Conquer Club

Soloman wrote:

IronE.GLE wrote:How is there going to be any education when less than 15% of the players on CC ever visit the forum? Are you going to go from game to game explaining to everyone that 3 stars should be the norm and anything over that is only warranted when someone does something extraordinary? Just how important do you people think you are?

anyone who reads the instructions and can read the star indicators should already know with all that in place should be the only education needed, It is you people in the forums that do not seem to care about using the system properly, thus the need for education...

Funny, I just went and checked out the instructions. I guess I couldn't find where it clearly pointed out what "average attendance", "average fairplay", or "average attitude" meant. So, after you guys managed to reprogram everyone out of the "anything less than 5 is a slap in the face" mentality that dominates every feedback system used on-line, then you're going get down to brass tacks as to how to define "average"?

IronE.GLE wrote:

Soloman wrote: anyone who reads the instructions and can read the star indicators should already know with all that in place should be the only education needed, It is you people in the forums that do not seem to care about using the system properly, thus the need for education...

Oh, so now it is the people who frequent the forums that are the problem rather than the people who leave 1 ratings when they lose?

No not all but regular forum users are definitely more vocal in there abuses and or misuses of the new system. Again there is no abuse proof system, But when you have people say blatantly that they have no intention of using things as they were designed to be used it kind of draws a target on those individuals...

I have received irrational rating for the good and bad and know that in the end it will average out, so it does not bother me. I just continue to rate based upon my understanding and opinion and keep on rolling...

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

IronE.GLE wrote:How is there going to be any education when less than 15% of the players on CC ever visit the forum? Are you going to go from game to game explaining to everyone that 3 stars should be the norm and anything over that is only warranted when someone does something extraordinary? Just how important do you people think you are?

anyone who reads the instructions and can read the star indicators should already know with all that in place should be the only education needed, It is you people in the forums that do not seem to care about using the system properly, thus the need for education...

Funny, I just went and checked out the instructions. I guess I couldn't find where it clearly pointed out what "average attendance", "average fairplay", or "average attitude" meant. So, after you guys managed to reprogram everyone out of the "anything less than 5 is a slap in the face" mentality that dominates every feedback system used on-line, then you're going get down to brass tacks as to how to define "average"?

Please take into context that this is directed at anyone that shares this ideology and lack of understanding on the rating system. If they have to explain what average is in those areas or what the word average means in context with this game and the brief list of examples is not enough to clear that for you nothing anyone says or prints will teach you. Given this mental inability I would probably advise not using the system at all for you and just ignoring it entirely as it appear to be to complicated for you to grasp. To make sure things are fair with no variables maybe they could possibly block you individuals from being rated at all, give you some type of immunity from ratings, That way you will always have the same start and finish amount on your ratings...

i am much less inclined towards the new ratings system than the old. i enjoyed the feedback system.

the star rating system does seem to promulgate significantly more subjective feedback. i work hard to keep my conquer club reputation as positive as possible. the current system is one in which someone can leave me averages across the board, despite my taking turns in a timely manner and not missing any turns, having no communication in chat and playing the game as fairly as possible. this does not seem like a good or accurate rating system.

i would be angry if my feedback rating dropped to 3, and seeing someone with that rating would discourage me from playing with them, despite the fact it is "average". i suspect others will agree with me on this point.

just my 2c of course.

indianmike wrote:The rating system sucks, most folks don't like it. If you don't like it don't re-new your premium membership. Vote with your wallet. It's what I do.

See, I've got a problem with that as well. That implies that the rating system is more important that it really is. I mean, there's certain websites where it really matters. Say e-bay. If you're going to lay down your hard earned jack for some goods, you want to know if the seller is routinely sending people crap that doesn't look like the photos.

Here? The absolute worst that can happen is some douche joins one of your games and mucks it all up. Then you drop the guy on ignore and, at least, that problem is solved. Perhaps I've been lucky, but I almost never encounter those types. I encounter jerks and certainly encounter people who play slowly. Whatever maybe you had to endure some foul language or slow play. If he's a cheat, the multi hunters will find him. If he's just a bad player, well, the old system technically wasn't supposed to deal with strategy anyways.

The thing is, I don't see any solution that doesn't require a ton of work on somebody's part to fix this. I certainly don't want to do it and I don't want to have to pay more so CC can hire somebody either. Considering that I haven't been subject to a ton of players that a rating system would warn me about, I don't see the point in a ton of effort going into wiping out the tiny remaining amount.

detlef your point is valid. But our money is the only way we seem to have a vote in this matter. I'm not going to quit playing risk, unless they throw me out, which is possible. But I'll keep playing as a freeloader, I can survive on 4 games at once. Like I said earlier I just got premium to support the site. If it does something I think is wrong or can't countenance I'll withdraw my support. If 50,000 others feel the same way maybe they'll take a good hard look at what they've created.

indianmike wrote:detlef your point is valid. But our money is the only way we seem to have a vote in this matter. I'm not going to quit playing risk, unless they throw me out, which is possible. But I'll keep playing as a freeloader, I can survive on 4 games at once. Like I said earlier I just got premium to support the site. If it does something I think is wrong or can't countenance I'll withdraw my support. If 50,000 others feel the same way maybe they'll take a good hard look at what they've created.

I'm guessing they get the message long before that becomes an issue. As a businessman, I can assure you that it rarely takes much more than a bunch of customers bitching about something even if they're not threatening me with losing their business for me to fix something.

Based on the fact that a ton hate it and few actually like it, I'd be enormously surprised to see this remain unfixed in some form.

One possible compromise could be that if you leave someone any rating under 3, you have to explain why in the feedback system or it won't register. Then allow the person to respond. No need to cry to the moderators if someone calls you bad names or whatever because other people (who might actually care about YOUR rating) will see what happened and make a decision from that. If someone is just being a dickwad, then others will simply ignore that bad rating/feedback from that person and play with you anyway.

doesn't work i make 1 comment on another players strategy costing every one in assassin game and he gives me all 1's

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

IronE.GLE wrote:How is there going to be any education when less than 15% of the players on CC ever visit the forum? Are you going to go from game to game explaining to everyone that 3 stars should be the norm and anything over that is only warranted when someone does something extraordinary? Just how important do you people think you are?

anyone who reads the instructions and can read the star indicators should already know with all that in place should be the only education needed, It is you people in the forums that do not seem to care about using the system properly, thus the need for education...

Funny, I just went and checked out the instructions. I guess I couldn't find where it clearly pointed out what "average attendance", "average fairplay", or "average attitude" meant. So, after you guys managed to reprogram everyone out of the "anything less than 5 is a slap in the face" mentality that dominates every feedback system used on-line, then you're going get down to brass tacks as to how to define "average"?

Please take into context that this is directed at anyone that shares this ideology and lack of understanding on the rating system. If they have to explain what average is in those areas or what the word average means in context with this game and the brief list of examples is not enough to clear that for you nothing anyone says or prints will teach you. Given this mental inability I would probably advise not using the system at all for you and just ignoring it entirely as it appear to be to complicated for you to grasp. To make sure things are fair with no variables maybe they could possibly block you individuals from being rated at all, give you some type of immunity from ratings, That way you will always have the same start and finish amount on your ratings...

Soloman:
When posting a derisive comment, one should use proper grammar. to, too, two.

derivative133 wrote:

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

IronE.GLE wrote:How is there going to be any education when less than 15% of the players on CC ever visit the forum? Are you going to go from game to game explaining to everyone that 3 stars should be the norm and anything over that is only warranted when someone does something extraordinary? Just how important do you people think you are?

anyone who reads the instructions and can read the star indicators should already know with all that in place should be the only education needed, It is you people in the forums that do not seem to care about using the system properly, thus the need for education...

Funny, I just went and checked out the instructions. I guess I couldn't find where it clearly pointed out what "average attendance", "average fairplay", or "average attitude" meant. So, after you guys managed to reprogram everyone out of the "anything less than 5 is a slap in the face" mentality that dominates every feedback system used on-line, then you're going get down to brass tacks as to how to define "average"?

Please take into context that this is directed at anyone that shares this ideology and lack of understanding on the rating system. If they have to explain what average is in those areas or what the word average means in context with this game and the brief list of examples is not enough to clear that for you nothing anyone says or prints will teach you. Given this mental inability I would probably advise not using the system at all for you and just ignoring it entirely as it appear to be to complicated for you to grasp. To make sure things are fair with no variables maybe they could possibly block you individuals from being rated at all, give you some type of immunity from ratings, That way you will always have the same start and finish amount on your ratings...

Soloman:
When posting a derisive comment, one should use proper grammar. to, too, two.

Quite a bit off topic but, I will make sure all grammar is correct when I can start counting my posts towards my masters credits, till then get a life and remember this is a Ratings thread not a English thread. I meant what I said and someone even took it a step further in the Bugs and suggestions section of the forum. The new system is basic in Plain English and if people use it correctly it is a great tool for gaging potential opponents, It can always be improved and like all systems a vocal few will hate it and other will abuse it. Hopefully there is enough morality in the rest to use it as it was designed...

detlef wrote:I'm guessing they get the message long before that becomes an issue. As a businessman, I can assure you that it rarely takes much more than a bunch of customers bitching about something even if they're not threatening me with losing their business for me to fix something.

Based on the fact that a ton hate it and few actually like it, I'd be enormously surprised to see this remain unfixed in some form.

Very true, and the Admin do seem to be listening and working on some improvements.

Soloman wrote:

derivative133 wrote:

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:Funny, I just went and checked out the instructions. I guess I couldn't find where it clearly pointed out what "average attendance", "average fairplay", or "average attitude" meant. So, after you guys managed to reprogram everyone out of the "anything less than 5 is a slap in the face" mentality that dominates every feedback system used on-line, then you're going get down to brass tacks as to how to define "average"?

Please take into context that this is directed at anyone that shares this ideology and lack of understanding on the rating system. If they have to explain what average is in those areas or what the word average means in context with this game and the brief list of examples is not enough to clear that for you nothing anyone says or prints will teach you. Given this mental inability I would probably advise not using the system at all for you and just ignoring it entirely as it appear to be to complicated for you to grasp. To make sure things are fair with no variables maybe they could possibly block you individuals from being rated at all, give you some type of immunity from ratings, That way you will always have the same start and finish amount on your ratings...

Soloman:
When posting a derisive comment, one should use proper grammar. to, too, two.

Quite a bit off topic but, I will make sure all grammar is correct when I can start counting my posts towards my masters credits, till then get a life and remember this is a Ratings thread not a English thread. I meant what I said and someone even took it a step further in the Bugs and suggestions section of the forum. The new system is basic in Plain English and if people use it correctly it is a great tool for gaging potential opponents, It can always be improved and like all systems a vocal few will hate it and other will abuse it. Hopefully there is enough morality in the rest to use it as it was designed...

I believe the grammar comment was sort of a glass houses thing...

Oh, so now failing to use 3 as average is amoral? Wow.

detlef wrote:I believe the grammar comment was sort of a glass houses thing...

Oh, so now failing to use 3 as average is amoral? Wow.

No it is just a problem with those who are either intent on Misuse or illiterate. Again unless I am getting rated on my posts if you can read and understand the short hand that is all that is needed. SO before you do you best to get off on a tangent and derail the conversation again lets get back to the facts. Fact 3 stars is listed as average, Fact average is not excellent and not bad. The morality of those that intentionally misuse something is not amoral it is immoral, so if they are intent on misusing the system just to be defiant, protest or cause chaos then they are abusing it.

Those that do not understand nor take the time to read(or cannot read) are just Lazy. I give them the benefit of the doubt that after they time has progressed and they see fluctuations due to others using system correctly, that they to will adjust there rating and the averages will average out and work as system was designed. IN that time hopefully there will be other improvements that will help with guidance for them.

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:I believe the grammar comment was sort of a glass houses thing...

Oh, so now failing to use 3 as average is amoral? Wow.

No it is just a problem with those who are either intent on Misuse or illiterate. Again unless I am getting rated on my posts if you can read and understand the short hand that is all that is needed. SO before you do you best to get off on a tangent and derail the conversation again lets get back to the facts. Fact 3 stars is listed as average, Fact average is not excellent and not bad. The morality of those that intentionally misuse something is not amoral it is immoral, so if they are intent on misusing the system just to be defiant, protest or cause chaos then they are abusing it.

Those that do not understand nor take the time to read(or cannot read) are just Lazy. I give them the benefit of the doubt that after they time has progressed and they see fluctuations due to others using system correctly, that they to will adjust there rating and the averages will average out and work as system was designed. IN that time hopefully there will be other improvements that will help with guidance for them.

a·mor·al
–adjective

2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

As for the rest, I have no interest in continuing this useless conversation with you.

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:I believe the grammar comment was sort of a glass houses thing...

Oh, so now failing to use 3 as average is amoral? Wow.

No it is just a problem with those who are either intent on Misuse or illiterate. Again unless I am getting rated on my posts if you can read and understand the short hand that is all that is needed. SO before you do you best to get off on a tangent and derail the conversation again lets get back to the facts. Fact 3 stars is listed as average, Fact average is not excellent and not bad. The morality of those that intentionally misuse something is not amoral it is immoral, so if they are intent on misusing the system just to be defiant, protest or cause chaos then they are abusing it.

Those that do not understand nor take the time to read(or cannot read) are just Lazy. I give them the benefit of the doubt that after they time has progressed and they see fluctuations due to others using system correctly, that they to will adjust there rating and the averages will average out and work as system was designed. IN that time hopefully there will be other improvements that will help with guidance for them.

a·mor·al
–adjective

2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

As for the rest, I have no interest in continuing this useless conversation with you.

Again you attempt to derail, I did not say the people misusing the system intentionally had no understanding of right and wrong, quite the opposite they know it is wrong and thus immoral not amoral.

im·mor·al Audio Help /ɪˈmɔrəl, ɪˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-mawr-uhl, i-mor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious.

Now before you start to flame or troll again when you are text book wrong yet again, can we get back to discussion of ratings?

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:I believe the grammar comment was sort of a glass houses thing...

Oh, so now failing to use 3 as average is amoral? Wow.

No it is just a problem with those who are either intent on Misuse or illiterate. Again unless I am getting rated on my posts if you can read and understand the short hand that is all that is needed. SO before you do you best to get off on a tangent and derail the conversation again lets get back to the facts. Fact 3 stars is listed as average, Fact average is not excellent and not bad. The morality of those that intentionally misuse something is not amoral it is immoral, so if they are intent on misusing the system just to be defiant, protest or cause chaos then they are abusing it.

Those that do not understand nor take the time to read(or cannot read) are just Lazy. I give them the benefit of the doubt that after they time has progressed and they see fluctuations due to others using system correctly, that they to will adjust there rating and the averages will average out and work as system was designed. IN that time hopefully there will be other improvements that will help with guidance for them.

a·mor·al
–adjective

2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

As for the rest, I have no interest in continuing this useless conversation with you.

Again you attempt to derail, I did not say the people misusing the system intentionally had no understanding of right and wrong, quite the opposite they know it is wrong and thus immoral not amoral.

im·mor·al Audio Help /ɪˈmɔrəl, ɪˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-mawr-uhl, i-mor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious.

Now before you start to flame or troll again when you are text book wrong yet again, can we get back to discussion of ratings?

OK, this is the last thing I am ever going to say to you as I feel dirty for even having carried this BS thread along even this far.

This is your quote:

Hopefully there is enough morality in the rest to use it as it was designed...

There is no reference to having their moral compass aligned correctly, rather whether or not they have "enough morality". In other words, do they bother to think about right and wrong. That, refers to amoral, not immoral. This is apparently not what you meant to say. But it is what you said. Color me surprised. Oops, I said color.

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:I believe the grammar comment was sort of a glass houses thing...

Oh, so now failing to use 3 as average is amoral? Wow.

No it is just a problem with those who are either intent on Misuse or illiterate. Again unless I am getting rated on my posts if you can read and understand the short hand that is all that is needed. SO before you do you best to get off on a tangent and derail the conversation again lets get back to the facts. Fact 3 stars is listed as average, Fact average is not excellent and not bad. The morality of those that intentionally misuse something is not amoral it is immoral, so if they are intent on misusing the system just to be defiant, protest or cause chaos then they are abusing it.

Those that do not understand nor take the time to read(or cannot read) are just Lazy. I give them the benefit of the doubt that after they time has progressed and they see fluctuations due to others using system correctly, that they to will adjust there rating and the averages will average out and work as system was designed. IN that time hopefully there will be other improvements that will help with guidance for them.

a·mor·al
–adjective

2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

As for the rest, I have no interest in continuing this useless conversation with you.

Again you attempt to derail, I did not say the people misusing the system intentionally had no understanding of right and wrong, quite the opposite they know it is wrong and thus immoral not amoral.

im·mor·al Audio Help /ɪˈmɔrəl, ɪˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-mawr-uhl, i-mor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious.

Now before you start to flame or troll again when you are text book wrong yet again, can we get back to discussion of ratings?

OK, this is the last thing I am ever going to say to you as I feel dirty for even having carried this BS thread along even this far.

This is your quote:

Hopefully there is enough morality in the rest to use it as it was designed...

There is no reference to having their moral compass aligned correctly, rather whether or not they have "enough morality". In other words, do they bother to think about right and wrong. That, refers to amoral, not immoral. This is apparently not what you meant to say. But it is what you said. Color me surprised. Oops, I said color.

The flames go on from you huh? you have a hard time staying on topic it seems maybe ADHD? to reiterate I said nothing about them lacking morality, in contrast I said I hope they have enough morality to do what is right and use the system as they know it is supposed to be used. So there is no confusion as to what moral means here it is. So please can we discuss the system and you and your like minded cronies stop taking off subject shots at me because you are wrong or have no basis to support your argument.

mo·ral·i·ty Audio Help /məˈrælɪti, mɔ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties for 4–6. 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
6. morality play.

This is almost off topic, but if you are trying to equate some kind of "moral" imperative to a CC rating system ... well,

A. You have not paid attention to most of the debate, because there is real and honest disagreement.

B. What makes you think you have the right to assign your values to everyone else in CC? The only one with a firm right is Lack. The rest of us .. can debate, and ultimately, take Lacks decisions or leave (literally).

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is almost off topic, but if you are trying to equate some kind of "moral" imperative to a CC rating system ... well,

A. You have not paid attention to most of the debate, because there is real and honest disagreement.

B. What makes you think you have the right to assign your values to everyone else in CC? The only one with a firm right is Lack. The rest of us .. can debate, and ultimately, take Lacks decisions or leave (literally).

and you further prove my point I did not decide 3 stars was average Lack did...

Soloman wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is almost off topic, but if you are trying to equate some kind of "moral" imperative to a CC rating system ... well,

A. You have not paid attention to most of the debate, because there is real and honest disagreement.

B. What makes you think you have the right to assign your values to everyone else in CC? The only one with a firm right is Lack. The rest of us .. can debate, and ultimately, take Lacks decisions or leave (literally).

and you further prove my point I did not decide 3 stars was average Lack did...

no one can decide what the practical average is prior to the ratings instigation.. Oh you can calculate what it 'is' in a theoretical sense but ultimately peoples actions will dictate the reality.

We are dealing with facts based on empirical knowledge, you are basing it on what you wish were true but isn't.

Soloman wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is almost off topic, but if you are trying to equate some kind of "moral" imperative to a CC rating system ... well,

A. You have not paid attention to most of the debate, because there is real and honest disagreement.

B. What makes you think you have the right to assign your values to everyone else in CC? The only one with a firm right is Lack. The rest of us .. can debate, and ultimately, take Lacks decisions or leave (literally).

and you further prove my point I did not decide 3 stars was average Lack did...

Common sense to me dictates that on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being the worst, and 5 being the best, then 3 would be average.

ctwong1 wrote:

Soloman wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is almost off topic, but if you are trying to equate some kind of "moral" imperative to a CC rating system ... well,

A. You have not paid attention to most of the debate, because there is real and honest disagreement.

B. What makes you think you have the right to assign your values to everyone else in CC? The only one with a firm right is Lack. The rest of us .. can debate, and ultimately, take Lacks decisions or leave (literally).

and you further prove my point I did not decide 3 stars was average Lack did...

Common sense to me dictates that on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being the worst, and 5 being the best, then 3 would be average.

it would of course .. but we are dealing with common behaviour, not common sense.

the problem started when everyone started using the rating system. i for one have not rated a single player. i've been rated by about 80ish, my rating is 4.9. this means jack shit to me. somebody rated me a 2 for fair play and attendance, i didn't miss a go and in that particular game, i may of been playing a load of people from across the pond so the time differences have to be taken into acoount, but that must of been neglected.


with the old feedback system, i only gave feedback to a minority of people(good and bad). i very rarely gave feedback in escalating, because mainly it is being in the right place at the right time. with the feedback system though, you could be more precise with what was good or bad about the individual you were playing against. i quite enjoyedreading some of the feedbacks of my fellow Chaps like Jimbob and DM.

ctwong1 wrote:

Soloman wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is almost off topic, but if you are trying to equate some kind of "moral" imperative to a CC rating system ... well,

A. You have not paid attention to most of the debate, because there is real and honest disagreement.

B. What makes you think you have the right to assign your values to everyone else in CC? The only one with a firm right is Lack. The rest of us .. can debate, and ultimately, take Lacks decisions or leave (literally).

and you further prove my point I did not decide 3 stars was average Lack did...

Common sense to me dictates that on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being the worst, and 5 being the best, then 3 would be average.

Someone Once Said Common Sense is a Uncommon thing. I just received a PM from 69er who was upset that I left them a 3 for fairplay, a 4 for Attendance and another 4 for attitude. Please Mods Create a tutorial or something for these people that do not get the meaning of average and think less then 5 means bad...