Conquer Club

I give everyone five stars because I like to think that, in doing so, I am contributing some child abuse, the good kind, to the world.

Because then it gives children who really need to shut the hell up and do their homework something to bitch about. They waste their time worrying about trivial bullshit when they should be studying, evening out the competition for the rest of the people out there.

Thank you for letting me share my opinions with you.

"Correct" Well lets define correct. I've always found that the best definition is this. Correct - Whatever George does. So then, by definition, whatever I do is what is correct. On the other hand, if you are doing something other than what I am doing, that would be incorrect, : ) Can you believe the other day nester called me a presumptuous bastard... I'm at a loss.




Edit: f*ck, I forgot to mention Nightstrike. Ok there it is.

Seulessliathan wrote:i did, 3 for average, 4 for good players, only a few 5´s for great games .... everybody went mad, many insulted me via pm, so i stopped to rate and deleted all ratings i gave before

I've had this as well, it's amazing just how bananas some players will go if they don't get all 5's automatically.

Well "The Army", someone just above made the only OVBJECTIVE point in this thread....leaving FB is subjective...lol. If you feel so strongly that your reasoning is sound, yet folks keep reacting poorly to it, I submit that perhaps you are not in the majority. I also humbly suggest you simply STOP leaving FB....lol.

99% of my games are played within the confines of my group, xigames....I automatically left 5 stars for all my brothers and sisteres there no matter what I thot - this seems the right thing to do.

When I get stupid and play a public game, I always seem to get in arguments with someone....must be my charming hillbilly nature I have several 1 star ratings to show for those efforts and expect 2 more are coming.

When I play the odd 8 person Doodle-Ass-Freestyle-Speed game, I dont know the other players from jack and sure as hell dont wanna study the game and each persons tactics - I just dont leave FB. UNLESS, as many have pointed out, someone was obtusely stupid or brilliant......

I've been playing with the thought of rating people with numbers I get from random.org

lmfao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ONES for everyone!!!!!!!!!!

MeDeFe wrote:I've been playing with the thought of rating people with numbers I get from random.org

Seriously though, the rating system is screwed. I'm skeptical that there will ever be a rating system that keeps everyone happy. I started off rating with 3 as average, but it was rather pointless because everyone else was rating with 5 as average. I kept having to explain myself over and over, so finally I switched to the 5 as a average rating system and deleted all my old ratings (which is why I have the feedback medal but only 16 feedbacks).

I was either giving 5s and the occasional 4 ,or all 1s to people whom didnt take any turns, only because i almost feel obligated to give 5s as 5s are seen as the 'average'. So I havnt been rating too much unless i really liked (or disliked) a player. I see the rating system as pointless tho becuase i dont look at peoples ratings before i play a game and dont expect that others are really going to look at mine, seeing as everyones is in the 4-5 range. Ratings cant tell you how someone is going to play too

I don't think too many people rate the "correct" way - if they did i think that you would expect to see mostly three's since most people are really just average (not me of course - just the rest of you guys!)

I'm not sure what to do. Probably i'll just give a 5 unless they were mean jerks. I like the using the descriptive words though - i think that there should be more to choose from maybe.

There is no correct way to rate someone because the whole rating system is retarded. A binary system is the only effective solution.

If you think someone's rating is where it should be, don't rate them.
If you think it should be higher, give 5's.
If you think it should be a bit lower, give them 3's.
If you would never recommend anyone play them, ever, give all 1's.

Simple system, and it accomplishes what I want to see in ratings.

I don't take any of the rating as a judgment of how well a player will play, but I do check the ratings just before joining a game just to make sure the players that are already there are not total jerks that have only been rated with 1s and always have negative comments. There are plenty of games to select from, so I don't want to waste my time with people that are just there to piss other people off.

I do agree that the words to select from don't always capture what I'd like to say about a player, but I still try to use the system, especially to let people know about deadbeats since it is very annoying when they slow a game down for 3 turns in a row.

I realised long ago that this rating system is a load of bullknitters (in fact, I realised that while we still had the old system and this new one was only just being proposed). As such, I have rejected it as a useful piece of apparatus and now only use it to give myself amusement.

One of my favourite things to do is to give my singles opponents tags such as 'good team-mate' and my doubles partners tags such as 'backstabber', even though we won. I'm also a big fan of leaving 'pre-emptively fair' ratings of 1-star, knowing that the player in question will inevitably be awarded an unjustifiable 5-star rating at some point in the future, which of course needs to be 'moderated' in advance (by me). However, my favourite part of the whole process is getting to 'respond' to the ratings of others and reading their outraged responses to my ratings (especially those which include non-sensical tags or 'pre-emptively fair' marks)... after all, what's funnier than reading the outraged shrilling of somebody who takes 'online Risk performance-ratings' far too seriously?

I'll tell you what's funnier than that: stealing from nuns.


Ah thank you much love,
Goodnight.

there is so much negativity on this site from some players, that any that show up, make a decent effort and play fairly well get a 5 from me, because in my opinion that is outstanding.

The ratings do work, and they work very well. Its just that the numbers dont necessarily correlate to their designed name, but for any given player, their rating really does let you know what to expect, and is so accurate its almost funny.

The ones around 4 complain almost every game, lower than that do complain every game, and as you go up, the complaints get less and less.

This is a situation, where the system just needs to be changed a little to fit what works... and everything will be fine. The numbers have to be changed to describe the players that get them

5.0 saint or brand new
4.9 almost always a great player and polite
4.8 almost always a great player and polite, but not afraid to speak his mind
4.7 good player, usually polite, but more likely to speak his mind
4.6 good player often, but will complain about play, make odd moves, or complain about dice more often
4.5 likely to hear or see something out of the ordinary in a game, whether moves, or game chat
4.4 very likely"" ""
4.3 almost guaranteed to see complaints about dice or game play
4.2 "" ""
4.1"" ""
4.0 "" "" and could be outright offensive or abusive
3.9"" ""
3.8 or lower will complain in every single game about something.

The only ratings that dont make sense are the ones for new players... they are often skewed too low because of one bad rating.

Ive tried to get that resolved a few times, but with no success yet.

AAFitz wrote:The ratings do work, and they work very well.

Do they hell.

If your definition of 'well' is "they let me see a couple of this site's most egregious knobheads coming, but only after they've upset a sufficiently large number of other dudes" then sure, they're awesome. But if what you want is an indication of whether somebody is a genuinely fun player, who combines sound strategy with witty banter and a good sense of fair play; as opposed to just a completely average Joe who plays a semi-coherent, no-talking game and only misses the odd turn... then it's about as useful as a double-ended unicycle.

Come on Fitz, you're one of this places' few semi-intelligent users, don't be a shill apologist for a system that just plain old sucks. Sure, it picks up the occasional giga-twat... but beyond that it's almost entirely worthless.

Couldn't give a f*ck less, 5's for everybody. Except for the occasional butt smoke.

people rate people after they get their medal? really? i had no idea...-0

Dancing Mustard wrote:

AAFitz wrote:The ratings do work, and they work very well.

Do they hell.

If your definition of 'well' is "they let me see a couple of this site's most egregious knobheads coming, but only after they've upset a sufficiently large number of other dudes" then sure, they're awesome. But if what you want is an indication of whether somebody is a genuinely fun player, who combines sound strategy with witty banter and a good sense of fair play; as opposed to just a completely average Joe who plays a semi-coherent, no-talking game and only misses the odd turn... then it's about as useful as a double-ended unicycle.

Come on Fitz, you're one of this places' few semi-intelligent users, don't be a shill apologist for a system that just plain old sucks. Sure, it picks up the occasional giga-twat... but beyond that it's almost entirely worthless.

Im not. I know what every rating means. And I theoretically could have been one of the biggest supporters of the old feedback system...having had the most for quite a while at one point....

but I like this one better. the negatives are averaged out, but the real problem players are all left with low ratings.. it doesnt take long at all.

show me one player thats a pain in the neck thats over 4.5...sure, some may occasionally complain, and certainly I have earned some low ones of my own, but the problem children are all marked. And if you use my definitions, you will find they work quite well.

Also, and most importantly... I know what it took to police the other one, and it wasnt possible. and...its just a rating...who really cares as herpes said. Let the mods spend time on something useful...they have plenty of things to keep busy..

i give most people 4s stars really do i give 5s unless they were alot of fun to play i only give 2 or 3 to people that played poorly or had a bad aditude and then i give 1s to the dumb asses and vendictive players

If I win, I give a higher rank because I'm in a good mood, if I lose and I feel they did good then its a higher rank, I also don't really pay attention, sometimes I forget who did what so just high for nothing. But you have to be pretty offensive to get a bad rating from me. I also tend to play a lot of games with the same people because I like DE 1-1 games or assassin. So, it's mostly the same crowd.

I only play members from Lake Wobegon - where all players are above average - and all female players are good looking.

I get more enjoyment using the checkmark tag boxes instead of the stars ... you can get more character input out of those.

You could get a better idea of how well somebody plays with the old system. I agree that there was way too much refereeing needed from people complaining about negative feedback. I think to work that out the mods should allow a short sentence to be written along with the current rating system so people can say what they feel. They could limit to like 120-140 characters for the comment section.

I rate people according to a randomly generated "intensity level" in each category.

To those that are concerned about their overall average, just play more games and it will pick back up. Most every player on CC, with a good number of games, should be in the 4.7-4.9 region easily and generally, they are worth playing against.