bspride wrote:i dont know if this has already been suggested or not...but i think that the ratings system needs some place to rate skill...maybe just bring back the old feedback and have it labeled skill...post there would be about players skill...and players skill only
thats sounds like a acceptable idea...
As many people have said (and usually the low ranks disagree) there is already a skill rating: the nice icon next to your name
true...yet sometimes even this can be misleading...i think i was saying skill as an all encompassing trait...like a summary of all the feedback...but not used to trash the player...maybe even a place to explain your ratings would work
So you're not referring to a "skill" rating, but rather, a chance to respond to individual ratings. That I will support. I'd prefer not having little cooks trying to tell me that my strategies suck (it's annoying enough in game chat; having them put it on your profile permanently, it would just be stupid)
sirfrogger wrote:feedback was probly a lil better but stars are good too(not attendance, automate it)
only prob is i recieved "bad stars" because PRISMSABER (well maybe no names, ill use P.S. to protect the innocent) accused me of having a bad strat/attitude that made HIM lose, i was unaware that i played to let other ppl win
also it was a tourny game , so i went for the person that had more points in the tourny, made sense to me but the sore losers will nvr see it that way
so ....automate the attendance AND bring back the FEEDBACK as well
He's the same idiot that gave me a 3 for attitude because I didn't reply to his whining until at the end of the game when I said "good game". Hence he is now the only person added to my ignore list in the last 4 months.
LSU Tiger Josh The man, the myth, the legend has returned.
My 2 cents on the new rating system is the following:
1. The new system is a nice thing. Easy to use, easy to read and takes the whole feedback moderation out of the equation.
2. The perceived problems could to some extent be mitigated by:
Not allow new users to leave ratings. E.g. after 100 games (when one understands CC a bit and actually have some insight on what the average/standard play is) one could get the option to leave ratings. Or after having purchased premium. Perhaps people shouldn't be able to leave ratings for players with <100 games as well. That would give new players a chance to learn the game before being subjected to hard-core players judgment.
There will nonetheless be some people who will just hand out e.g. 1-1-1 because they are pissed-off (right or wrong). Let's say you have a valid complaint about someone missing turns all the time, so sure, you put down a 1 on attendance. A lot of people hand down 1-ratings on the other categories as well. Now, for these 1-1-1 (or similar, e.g. 1-2-1) one could reintroduce the moderation function. Wouldn't take much time to look into that. No comments, no allegations, just a quick look at game chat, game log etc.
I believe that this would get away with a lot of the perceived flaws.
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
alstergren wrote:Not allow new users to leave ratings. E.g. after 100 games (when one understands CC a bit and actually have some insight on what the average/standard play is) one could get the option to leave ratings. Or after having purchased premium. Perhaps people shouldn't be able to leave ratings for players with <100 games as well. That would give new players a chance to learn the game before being subjected to hard-core players judgment.
this takes what i have been preaching a step further, and i like it even more. i just don't think new players should be allowed to leave ratings for those that are more experienced and have been on the site for awhile. i'm playing a game with a "?", who is about to miss a turn in my game, and has missed several more. so, now this guy can leave me all 1's, and never return to the site, and it effects my overall rating. you play enough new people or people that are going to be gone before they play 100 games, and you could get seriously screwed over in the star department. i like this idea... nice alster!-0
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
bspride wrote:i dont know if this has already been suggested or not...but i think that the ratings system needs some place to rate skill...maybe just bring back the old feedback and have it labeled skill...post there would be about players skill...and players skill only
thats sounds like a acceptable idea...
As many people have said (and usually the low ranks disagree) there is already a skill rating: the nice icon next to your name
true...yet sometimes even this can be misleading...i think i was saying skill as an all encompassing trait...like a summary of all the feedback...but not used to trash the player...maybe even a place to explain your ratings would work
So you're not referring to a "skill" rating, but rather, a chance to respond to individual ratings. That I will support. I'd prefer not having little cooks trying to tell me that my strategies suck (it's annoying enough in game chat; having them put it on your profile permanently, it would just be stupid)
yes...thats what i mean...yet i also would like a skill...maybe they could leave comments...
03euroSVT wrote:At least automate some (like attendance) and also let us respond to the ratings.
But the problem with automating is that sometimes people can actually have a good excuse. When I'm playing with friends of mine I really could care less if they miss a turn or take their turns very late.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
alstergren wrote:Not allow new users to leave ratings. E.g. after 100 games (when one understands CC a bit and actually have some insight on what the average/standard play is) one could get the option to leave ratings. Or after having purchased premium. Perhaps people shouldn't be able to leave ratings for players with <100 games as well. That would give new players a chance to learn the game before being subjected to hard-core players judgment.
this takes what i have been preaching a step further, and i like it even more. i just don't think new players should be allowed to leave ratings for those that are more experienced and have been on the site for awhile. i'm playing a game with a "?", who is about to miss a turn in my game, and has missed several more. so, now this guy can leave me all 1's, and never return to the site, and it effects my overall rating. you play enough new people or people that are going to be gone before they play 100 games, and you could get seriously screwed over in the star department. i like this idea... nice alster!-0
I would agree but perhaps a lower bar so Noobs do not feel to excluded something like 30 games should give them a grasp on the site, 100 games for a person who is non premium can take 6 or 7 months if they play mostly large games with slow every 24 hours players 30 games would mean at least a month of full activity which should immerse them well in the game and culture.
azezzo wrote:Well then my question to you is then Why does C.C. have such a tolerant stance on Game Chat? I dont understand how the one is different from the other.
Game chat doesn't go on anyone's record. Games don't "belong" to anyone and after the game is finished the chat is irrelevant. An unfair, provocative, rude written comment will follow you around on your feedback profile and with a -1 next to your username. That's too hard pill for many to swallow (maybe not for you, but believe me, for many!)
ok then what about a truely fair and accurate, rude written comment that was substantiated thru the game log and game chat. (I guess that requires too much moderation, when shit heads complain, but in my opinion is justified and provides a good picture of a bad player). Alot of people myself included try not to do things that will follow us around that we are not proud of, This will be a stretch, but to make my point , jails keep alot of borderline good people acting good, they realize that they cant give into temptation and do things which will put them in a place they dont want to be.
I've a bit of experience with rating scales and the only problem I see, lack is there is no set criteria for the ratings...my suggestion is for the mods to come up with clear criteria for each rating (exactly what would a mod expect to see to rank a player 5 star, 4 star etc), post it and then leave it to the individual players to honorably rate the other players based on the set criteria. I like the elimination of written responses...why not let players rate themselves in response to lower ratings without getting into the drama of written "tit for tat". Anyone who is interested can look up the games to decide who is the most honorable, honest of players both with themselves and other players. And a big thank you for allowing the input...cc has literally saved my sanity on more than a few occasions lately so thanks for that too....
Don't take life so seriously...nobody gets out alive. Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light
Between the original ratings and medals blog and this 1 we are over the 900 post mark. How many will it take to go back to the written feedback system?
C.C. doesnt get it, the ratings dont work, and they still require moderating How much time and effort will be spent trying to fix something that so many people dont want in the first place?
I cant help but feel that lack is hoping that peiople will just give in to this fiasco.
azezzo wrote:Between the original ratings and medals blog and this 1 we are over the 900 post mark. How many will it take to go back to the written feedback system?
C.C. doesnt get it, the ratings dont work, and they still require moderating How much time and effort will be spent trying to fix something that so many people dont want in the first place?
I cant help but feel that lack is hoping that peiople will just give in to this fiasco.
Where does it still require moderating? I was pretty sure that CC isn't moderating ratings at the moment except in case of extreme abuse...
please define abuse, now you mean like when the loser gives the winner a 1 star rating across the board because he's a sore loser, nah that will never happen, and when someday it does happen i wont even bother sending an e-ticket to a mod to resolve it, since they dont seem to respond to them, but thats just my experience with the ratings, and it seems to be more and more common.
azezzo wrote:please define abuse, now you mean like when the loser gives the winner a 1 star rating across the board because he's a sore loser, nah that will never happen, and when someday it does happen i wont even bother sending an e-ticket to a mod to resolve it, since they dont seem to respond to them, but thats just my experience with the ratings, and it seems to be more and more common.
i think they will respond after all the bugs are worked out..i feel it does need some looking after since this will be a problem in the future like it is now. but this new rateing system is "NEW" so that is why lack has posted these treads to atleast get the input of the people. so that is a start. this is a baby step to a larger out come so lets give it time and let lack do his magic. then we will see a great outcome i forsee.
azezzo wrote:Between the original ratings and medals blog and this 1 we are over the 900 post mark. How many will it take to go back to the written feedback system?
C.C. doesnt get it, the ratings dont work, and they still require moderating How much time and effort will be spent trying to fix something that so many people dont want in the first place?
I cant help but feel that lack is hoping that peiople will just give in to this fiasco.
I don't agree. Looking at the threads, I don't see 100% of the people posting yearning for the old feedback system. On the contrary, just like myself, most people seems to be pretty happy about the new systems and the efforts made to launch it.
To counter this negative post allow me, as a personal note, to express my gratitude to the constant work put into this site. You know who you are. At the end of the day, the site gets better and better.
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
It's unfair to be rated on teamwork by a member in the opponent team, esp when your teammates give you 5/5 and the opponent lower??! How can the opponent know the strategy?! It should be diasbled and these kind of ratings so far scrapped! That's my opinion at least! Thank you for reading
Pedronicus wrote:The attendance part of the ratings should be automated. If you take your go in under 2 hours 5 stars under 6 hours 4 stars under 12 hours 3 stars under 23 hours 2 stars miss a go - 1 star.
these are just loose suggestions - a poll would be a good idea for the first 4 categories
the attendance ratings should be worked out as mean average over the amount of goes each person takes per game. Attendance can be based on pure math times and shouldn't be another way to be abused by disgruntled players trying to reduce someones overall rating or making a deadbeat look good because you beat him and always gave 5 stars regardless of attendance.
This should happen to every single game you play to create a really good mean figure for each player.
Speed games should be amended by dividing what ever agreed time limits per star rating by 360 (360 x 4 = 1440, which is the day in minutes)
People who take their goes quickly should be rewarded with accurate rankings. Personal opinions of what constitutes fast play are bollox.
But the rating is for attendance, not speed. There are many times when I take my turn five minutes after the last guy's, but there are plenty of times when I'm asleep when that happens. You can't punish people for not being on every second. That being said, you can and should punish them for missing turns.
I think attendance should be automated, but based on the number of turns you miss.
Rightly said ZeakCytho! Not everyone in the world is in the same time zone... Attendance should be on missing turns only!
alstergren wrote:Not allow new users to leave ratings. E.g. after 100 games (when one understands CC a bit and actually have some insight on what the average/standard play is) one could get the option to leave ratings. Or after having purchased premium. Perhaps people shouldn't be able to leave ratings for players with <100 games as well. That would give new players a chance to learn the game before being subjected to hard-core players judgment.
this takes what i have been preaching a step further, and i like it even more. i just don't think new players should be allowed to leave ratings for those that are more experienced and have been on the site for awhile. i'm playing a game with a "?", who is about to miss a turn in my game, and has missed several more. so, now this guy can leave me all 1's, and never return to the site, and it effects my overall rating. you play enough new people or people that are going to be gone before they play 100 games, and you could get seriously screwed over in the star department. i like this idea... nice alster!-0
If you have 100 ratings 5-5-5 and 1-1-1 your overall rating will still be 5-5-5.
I give only 3's for everything as it's the average.
Should someone take their turns each time 5 mins after the previous player then I'll give more stars for attendance. If I notice someone is waiting 23 hours before each turn I'll give 2 stars perhaps. If the deadbeat i'll give 1 star.
The difference between a guy that takes 23:59 minutes to take his turn and the guys that deadbeats is only 1 minute. They are the same in my book.
alstergren wrote:Not allow new users to leave ratings. E.g. after 100 games (when one understands CC a bit and actually have some insight on what the average/standard play is) one could get the option to leave ratings. Or after having purchased premium. Perhaps people shouldn't be able to leave ratings for players with <100 games as well. That would give new players a chance to learn the game before being subjected to hard-core players judgment.
this takes what i have been preaching a step further, and i like it even more. i just don't think new players should be allowed to leave ratings for those that are more experienced and have been on the site for awhile. i'm playing a game with a "?", who is about to miss a turn in my game, and has missed several more. so, now this guy can leave me all 1's, and never return to the site, and it effects my overall rating. you play enough new people or people that are going to be gone before they play 100 games, and you could get seriously screwed over in the star department. i like this idea... nice alster!-0
If you have 100 ratings 5-5-5 and 1-1-1 your overall rating will still be 5-5-5.
I give only 3's for everything as it's the average.
Should someone take their turns each time 5 mins after the previous player then I'll give more stars for attendance. If I notice someone is waiting 23 hours before each turn I'll give 2 stars perhaps. If the deadbeat i'll give 1 star.
The difference between a guy that takes 23:59 minutes to take his turn and the guys that deadbeats is only 1 minute. They are the same in my book.
DAMN THOSE PEOPLE FOR HAVING ACTUAL LIFES!
Face it, not everyone is an internet-addict so when the site says "have 24 hours to take your turn!" and they proceed to take a large portion of those 24 hours they cannot be blamed. It's your fault for joining those games knowing full well what to expect.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Face it, not everyone is an internet-addict so when the site says "have 24 hours to take your turn!" and they proceed to take a large portion of those 24 hours they cannot be blamed. It's your fault for joining those games knowing full well what to expect.
That's not what i'm saying I'm saying I only give them an average rating.
Someone previously was complaining about gettting 3 stars for attendance that's what I give for "average" attendance.
Face it, not everyone is an internet-addict so when the site says "have 24 hours to take your turn!" and they proceed to take a large portion of those 24 hours they cannot be blamed. It's your fault for joining those games knowing full well what to expect.
That's not what i'm saying I'm saying I only give them an average rating.
Someone previously was complaining about gettting 3 stars for attendance that's what I give for "average" attendance.
Face it, not everyone is an internet-addict so when the site says "have 24 hours to take your turn!" and they proceed to take a large portion of those 24 hours they cannot be blamed. It's your fault for joining those games knowing full well what to expect.
That's not what i'm saying I'm saying I only give them an average rating.
Someone previously was complaining about gettting 3 stars for attendance that's what I give for "average" attendance.
Attendance is not missing turns mate...
Or at least having a good reason for missing a turn. Like a friend of mine who had his house flood and instead of doing the rational thing and running to the nearest internet-store to play his turns he decided to do something about that flood and stuff.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
alstergren wrote:Not allow new users to leave ratings. E.g. after 100 games (when one understands CC a bit and actually have some insight on what the average/standard play is) one could get the option to leave ratings. Or after having purchased premium. Perhaps people shouldn't be able to leave ratings for players with <100 games as well. That would give new players a chance to learn the game before being subjected to hard-core players judgment.
this takes what i have been preaching a step further, and i like it even more. i just don't think new players should be allowed to leave ratings for those that are more experienced and have been on the site for awhile. i'm playing a game with a "?", who is about to miss a turn in my game, and has missed several more. so, now this guy can leave me all 1's, and never return to the site, and it effects my overall rating. you play enough new people or people that are going to be gone before they play 100 games, and you could get seriously screwed over in the star department. i like this idea... nice alster!-0
If you have 100 ratings 5-5-5 and 1-1-1 your overall rating will still be 5-5-5.
I give only 3's for everything as it's the average.
Should someone take their turns each time 5 mins after the previous player then I'll give more stars for attendance. If I notice someone is waiting 23 hours before each turn I'll give 2 stars perhaps. If the deadbeat i'll give 1 star.
The difference between a guy that takes 23:59 minutes to take his turn and the guys that deadbeats is only 1 minute. They are the same in my book.
Thank you Bob for telling us this so I an add you to my ignore list.
LSU Tiger Josh The man, the myth, the legend has returned.
Snorri1234 wrote:Or at least having a good reason for missing a turn. Like a friend of mine who had his house flood and instead of doing the rational thing and running to the nearest internet-store to play his turns he decided to do something about that flood and stuff.
In every situation a man has a choice. Apparently your friend choose to receive a 1-star rating on attendance.
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
