Conquer Club

Soloman wrote:

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...

As someone already stated, Average is not something you or anyone else can dictate. Average is a statistical calculation. Without doing the actual calculation, I'd say average is closer to 4.5 than to 3. Therefore, anything below 4.5 is below average. I'd say that 90% of players would be offended at a 3 for fair play if they had done nothing wrong, including yourself. After all, the average rating is somewhere between 4 and 5.

derivative133 wrote:

Soloman wrote:

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...

As someone already stated, Average is not something you or anyone else can dictate. Average is a statistical calculation. Without doing the actual calculation, I'd say average is closer to 4.5 than to 3. Therefore, anything below 4.5 is below average. I'd say that 90% of players would be offended at a 3 for fair play if they had done nothing wrong, including yourself. After all, the average rating is somewhere between 4 and 5.

Can I use you math on my bank account...lol just kidding common sense is uncommon as is people who paid attention in math class apparently here in CC land, as has been pointed out if 5 is best 1 is worst 3 is average. The basic premise is lost on a lot of people I know this but it is still a fact no matter how much you wish otherwise...

[/quote]Can I use you math on my bank account...lol just kidding common sense is uncommon as is people who paid attention in math class apparently here in CC land, as has been pointed out if 5 is best 1 is worst 3 is average. The basic premise is lost on a lot of people I know this but it is still a fact no matter how much you wish otherwise...[/quote]

3 is the middle, 3 is the median, the mode is probably 5, and the mean is the sum of the ratings divided by the number of ratings, an estimate of which is 4.5. You can get the ratings on the scoreboard if you would like to calculate it more accurately.

You may call it math if you wish, however statistics would be more precise, or perhaps measures of central tendency. You are making the mistake of using the place numbers as data. The data set is composed of the actual ratings given.

BTW, if you wish you may use my methodology on your bank account, though I do not see how it would be beneficial. It is sound decision science.

derivative133 wrote:3 is the middle, 3 is the median, the mode is probably 5, and the mean is the sum of the ratings divided by the number of ratings, an estimate of which is 4.5. You can get the ratings on the scoreboard if you would like to calculate it more accurately.

You may call it math if you wish, however statistics would be more precise, or perhaps measures of central tendency. You are making the mistake of using the place numbers as data. The data set is composed of the actual ratings given.

BTW, if you wish you may use my methodology on your bank account, though I do not see how it would be beneficial. It is sound decision science.

LOL the average players score does not mean that the average used is even remotely correct as we have a abundant amount of people who do not use the system as it was designed. Currently the variables have been completely skewed all results and any arithmetic averages will be inaccurate because of it, But a literal average which is what 3 stars represents and also the median number would be a closer representative if players had as many bad games as good games in the sense it seems you are arguing.

The problem with your argument is you are expressing conflicting terms of variables averaged with the median base that 3 stars is supposed to represent which are both represented by the same word. 3 stars is score of standard, not extraordinary, normal thus the literal average. So your argument in both senses of statistical and what 3 stars represent is skewed and unfounded due to multiple reasons including those I already mentioned.

Average versus excellent, etc. cause too many problems. Not only is it not specific enough in the criteria, how people even feel about those titles varies a lot ... as the previous several posts show.


What if we look instead at the following:

Automate missed turn count (seperate thread discusses)

Post average turn time in profile for those who want to find it.

FEEDBACK: reduced to 3 ratings:

NEGATIVE -- definitely do not reccomend this player to anyone
was extremely rude, deadbeat, cheated (multis, unannounced alliances), etc.

Reciever will be able to respond in a text block.

NUETRAL -- Some might like this player, some won't
Specific comment required -- "check boxes"

foul language or somewhat rude
poor english/no english
poor teammate
suicides
poor strategy
other issue (possibly explanation allowed, but with narrow editing for language only)
ETC.
possibly a text response/defense would be allowed

POSITIVE -- no comment, no checks "positive" says it all! You would play this person again and would reccommend this player to anyone.

For everyone that has pmed me nasty bitch sessions and those about to pm me to bitch, when I don't rate you for attitude- it doesn't mean I gave you a bad rating. It doesn't mean anything...merely that I didn't rate you. If you don't say anything in game chat, I have no idea what your attitude is like. Please stop with the pms !!!!

Thanks-

Scott-Land wrote:For everyone that has pmed me nasty bitch sessions and those about to pm me to bitch, when I don't rate you for attitude- it doesn't mean I gave you a bad rating. It doesn't mean anything...merely that I didn't rate you. If you don't say anything in game chat, I have no idea what your attitude is like. Please stop with the pms !!!!

Thanks-

I'm not liking your attitude on this matter

happy2seeyou wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:For everyone that has pmed me nasty bitch sessions and those about to pm me to bitch, when I don't rate you for attitude- it doesn't mean I gave you a bad rating. It doesn't mean anything...merely that I didn't rate you. If you don't say anything in game chat, I have no idea what your attitude is like. Please stop with the pms !!!!

Thanks-

I'm not liking your attitude on this matter

you can kiss my ass- cause you can't rate me anymore

Soloman wrote:

derivative133 wrote:3 is the middle, 3 is the median, the mode is probably 5, and the mean is the sum of the ratings divided by the number of ratings, an estimate of which is 4.5. You can get the ratings on the scoreboard if you would like to calculate it more accurately.

You may call it math if you wish, however statistics would be more precise, or perhaps measures of central tendency. You are making the mistake of using the place numbers as data. The data set is composed of the actual ratings given.

BTW, if you wish you may use my methodology on your bank account, though I do not see how it would be beneficial. It is sound decision science.

LOL the average players score does not mean that the average used is even remotely correct as we have a abundant amount of people who do not use the system as it was designed. Currently the variables have been completely skewed all results and any arithmetic averages will be inaccurate because of it, But a literal average which is what 3 stars represents and also the median number would be a closer representative if players had as many bad games as good games in the sense it seems you are arguing.

The problem with your argument is you are expressing conflicting terms of variables averaged with the median base that 3 stars is supposed to represent which are both represented by the same word. 3 stars is score of standard, not extraordinary, normal thus the literal average. So your argument in both senses of statistical and what 3 stars represent is skewed and unfounded due to multiple reasons including those I already mentioned.

I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong. If 3 were really the average, than that would would make every player on this site above average, which is a logical impossibility. The average is dictated by the facts, not by an arbitrary designation.
The confusion comes when you use the word average to mean "neither good nor bad" as opposed to its actual meaning. The fact that most players on this site have positive game experiences most of the time raises the actual average considerably.

thellama73 wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong. If 3 were really the average, than that would would make every player on this site above average, which is a logical impossibility. The average is dictated by the facts, not by an arbitrary designation.
The confusion comes when you use the word average to mean "neither good nor bad" as opposed to its actual meaning. The fact that most players on this site have positive game experiences most of the time raises the actual average considerably.

Well well.....a very cogent and erudite point made....and, in my opinion, one of the fundamental flaws in the system explained. Well done!

Fruitcake wrote:

thellama73 wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong. If 3 were really the average, than that would would make every player on this site above average, which is a logical impossibility. The average is dictated by the facts, not by an arbitrary designation.
The confusion comes when you use the word average to mean "neither good nor bad" as opposed to its actual meaning. The fact that most players on this site have positive game experiences most of the time raises the actual average considerably.

Well well.....a very cogent and erudite point made....and, in my opinion, one of the fundamental flaws in the system explained. Well done!

edit: You should post this in lacks thread.

Please see my new post about Johnnyrocket24 leaving retaliatory negative ratings for me because he was mad he lost the game.

1 Star across the board for no reason. I never missed a turn and did not delay the game. among other things.

Johnny is a poor sport from my experience

Zigtar wrote:Please see my new post about Johnnyrocket24 leaving retaliatory negative ratings for me because he was mad he lost the game.

1 Star across the board for no reason. I never missed a turn and did not delay the game. among other things.

Johnny is a poor sport from my experience

do you mean this one?

Zigtar wrote:Hello,

I am sure there is a better place for this thread so any moderator feel free to move it. I am still new to CC and learning my way around the threads.

I would like to know how to get retaliatory negative ratings removed?

In Game #2764130
JOHNNYROCKET24 left me 1 star ratings across the bored for no reason. I try to be polite to everyone I play with and I do not miss turns with rare exceptions. (2 turns missed over 4th of July weekend in my entire games)

He lost the game when I went on a lucky roll streak and decided to take out his frustration on my ratings.

ha!!! sometimes you just have to love you some JR...-0

one guy also gave me 3, 3, 3

funny thing is:

1) he didnt participate in the chat (was the only not to)
2) he got eliminated on round 5, not even fighting me once (how can he know about fair play, then)
3) I did not missed a single turn
4) even the guy fought with fiercely gave me 4´s

whatever. he just messed up my perfect 5 stars...

Should I polay another game with him, and give him only ones from now on?

But, okay, assuming 3 then is the average. Lets analyse the least subjective of the ratings, Attendance>

You should give 3stars attendance to someone who misses 1 round every 7 or so in a game (lets say he plays from work and cant play on Sundays)

you should give a 2 to someone who misses more turns than plays (plays 1, misses 2, plays 1, misses another, plays the next, misses 2, and so on)

and 1 star to deadbeats and plays-1-misses-2-rounds guys

4 stars, then, to the guy who misses only 1 round the entire game, and for those who let the game enter the last 6 hours of a round before playing.

and 5 stars to the ones who plays all turns, and does so in the first 12 hours of each turn.

Since this is not a subjective rating, like the others, I think the system itself should award it, based on fixed standards. This would prevent things like what has happened to me.
====================

Alas, this is not what is happening. why on earth give 3 on attendance if someone misses no rounds that game? and, if that's the right thing to do, how on earth the 5 stars should be awarded?

So, I got a 3 on attendance and can prove (by the game log) that I have neither missed, nor delayed any round. This shows the one giving the rating is abusing the system. He should be punished, based on the assumption that people with low ratings will eventually be punished themselves, by being kept from joining games, as per the admins sayings.

I still hate the system, played a person ( I think anyway) 1x1, played my moves twice a day like I always do, never said a word to the corksucker, and I won in 5 rounds. left 3's. don't know why it pisses me off so much but it does. I AM NOT GOING TO RE-NEW MY PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP. I liked the feedback system, I was proud of my perfect record and I enjoyed the things my adversaries said about me. I seldom left feedback myself, unless the player was truly wonderful or rotten awful. This system and the tyrannical was it was imposed have taken any joy derived from competetion except crushing your opponant.

indianmike wrote:I still hate the system, played a person ( I think anyway) 1x1, played my moves twice a day like I always do, never said a word to the corksucker, and I won in 5 rounds. left 3's. don't know why it pisses me off so much but it does. I AM NOT GOING TO RE-NEW MY PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP. I liked the feedback system, I was proud of my perfect record and I enjoyed the things my adversaries said about me. I seldom left feedback myself, unless the player was truly wonderful or rotten awful. This system and the tyrannical was it was imposed have taken any joy derived from competetion except crushing your opponant.

wow another one that aint got renew membersip. Well done for making the right stance. Lets hit CC were it hurts (the pocket)...I'm going to try and persuade everyone from renewing their premium until we get what the paying customer wants

I think folks ranting about "abuse of the system" are rather missing a couple of points.

One, as mentioned above, "average" here is really not based (in most people's opinion) on JUST their CC experience, but on game playing experience in general. People in CC are above average and therefore get rated that way

BUT the real point is that people have their own ideas and want to express those ideas. Look at the debate over "skill" rating, for example and the number of people who say, (essentially) I know this is not where this is supposed to go, but I want to rate skill, so I just combine it with attitude (or fair play).

NOW, you have no way to know.
Some people, JR above is an admitted example, use ratings to take out their frustrations with CC/the Dice, etc.

Some people use all sorts of arbitrary systems -- giving all 3's all 4's all 5's "just because".



Personally, I don't think people really care if someone is "excellent" or "above average" .. not really. MOST people want to know if this person is not a multis, is going to be reasonably polite, will not miss a bunch of turns (barring the unexpected emergency). IF playing a team game, they want to know if the person will communicate reasonably and put forward a reasonable effort to play well (either help with strategy or listen to the more experienced/better players).

A FEW people want every game to be a speed game -- and tend to irritate the majority

A FEW people want to play only "good" players -- but, strangely, are often not the best themselves.

A FEW people want to speak however they wish, say things they would never dream of saying to other strangers ... and get no consequences.

A FEW people want to tell everyone else in the game how to play ... and generally are not appreciated

A FEW people want to belittle and criticize anyone who doesn't play as well as they do. And end up on a few foe lists as a result.

A FEW people think it is appropriate to leave a game when it is not going well... and they tend to get on quite a few foe lists.

I probably forgot some issues, but does that sound about right?

i have to say, i liked the old rating system better..at least if you got a negative rating you knew why and had a chance to explain or defend your actions. it also allowed other people see how you react to certain ratings...i.e. people who responded to neg. feedback with profanity and namecalling usually deserved a poor rating. i myself have been the victim of people losing and giving me poor ratings...not even "average" but poor(one star) and i have no idea why. the rating was given in the "fair play" section and i have no idea why...i didnt use the "gang up" method with other players and i didnt use any "questionable" manuvers (like intentionally stalling)...and i didnt even attack one player more often than the other. the fact is that i DID win FAIR and square with nothing but pure strategy and a little luck. i politely pmed the guy asking him why he left the rating and i never got a response. so sure...the old rating method wasnt perfect, but i think it was better than the new one. the new one only give a general impression about the players, whereas the old one gave a general impression as well as the opportunity to get details on WHY they had negative feedback.

DomQuebec has a 4 rating but is a serial deabeat. His Wall informs you more than the shitty ratings system that the site has wrongly adopted.

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=116300&start=5

PS...More lower weasels like KLOBBER would delete the entries on the wall but i believe DOM is quite proud of them!!

i like the numbers...

whitestazn88 wrote:i like the numbers...

so do I but numbers doesnt show what a poor sport and cronic deadbeater DOM is. The numbers actually show he is above average!

lol, true... but thats why theres a ratings reloaded- community consultation thread


plus everyone knows that 5 is the new average....

whitestazn88 wrote:lol, true... but thats why theres a ratings reloaded- community consultation thread


plus everyone knows that 5 is the new average....

The number of stars given should be based on this scale: 1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.

it should... but it isn't...

i don't know your current rating, but if i played you and gave you a 2 on fair play cuz you farmed me and 4 noobs on the map and settings of your choice you wouldn't think thats fair


or even if you played me 1v1 on my settings and i gave you a 3 cuz it was just an average game, you wouldn't be happy... the numbers just got inflated really fast