best and beyond" performance, then in no way do you deserve a "best and beyond" rating. The 5 star system is recognized EVERYWHERE. If someone is rating a movie yet the director was unable to have enough time to make the movie truly excellent, should the rater take that into account and give him a 5-star anyways? No.

If you care enough about a 5-star rating, the answer is very simple. Don't play at work. Don't give an average performance.

And you didn't get a bad rating, you got an average rating. The mods have made it quite clear that 5's should not be the standard rating. If all the games were played within a few hours, I personally would probably judge it different and give you a 4, but the point remains - don't expect an above average rating if you don't give an above average performance. You do the basics of what CC asks - expect a 3.

[wicked]

JR, in terms of performance reviews at work, 3 would be meets expectations, 4 exceeds, 5 goes above and beyond. So you met his expectations. Suck it up, one 3 isn't going to kill ya.

[FabledIntegral]

I like the idea of new players not being able to give feedback until they complete 5 games. Same as getting rid of the ?.

I also think JR is right. 3 is not good. It is negative, because it brings your average down. With the old system, neutral feedback did not affect your positive, but with this system, nuetral feedback (Average) will bring your rating down.

If people who have not completed at least 5 games cannot leave feedback, I think it will eliminate a lot of un-necessary troubles.

Why in the world would it bring your average down? Because other idiots give out 5's? Just because some people skew the system doesn't make it negative. You need to associate 3 with average - just as the guidelines give. If you don't, you are WRONG. There's no negotiating the matter, it's official, guidelines have been given. If you want to view it as something else, that's fine, but you're still viewing it wrong and incorrectly. Fact is, people just fish for 5's back by giving 5's out.

[derivative133]

I like the idea of new players not being able to give feedback until they complete 5 games. Same as getting rid of the ?.

I also think JR is right. 3 is not good. It is negative, because it brings your average down. With the old system, neutral feedback did not affect your positive, but with this system, nuetral feedback (Average) will bring your rating down.

If people who have not completed at least 5 games cannot leave feedback, I think it will eliminate a lot of un-necessary troubles.

Why in the world would it bring your average down? Because other idiots give out 5's? Just because some people skew the system doesn't make it negative. You need to associate 3 with average - just as the guidelines give. If you don't, you are WRONG. There's no negotiating the matter, it's official, guidelines have been given. If you want to view it as something else, that's fine, but you're still viewing it wrong and incorrectly. Fact is, people just fish for 5's back by giving 5's out.

What is the point of giving out 3s? If someone did well give positive, if they didn't give negative. Why give someone an average, seems like a waste of time.

[PLAYER57832]

NO, there IS NO standard. Some people think 3 is for average, some people think it should be a 5 unless you do something bad ...

Add to that issues of folks creating their own little rules ... like "you gotta play real time" and so forth. (basically a free speed game). That isn't even counting the whole group that thinks anyone who beats them (or anyone lower ranked, at least) ought to get a negative..... etc.

wrong, there is a standard, read the instructions page or the rating page itselfs, hover your mouse over the ratings, you'll see it yourself.

Not when I wrote that, there weren't. And, though it matters not, I am the one who posted the suggestion in the suggestion forum asking that it be changed...

[Hrvat]

What is the point of giving out 3s? If someone did well give positive, if they didn't give negative. Why give someone an average, seems like a waste of time.

Well said.

What is the point of the ratings that will "average out" over the time?
I want to see who deadbeats...
I want to see who is abusive...
I want to see who is a bighead...
I want to see who is simply a pain...

New ratings do not show any of this, and as time goes by, ratings are going to average out, which means..., we will not be able to tell who is not worth playing....
And what does 3=average means????
I do NOT wish to know if player is 3=average!

[FabledIntegral]

What is the point of giving out 3s? If someone did well give positive, if they didn't give negative. Why give someone an average, seems like a waste of time.

Well said.

What is the point of the ratings that will "average out" over the time?
I want to see who deadbeats...
I want to see who is abusive...
I want to see who is a bighead...
I want to see who is simply a pain...

New ratings do not show any of this, and as time goes by, ratings are going to average out, which means..., we will not be able to tell who is not worth playing....
And what does 3=average means????
I do NOT wish to know if player is 3=average!

The hell are you talking about? You don't want to know if a player is average? Then you'd rather simply be in mystery about 90% of the players on this site? Have fun living in ignorance.

To Hrvat, I understand your point, the rating system isn't perfect, but it doesn't detract from the point that handing out only 5's severely skews the system and such.

[Hrvat]

JR, in terms of performance reviews at work, 3 would be meets expectations, 4 exceeds, 5 goes above and beyond. So you met his expectations. Suck it up, one 3 isn't going to kill ya.

Hi wicked,

a link for you:
http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... =Astroheat




-------------------------------------------

[FabledIntegral]

Another friggin' spam post - you realize there were players who only handed out negatives in the old system? You're doing nothing more than spamming up the forums - utterly worthless, you don't need to post it in 10 fucking topics, jesus.

[jrf2c]

I've received so many negatives for not playing fast enough I don't join a game unless it's started by a premium member. I'm not a fan of the new feedback either for a couple of reasons:

1. They can leave you a bad rating FOR NO REASON and there is no way to have it removed. Is this a problem for anyone else?

2. Where is the rating for skill? I know our ranking should speak for itself, but if you see someone playing outside their rank their feedback should reflect that.

[detlef]

Johnny. This is funny, you complain about the system (which I happen to agree sucks) and then help it suck in the exact way I think it sucks by leaving each and every person you've played 5 stars. Actually, your attitude is not uncommon and precisely why the 5 star system makes no sense. We tend to see things as absolutes. You were either great or you sucked, which is why positive/negative worked fine. Hell, we had neutral which, of course, was basically negative-lite.

So, in short, ratings are lame and useless. At least before somebody was given the chance to explain their feedback.

[zimmah]

[quote="JOHNNYROCKET24"the game lasted like 5 or 6 rounds and only a couple hours. I joined the game at work and finished it at home. It was set up for 24 hours per move...not a speed game which is why I joined. I cant play a speed game at work. I define a 5 as a good score. anything lower is bad.

so I guess this will be the new trend. Dont sit there for a full game and get nailed with low ratings because players dont understand the rules. is this example permitted to be processed through the e-ticket section ?

Sorry JR, but not everyone sees a 5 as good. A 3 is perfectly average.

you just said it yourself...."A 3 is perfectly average" meaning not good

every player that cant play speed games because they refuse to pay 25 bucks, will now leave false ratings because players will not sit there and play a full game for them in 1 sitting. perhaps non premium members should not be able to leave ratings? saying you have bad or average attendance for not playing a game real time when its set up for 24 hours is not right.[/quote]

you are yourself abusing the system by leaving 78 full 5 star ratings (already 2 pages full of corrupted ratings, and the system sn't even online for 1 week!) so don't whine about others leaving you 'a bad rating' you have only yourself to blame for corrupting the system

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... T24&page=2

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

[quote="JOHNNYROCKET24"the game lasted like 5 or 6 rounds and only a couple hours. I joined the game at work and finished it at home. It was set up for 24 hours per move...not a speed game which is why I joined. I cant play a speed game at work. I define a 5 as a good score. anything lower is bad.

so I guess this will be the new trend. Dont sit there for a full game and get nailed with low ratings because players dont understand the rules. is this example permitted to be processed through the e-ticket section ?

Sorry JR, but not everyone sees a 5 as good. A 3 is perfectly average.

you just said it yourself...."A 3 is perfectly average" meaning not good

every player that cant play speed games because they refuse to pay 25 bucks, will now leave false ratings because players will not sit there and play a full game for them in 1 sitting. perhaps non premium members should not be able to leave ratings? saying you have bad or average attendance for not playing a game real time when its set up for 24 hours is not right.

you are yourself abusing the system by leaving 78 full 5 star ratings (already 2 pages full of corrupted ratings, and the system sn't even online for 1 week!) so don't whine about others leaving you 'a bad rating' you have only yourself to blame for corrupting the system

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... T24&page=2[/quote]you missed the 2 bad reviews I left. players want to talk shit in game chat get no good review

[Mycroft73]

The whole thing is a sham.

First, if you don't have the marbles to put your name on specific criticism, (like the old system), then you need to kindly shut the f@ck up. If you're a snot-nosed crybaby who can't handle losing, you can post a set of ones, put me on your "ignore" list, and never have to worry about being called out for it. That's just crap. Man up or shut up.

Second, all these numbers do is give the illusion of mathematical precision to data that is plucked from the air. We'd be better off pulling feedback from the dice generator.

Third, as mentioned above, if somebody is a cheating douchebag, an oxygen-thieving deadbeat, or some other type of human debris, I could read it right there in the negs. On the other hand, if a guy got piled on for jacking up his first assdoodle game, I could see that, also.

[cre8tiff]

The whole thing is a sham.

First, if you don't have the marbles to put your name on specific criticism, (like the old system), then you need to kindly shut the f@ck up. If you're a snot-nosed crybaby who can't handle losing, you can post a set of ones, put me on your "ignore" list, and never have to worry about being called out for it. That's just crap. Man up or shut up.

Second, all these numbers do is give the illusion of mathematical precision to data that is plucked from the air. We'd be better off pulling feedback from the dice generator.

Third, as mentioned above, if somebody is a cheating douchebag, an oxygen-thieving deadbeat, or some other type of human debris, I could read it right there in the negs. On the other hand, if a guy got piled on for jacking up his first assdoodle game, I could see that, also.

Not that anyone with any red in thier name will listen.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Only give FIVES, it's the next hottest thing (c).

Charter member: Only give fives group (OGFG)
-----------------------------------------------------------

[gloryordeath]

I do like the new system, however, I discovered a flaw.

Players giving bad ratings for attendance because you dont play real time.

I just got the first one. A new recruit joins the site and doesnt understand the rules. He sets up a game with options of making a move once every 24 hours and than leaves a false rating because he wanted to play real time. How can we avoid this ?

WOW I would have to agree with johnny on this I never thought I would say that.

[PLAYER57832]

what the hell is wrong with average?

a honda civic. average. it's still a great car.
a salary of $32,000. average. still would feed half of africa.
a death at age 70. average. but i hope like hell i live that long.
a 3 in conquer club. average. not great, not bad. just run of the mill.

live with average. most of the experiences we have in life are average. most of the people we meet are average. most everything is average - hence the term. stop expecting every meal to be fois gras. it's not going to be. it's spaghetti and meatballs tonight and next wednesday night, too.

Except most people like to believe they are above average ... its human nature.

[Thezzaruz]

Third, as mentioned above, if somebody is a cheating douchebag, an oxygen-thieving deadbeat, or some other type of human debris, I could read it right there in the negs. On the other hand, if a guy got piled on for jacking up his first assdoodle game, I could see that, also.

If people had managed to use the old system in a even remotely fair and constructive way then it wouldn't have needed full time moderating and that would most likely mean that it still would have been used.

[Robinette]

lol... i just looked at a few peoples ratings...

i haven't seen that many gold stars since the 2nd grade!

[MuEagles79]

shouldn't everyone start out with 5 stars and only if they do something in game should the stars be lessened?

otherwise it is super subjective

for ex: doesn't everyone get a 5 for attendance unless they miss a turn?

ditto for fair play, etc.

[RedRover23B]

shouldn't everyone start out with 5 stars and only if they do something in game should the stars be lessened?

otherwise it is super subjective

for ex: doesn't everyone get a 5 for attendance unless they miss a turn?

ditto for fair play, etc.

I only leave less than a 5 if I actually have a problem with how the person played / acted or played his turns. I don't care if player X got a 5 for sitting at his computer all day playing every turn right when it was his turn I want to know if he played his turns inside the time allowed and that to me is excellent not average.

People are giving out stars for playing how they would play not how good or bad the other person played.

Also, I can't wait for this all to "even out" 3-4 stars for everyone!

[Mycroft73]

Third, as mentioned above, if somebody is a cheating douchebag, an oxygen-thieving deadbeat, or some other type of human debris, I could read it right there in the negs. On the other hand, if a guy got piled on for jacking up his first assdoodle game, I could see that, also.

If people had managed to use the old system in a even remotely fair and constructive way then it wouldn't have needed full time moderating and that would most likely mean that it still would have been used.

That's pretty dumb. Under this logic, the forums are not remotely fair or constructive, either, because they require full time moderating.

The new system doesn't tell me anything about somebody's low ratings. Under the old system, I could read the content of the feedback and exercise my own judgment.

[Thezzaruz]

That's pretty dumb. Under this logic, the forums are not remotely fair or constructive, either, because they require full time moderating.

You need to read up on your logic skills as "A → B" does not logically lead to or prove "B → A"...

[Mycroft73]

That's pretty dumb. Under this logic, the forums are not remotely fair or constructive, either, because they require full time moderating.

You need to read up on your logic skills as "A → B" does not logically lead to or prove "B → A"...

I love it when somebody tries to act smarter than they are. I point out the circle you created, and you still don't see it.

Here is your logic chain: If and only if A, then B
A="people had managed to use the old system in a even remotely fair and constructive way "
B="it wouldn't have needed full time moderating "

You are confusing what you actually said with the general case (if A, then B) where several factors A1, A2....An can lead to B. HOWEVER, since you state that A must be true because B is true, (B leads to A), you've created an if-and-only-if relationship, thus completing the circle of your logic.

[Thezzaruz]

Well it's nice to see that you have a bit more understanding than the first post expressed, kudos.

Think I'll the more advanced logic discussion as it's late and I would need a few dictionaries to do it properly in english.
However you missed a point (or maybe I didn't make it as clear as I meant to?). My statement doesn't lead to your statement as there really wasn't any other factors that made it a full time moderating job regarding feedback but there clearly are when regarding the forum. Different relationships makes for different endings.