How do you rate people?

a.sub · Post by **a.sub** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:27 pm

This just for the attitude criterion, i havent been following this because im too lazy to think but this is what it should be imo

Stars why i gave them those stars
1 lots of complaining, accusing of cheating for no reason, being annoying
2 unpleasant to be with, swearing for no reason
3 few negative comments or didnt say things like "gg" or "good luck"***
4 little or no talking
5 enjoyable to play with

*** i give no stars for this usually

Mr Changsha · Post by **Mr Changsha** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:06 pm

1 - Fat, ugly or male. Possibly even gender confused.

2 - Female and not actually repellant to the eye. Still in the "Don't you even think about going there, Tommy. Don't you even think about it, or you'll feel the edge of my belt so you will..." class.

3 - Below average-looking girl showing some real skin, or a good looking girl who both dresses conservatively and when asked to the bar replies "I really don't like to drink." Bah!

4 - The flirty, beautiful girl who likes to give the impression that if times were different, or if circumstances could be changed then maybe...

5 - So beautiful that her mere presence elicits animalistic grunts from the male population around her. A few girls in the office like this. Type of girl who at least twice day generates comments such as "Did you see ******** bend over that desk/Have you seen the oufit ******* is flouncing around in?/I know I'm married but the slightist whiff of a chance and I'd be up that faster than a 100m runner after his go-faster shot".

InsomniaRed · Post by **InsomniaRed** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:27 am

It's pretty much reached the point where I only give out a rating if:
A - the person really impressed me some way or another or was very enjoyable to interact with
or
B - I've played multiple times with the player and realized I have never left them a rating

In either case, it's usually 4-5 stars for all, very rarely is it a 3 or below. Because anyone who would deserve all 3s, I don't take the time to rate.

Of course this only happened after I got all my medals for rating. I was like everyone else, where I rated anyone I could. I was less judgmental back then, I admit.

Hmm come to think of it...there is a C.

C - I play some complete douche and they deserve a poor rating and I want them to have understand how I felt about their actions.

Yep. That's about it.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:06 pm

All 5s if they took their turns. I wish we had the old feedback back.

PLAYER57832 · Post by **PLAYER57832** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:19 pm

I have gone up down and all around and now am probably not going to be rating much of anyone. When I do, it will be all 5's... or maybe 1-2's if the person was a REAL jerk.

I know we can't have the old system back, but we need one that actually says SOMETHING!

admiralnelson · Post by **admiralnelson** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:50 am

Hi. I'm a n00b to CC, so I was somewhat bemused to receive a rating of no stars for gameplay and attitude, and just 1 star for fair play. I was tagged "Clueless", and "Poor Strategy".

Now the tags I would probably agree with - hey it was my first few games - but what's with the star ratings (OK, gmeplay could be justified, but not the other 2 categories)?

I took all my turns promptly, didn't abuse anyone, and certainly didn't cheat or use any underhand techniques (I don't know how!!).

The rating was from a person who clearly had considerable experience, but I think (s)he should remember that everyone was a n00b sometime. This isn't the way to encourage people to develop as players!

Anyway, just thought I'd get it off my chest.

Optimus Prime · Post by **Optimus Prime** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:05 am

admiralnelson wrote:Hi. I'm a n00b to CC, so I was somewhat bemused to receive a rating of no stars for gameplay and attitude, and just 1 star for fair play. I was tagged "Clueless", and "Poor Strategy".

Now the tags I would probably agree with - hey it was my first few games - but what's with the star ratings (OK, gmeplay could be justified, but not the other 2 categories)?

I took all my turns promptly, didn't abuse anyone, and certainly didn't cheat or use any underhand techniques (I don't know how!!).

The rating was from a person who clearly had considerable experience, but I think (s)he should remember that everyone was a n00b sometime. This isn't the way to encourage people to develop as players!

Anyway, just thought I'd get it off my chest.

It is impossible to receive a "0" star rating. The lowest you can receive is a "1" star rating. If you have no stars by a particular player in one of the categories it means they simply chose not to rate you in that category, and it doesn't count against your overall rating value.

admiralnelson · Post by **admiralnelson** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:14 am

Oh, OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

Still, a 1 star for fair play - that implies that I "cheated" somehow, or was otherwise underhanded, no?

PLAYER57832 · Post by **PLAYER57832** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:48 pm

admiralnelson wrote:Oh, OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

Still, a 1 star for fair play - that implies that I "cheated" somehow, or was otherwise underhanded, no?

More likely that the person you were playing is a jerk.

If you weren't ... just move on and don't worry about it.

admiralnelson · Post by **admiralnelson** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:33 am

Yeah, you're right, i won't worry about it.

Cheers.

SirSebstar · Post by **SirSebstar** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:47 am

I give out 5 star ratings unless one of the following
It was not a nice game; cheating, secret alliances rude language and the like, disturbing the game beyond the acceptable (by me)
I give ratings compared to the other guy, meaning I see what kind of ratings they leave themselves, if they only give out 4 stars, then thats what they get too.
And there are a few other reasons, generally I give 5 unless there is cause not to. its simple elegant and usefull.
Anybody with a 1 star listing usually also gets onto my foe list.

Mr Changsha · Post by **Mr Changsha** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:53 am

I quite like having a 4.6 and certainly hope (if I am lucky) to get that down to 4.5 or even 4.4 over time. 4.8 - to 5.0 suggests a polite, easy going player who can get along with all. The kind of chap who always plays by the rules. 4.4 suggests a man who might just turn around and suicide your arse if you put him under too much pressure. Combined with a good rank, a lowish rating seems to me to be an actual achievement. A 4.4 major says to me 'right tough bastard'. Good player and entirely illogical if pushed.

Fruitcake · Post by **Fruitcake** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:03 am

Mr Changsha wrote:4.8 - to 5.0 suggests a polite, easy going player who can get along with all.

That would be me then eh Mr C?

Georgerx7di · Post by **Georgerx7di** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:31 am

How do I rate people? The correct way of course. :lol:

Mr Changsha · Post by **Mr Changsha** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:24 am

Fruitcake wrote:
Mr Changsha wrote:4.8 - to 5.0 suggests a polite, easy going player who can get along with all.

That would be me then eh Mr C?

No, we both have some work to do. 1800 games (I just had a look) and a 4.8? You must have given the odd idiot a nice verbal slapping every once in a while to sit on a 4.8.

Anyway, I'm not being horrible to anyone who doesn't deserve it. I'm just going to actually remember to write something rude if circumstances seem fair.

Game 3790865 was a great opportunity to let loose. Idiot suicides into me to throw the game to a third party, and does it so badly, that he actually hands me and manwiththeplan the win.

PLAYER57832 · Post by **PLAYER57832** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:21 am

Mr Changsha wrote:I quite like having a 4.6 and certainly hope (if I am lucky) to get that down to 4.5 or even 4.4 over time. 4.8 - to 5.0 suggests a polite, easy going player who can get along with all. The kind of chap who always plays by the rules. 4.4 suggests a man who might just turn around and suicide your arse if you put him under too much pressure. Combined with a good rank, a lowish rating seems to me to be an actual achievement. A 4.4 major says to me 'right tough bastard'. Good player and entirely illogical if pushed.

Often it just meanst that the person has not been rated all that often, or that they play people who like to just give all 4's...etc.

I used to give all 4's in my first go, particularly if they won, because I just wanted to see how they reacted to varied situations before saying they were excellent, but few others do this, so I give all 5's now unless the person is rude, swears at the dice, deadbeats, etc. Like some others, if they get 1's ... its foe list time!

Rocketry · Post by **Rocketry** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:35 pm

If I...

5. Won easily.
4. Won but had to think about stratagy.
3. Won but had to think stratagy and rely on a the dice as well.
2. Lost but beaten fairly.
1. Lost becuase I wasn't concentrating.

Rocket.

How do you rate people?

How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?

Re: How do you rate people?