Conquer Club

KLOBBER wrote:All incorrect, and it will never happen.

you are a bad spirited player, who loves the 'no comments' system because it suits your style... that already has happened.

Anyway, new players need more protected from players like Klobber; the Comment system does that! It alerts the unsuspecting to the specific nuances employed to manipulate the system.

Jimmy's above post is all lies.

What will never happen is that this lame comment idea will never take flight, and it will never be implemented on this site.

Mark my words.

KLOBBER wrote:Jimmy's above post is all lies.

What will never happen is that this lame comment idea will never take flight, and it will never be implemented on this site.

Mark my words.

Ok Klobby!
let us not hijack this thread.... Come over to the other one and let's have a little chat sweety.

djt5483 wrote:ive had bad players leave me bad ratings just cuz they lost to me

Dude, your avatar looks like Michael Jackson after a whole lot more surgeries..

icedagger wrote:Says the guy who tries to use ratings to blackmail people and leaves 5 star attendance ratings for deadbeats..

lol tut tut klobber...


Mon the gooners btw

I like the new ratings also.However i find players leaving ratings less than average for things such as atten(speed games) now i never miss a turn and if i do its a very rare thing.Another is players playing against you in a team game leaving you 1 when you beat them.I mean i understand why you allowed people to go back and re-edit feedback/ratings.I thought the whole purpose of something new was to let everyone start fresh that means good and bad.Sure some players have tons of positives and others tons of negative but the way the new ratings are does not encourage me to change or act any differently if now i can be worse.I mean atleast in feedback i could read hey this guy suicideds etc.etc Under the current system you have gameplay and attitude..I personally dont care how some1 acts and longs as they have common sense when it comes to playing this game.Should have thought of a more detailed rating system..Such as skill attitude atten i mean what the hell is fair play?who gets rated for fair play? or atten..Shit i dont mind if you deadbeat..And anytime some1 misses a turn in a speed game i always assume they will show up so it dont really bother me to much.Id rather see the ratings of Skill/Teamwork/Attitude

I don't trust the new system. I was given 1 for attitude when I did nothing so I don't trust any ratings what so ever

people just give 1 for attacndance just for the fun of it

I don't like the new ratings. I just had a player wait till It was too late for a response and leave 3's across the board. I check my games morning and night, which is all a working man can do, so there's attendance. It was a one on one game and I don't understand how there can be anything but fair play on that, and to top it all he/she won the game. Seems arbitrary and allows a lot of latitude for mean spirited people to get a teeny thrill slashing folks. Fuq it I aint gonna play that game.

indianmike wrote:I don't like the new ratings. I just had a player wait till It was too late for a response and leave 3's across the board. I check my games morning and night, which is all a working man can do, so there's attendance. It was a one on one game and I don't understand how there can be anything but fair play on that, and to top it all he/she won the game. Seems arbitrary and allows a lot of latitude for mean spirited people to get a teeny thrill slashing folks. Fuq it I aint gonna play that game.

3's is average it is not a bad rating

Soloman wrote:

indianmike wrote:I don't like the new ratings. I just had a player wait till It was too late for a response and leave 3's across the board. I check my games morning and night, which is all a working man can do, so there's attendance. It was a one on one game and I don't understand how there can be anything but fair play on that, and to top it all he/she won the game. Seems arbitrary and allows a lot of latitude for mean spirited people to get a teeny thrill slashing folks. Fuq it I aint gonna play that game.

3's is average it is not a bad rating

I partially agree with you in theory but unfortunately that is merely a fiction.

the Average has been set (at least up to now) by peoples behaviour and it does not adhere to this arbitrary constraint. People do not quite work in that way... we have sycophancy and desire for reciprocation to deal with for starters.
So 5 is, as silly as it may seem, the average... with only a few using anything else.

Besides that, 5 is an impossible beginning from which to find an average mark if we wish to deal in universal, unavoidable benchmarks!

an Average mark would surely be 2.5?

3 is better than average and 2 is worse than average!

So the initial premise of any undeniable truth in this, already subjective matter, is an unresolvable paradox.

jiminski wrote:

Soloman wrote:

indianmike wrote:I don't like the new ratings. I just had a player wait till It was too late for a response and leave 3's across the board. I check my games morning and night, which is all a working man can do, so there's attendance. It was a one on one game and I don't understand how there can be anything but fair play on that, and to top it all he/she won the game. Seems arbitrary and allows a lot of latitude for mean spirited people to get a teeny thrill slashing folks. Fuq it I aint gonna play that game.

3's is average it is not a bad rating

I partially agree with you in theory but unfortunately that is merely a fiction.

the Average has been set (at least up to now) by peoples behaviour and it does not adhere to this arbitrary constraint. People do not quite work in that way... we have sycophancy and desire for reciprocation to deal with for starters.
So 5 is, as silly as it may seem, the average... with only a few using anything else.

Besides that, 5 is an impossible beginning from which to find an average mark if we wish to deal in universal, unavoidable benchmarks!

an Average mark would surely be 2.5?

3 is better than average and 2 is worse than average!

So the initial premise of any undeniable truth in this, already subjective matter, is an unresolvable paradox.

so you just spewing gibberish 3 is average period no if and or buts about it. Sooner people read the rules for rating and the words to describe each of the star levels and start using in the context they were created the quicker we will get past all these ignorant rant and tears about 3 stars being bad...

Soloman wrote:

jiminski wrote:

Soloman wrote:

indianmike wrote:I don't like the new ratings. I just had a player wait till It was too late for a response and leave 3's across the board. I check my games morning and night, which is all a working man can do, so there's attendance. It was a one on one game and I don't understand how there can be anything but fair play on that, and to top it all he/she won the game. Seems arbitrary and allows a lot of latitude for mean spirited people to get a teeny thrill slashing folks. Fuq it I aint gonna play that game.

3's is average it is not a bad rating

I partially agree with you in theory but unfortunately that is merely a fiction.

the Average has been set (at least up to now) by peoples behaviour and it does not adhere to this arbitrary constraint. People do not quite work in that way... we have sycophancy and desire for reciprocation to deal with for starters.
So 5 is, as silly as it may seem, the average... with only a few using anything else.

Besides that, 5 is an impossible beginning from which to find an average mark if we wish to deal in universal, unavoidable benchmarks!

an Average mark would surely be 2.5?

3 is better than average and 2 is worse than average!

So the initial premise of any undeniable truth in this, already subjective matter, is an unresolvable paradox.

so you just spewing gibberish 3...

Actually it is an unresolved paradox wrapped neatly in a conundrum and delivered in a metaphorical real life riddle.

Whats gibberish 3? Is this a new language dispersed among the lower orders?

Soloman wrote:

jiminski wrote:

Soloman wrote:

indianmike wrote:I don't like the new ratings. I just had a player wait till It was too late for a response and leave 3's across the board. I check my games morning and night, which is all a working man can do, so there's attendance. It was a one on one game and I don't understand how there can be anything but fair play on that, and to top it all he/she won the game. Seems arbitrary and allows a lot of latitude for mean spirited people to get a teeny thrill slashing folks. Fuq it I aint gonna play that game.

3's is average it is not a bad rating

I partially agree with you in theory but unfortunately that is merely a fiction.

the Average has been set (at least up to now) by peoples behaviour and it does not adhere to this arbitrary constraint. People do not quite work in that way... we have sycophancy and desire for reciprocation to deal with for starters.
So 5 is, as silly as it may seem, the average... with only a few using anything else.

Besides that, 5 is an impossible beginning from which to find an average mark if we wish to deal in universal, unavoidable benchmarks!

an Average mark would surely be 2.5?

3 is better than average and 2 is worse than average!

So the initial premise of any undeniable truth in this, already subjective matter, is an unresolvable paradox.

so you just spewing gibberish 3 is average period no if and or buts about it. Sooner people read the rules for rating and the words to describe each of the star levels and start using in the context they were created the quicker we will get past all these ignorant rant and tears about 3 stars being bad...

hahah, you are a little charmer Soli!

no what i say is undeniable.
Intelligent men, over time, have put aside their disappointments regarding 'erratic' and unpredictable social behaviour. What they have done is accept it, adapt to it and move on from there.. oh if they are really smart they may manipulate it a little.. throw-in a coke can here and the promise of heaven there.
But to try to force people to behave in a more predictable 'sensible' manner does not accept the element of god-given freewill.

so although with 3 you are closer to a genuine average (2.5) the people have decided that 5 is the reality.

This may be reduced to 4 over time but i can never see 3 really catching on.

I hate it when people just whant to get the rating medal so they leave u with a really bad arating like 1,1,and 1 even if u where ther the whole game and never missed a turn like cmon we really need more moderators for our ratings system

Have you noticed? The ratings seem to be coming down some. No longer is most everyone a 5.0. I'm starting to see many more 4.8's, 4.9's.

wicked wrote:Have you noticed? The ratings seem to be coming down some. No longer is most everyone a 5.0. I'm starting to see many more 4.8's, 4.9's.

Because more people are using the system as it was intended. The vocal minority if they continue to play with people and are overall positive or at least average player will probably rank around 3.6 to 3.9 in overall. Sad thing is we will have thread about why systems sux or noobs suck or something is wrong because there rating has dropped in there eyes.

Well I and others have tried to do our part to educate that 5 should be excellent, not average, and not automatic. Hopefully that will continue to sink in. However, we may see something down the line to equalize the differences in how people rate. This was just something we had to see implemented first to see how it would play out.

JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote: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 ?

All in all – admittedly just having skimmed through this thread – I believe that JR has a very good point here. His example may have been a not so good one perhaps. Unfortunately, this seems to have led people to discuss the example instead of the valid point.

Now – using this as an example – I got a 1-1-1 for this game: Game 2636954 by [player]Avalon Knight[/player].

On the one hand, it's funny, one the other hand, what the hell was that all about?

I kind of like the new system. It’s easy to use and it frees up a lot of moderator time. Obviously the old system was about to implode under its own weight. The people who are helping out running this site (on their spare time) are happier being able to play a few games instead of responding to a bunch of whining e-tickets (incl. e-tickets from yours truly from time to time).

And the star ratings will even out in the long-run for everyone. But, I believe that people who haven't played at least 100 games should be allowed to hand out ratings. After 100 games (if you’re still around) you may be able to understand what the heck this game is about and maybe, but just maybe, you even get a basic understanding of the rules and the game engine.

But that’s just my two cents.

I just fing that people when the medal espacialy in doodle earth assasin games people give all ones to people

also it doesnt have player skill for a rating .....why

The new rating system creates so much hassle people have given me bad ratings for fair play because i took them out to win the game. well i can exactly not take you out can i

or i get bad ratings for attitude because most of the time i only say hi n gl and gg but cmon at times i will 40-50 games at a time i cant have a conversaion with every1

and attendence i got a 3 for deploying in the first 15sec normally first 5 sec of a speed assassain game well how is that average attendence

i only every give out 1 for attendence if they deadbeat simpl untill i can play a proper game with you to change my mind and adjust it your gonna get a 1

sorry for the rant but im annoyed by people that dont like losing so they give you a poor rating just to be a dumbass

Ya, I didn't have a real problem with the new rating system until recently. After careful observation, it just has too many flaws. For example, there absolutely needs to be a reason for the ratings. With nothing but stars, people can do whatever the hell they feel like and get away with it since there is no review system. Also, some people are giving ratings that don't even make sense, bringing overall scores down for no reason. A perfect example of this would be me getting a bad teamwork rating with a guy I just played named xruan. Problem is, IT WAS A 1v1 GAME.

jiminski wrote:Besides that, 5 is an impossible beginning from which to find an average mark if we wish to deal in universal, unavoidable benchmarks!

an Average mark would surely be 2.5?

Nope. The mathematical average of 1 through 5 is undoubtedly = 3... Anyone failing to realize that needs a math course (just above kindergarten level should do it ).

jiminski wrote:so although with 3 you are closer to a genuine average (2.5) the people have decided that 5 is the reality.

This may be reduced to 4 over time but i can never see 3 really catching on.

5 became the reality when this system started without any guidance and will, as you say, remain. At least until it is shown not to be accepted, but as one of the main point was with this system was for it to be moderating free I can't see that happening.

My problem with the ratings is that I get 1s in Attendance, even though I never missed a turn, never delayed the game, and always started and ended on time.......

This system is screwed if it just lets people throw down whatever ratings they want. Its not so much a "his skill was bad, so he gets a 1 in fair play, but he gets 3 in the others cause those were good".
This system is a "I don't like how my game went, so he gets all 1s, doesn't matter what the categories are"
Its basically just a 15 star scale, cause not enough people seem to be trying to leave accurate ratings.

and it sucks. cause I'm getting 1s in attendance for games that I never missed anything.