Conquer Club

Beastly wrote:I just gave everyone 5 stars except for 1 person who deadbeated, and I gave them no stars... Is that how it works. NO stars for stupid people?

zimmah wrote:
i think he does have a point here, however i guess most people will still hand out 5's to everyone. and why? because they would like to see all 5's on their own page, that's why. too bad for you, the other person will not see their rating in time to rate you back with all 5's anyways so it's useless.

Hrvat wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:5 stars just for not being a dick is ridiculous.

No, that's reasonable. I want to play against people who are not dicks. I also want to play against good strategists. I can look at rank/score for the latter, but nothing for the former. Hence, 5 stars to everyone who is not a dick, because they didn't do anything to deserve less.

Amen to that.

As has already been pointed out "not being a dick" includes not saying anything at all during the whole game. Is that really worth 5 stars?

Hrvat wrote:

As has already been pointed out "not being a dick" includes not saying anything at all during the whole game. Is that really worth 5 stars?

I could not care less if someone wrote 30 page essay in chat, or said 'hi', or did not say any thing at all, and I am not going to rate them for their chatting or luck of chat...

So, yes, if I enjoyed the game, my opponent was "not being a dick" and I might like to play them again.... I just may give them 5 stars
If, on the other hand, opponent was being abusive, or hard to get on with, or full of himself, or can't stop telling everyone how to play or how not to play.... I just may give him 1 star
Anything in between I am not really interested.

lt.pie wrote:i got a medal for handing out 129 ratings yesterday

Minister Masket wrote:This is why basing a rating system out of 5 is never a good thing.
There's not enough scale there.

Minister Masket wrote:This is why basing a rating system out of 5 is never a good thing.
There's not enough scale there.

jiminski wrote:

Minister Masket wrote:This is why basing a rating system out of 5 is never a good thing.
There's not enough scale there.

agreed MM. It is not enough to allow for nuanced voting, so people don't even bother... as we are seeing here!

It may be psychological ... but then what else do we have?

zimmah wrote:

jiminski wrote:

Minister Masket wrote:This is why basing a rating system out of 5 is never a good thing.
There's not enough scale there.

agreed MM. It is not enough to allow for nuanced voting, so people don't even bother... as we are seeing here!

It may be psychological ... but then what else do we have?

people are already complaining about the stars leaving too many options, think of it before you post. 10 stars is way too many for rating someone on behavior.

give me a full scale from 1 to 10 how you would rate someone on attendence, fair play, attitude and teamwork. come on, show me.

jiminski wrote:

Hrvat wrote:

As has already been pointed out "not being a dick" includes not saying anything at all during the whole game. Is that really worth 5 stars?

I could not care less if someone wrote 30 page essay in chat, or said 'hi', or did not say any thing at all, and I am not going to rate them for their chatting or luck of chat...

So, yes, if I enjoyed the game, my opponent was "not being a dick" and I might like to play them again.... I just may give them 5 stars
If, on the other hand, opponent was being abusive, or hard to get on with, or full of himself, or can't stop telling everyone how to play or how not to play.... I just may give him 1 star
Anything in between I am not really interested.

i have decided not to rate any one.. it's all rather silly.

Bones2484 wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:5 stars just for not being a dick is ridiculous.

No, that's reasonable. I want to play against people who are not dicks. I also want to play against good strategists. I can look at rank/score for the latter, but nothing for the former. Hence, 5 stars to everyone who is not a dick, because they didn't do anything to deserve less.

Ditto.

And unless I'm told the ratings mean otherwise, I'm giving out 5 stars as the starting point and subtracting from there if someone really gets on my nerves. Otherwise, 5 stars all around if the game was enjoyable.

Bones2484 wrote:

FabledIntegral wrote:Which is why teh system is flawed. What is a 5-star restaurant? A 5-star movie? Things that are mindblowing - you encounter them rarily. It's something that absolutely impressed you, out of the norm. If you're handing out 5-stars to someone who didn't necessarily do anything wrong, then there is NOTHING to distinguish THAT player from a player that is above and beyond.

What's the point of even having other ratings if 5 is going to be the standard by people? Show me WHAT rating system is effective when you base the standards/default on the absolute top possible given score. There is no incentive to even try to behave above and beyond, assuming that rating is an incentive to people.

This system, because of people like you, is even worse than our old system. It had the potential to accurately judge people, but people who mindlessly hand out 5's is ridiculous and skews the entire system for people who truly rate accordingly. Well you might want to avoid me - as if you don't do anything impressive you'll probably get a 3, aka average, and a 2 if you show even slight signs of stupidity, aka "slightly below average."

And where is the memo that says 5 is way above average and 3 is the goal?

Or do you think that there may be a small chance that people are going to use this system differently than how you think it should be used?

As far as I am aware, YOU are the one skewing the entire system... but I'm not going to go around telling you how to rate. In my opinion, a 5 star rating does not indicate that someone is above and beyond. In fact, it tells me that the person is someone I'd like to play. Anything else means that someone had a negative experience with that player. And until someone in charge of the site tells me to change my perception on how I vote, that's how I'm going to do it.

Scott-Land wrote:i didnt drudge through 5 pages so not sure if anyone posted but- isn't it stupidity to not just withdraw the ratings you left?