Conquer Club

Concise description:
Amend the guidance on ratings ...

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

Proposed guidance:
The number of stars given should be based on this scale: 1 = Bad, 2 = Unacceptable, 3 = Acceptable, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
First of all apologies for starting yet another thread about the ratings ... Nonetheless I think this is important because the whole use of the word "average" confuses the issue.

My experience of this site is that there are quite a lot of players who do the minimum required: Turn up on time, play fairly and don't say much. All that is fine. "Acceptable" even. And hence 3 stars.
However my experience is that the average CC player is actually better than this. The average player turns up well within time, plays fairly, chats in a friendly manner. So they are more than "Acceptable" they are "Good".
Now so far so what? I'm just changing the words ...
But my point is this - if I'm forced (by the use of the word "average" to rate all my "(4) Good" players as "(3) Average" (because that's what they are - average for CC) then, in turn, I'm forced to rate all my "(3) Acceptable" players as "(2) Below Average" because again - that's what they are ... but of course this must be wrong I can't go around giving people who have done nothing actively wrong 2 stars surely ?

Basically people have a paradigm with the ratings and think that anything that is average shouldn't be associated with them. Average from what I'm aware would describe the average player, whatever you want to define the average player as. But the average player would thus constitute a majority, and the bell curve works from there, making 3 the perfect middle.

However due to certain imperfections in teh system, although I disagree with your logic, I wouldn't mind moving the system to 4 being the standard.

I agree with Fabled. Can we make 4 standard, or can we go to a rating out of 10 and make 7 standard?

I think we need to go even further and actually specify the behaviors that will make each rating.

I realize that there is a wide difference of opinion on what is OK and what is not. The whole "real time" issue.... swearing in chat or even chatting at all,... etc. BUT, if the guidelines were specified, while you would still get a few who would just "do their own thing", most would go along.

I still also feel we have a real need to distinguish those who have strong opinions outside the majority. Things like those who thing "slamming" and "talking crap" etc are all just "part of the game". If folks want to play that way, fine, but a LOT of folks just don't.

AND simply looking at the ratings, especially how they are now, just does not "cut it".

I can absolutely understand the need to keep mods out of the jury business, especially as CC grows so phenomonally. But, even if the old system was subjective, you could at least read the feedback and get a pretty good idea of what a particular person was thinking.

ALSO, I think there has been far too much attention placed on the positive end. I mean, it is nice to hear someone say "this is a wonderful player ... she actually HELPED ME understand the map" ... or "delightful conversation" etc. BUT, the real truth is few people actually read many of the positives other than the one to whom they are meant. The wall is a decent alternative to that, though I doubt I will use it. I just PM any pertinent comments.

I am actually OK with simply having 5 as the standard ... but 4 is good, too. I agree that 3 seems ... well, a bit of a come down. Remember, this isn't school.... and, a lot of times, a nice compliment goes a lot further to enhance someone's play. You know the old saying "you catch more flies with honey".

There are more than a few cases, especially with new players, where I have left a comment specifically because I want to be sure to specifically encourage good behavior. Giving someone "border line" a compliment often goes much further than an insult or criticism. I reserved negatives and even nuetrals for the really bad stuff. Even then, if I was dealing with a relatively inexperienced player, I would be much more likely to give a nuetral. I might say "strategy is OK, but I really could have done without the language ... a personal choice issue" or something of the sort.

And that, I guess is the biggest problem. We are such a diverse community with so many different ideas and ways of doing things that uniformity is impossible. That is why explanations are so important.

I did submit a suggestion. It was probably too early, quite possibly too complicated. BUT, I also clearly stated it was just one attempt.

I support the above idea, and anything else that will offer at least some improvement. However, I don't think it goes nearly far enough. And, I think that the changes that are required to make this current system really and truly work are more than just minor tweaks.

I also, as I have said before, still think that this needs to be somehow broached with the wider community, no matter what the polls here in the forum say. I liked the open poll put in place for the Risk change. ANYONE could just click "yeah" or "nay", without having to enter the actual forum. Because is was so easy, anyone with any opinion at all was likely to contribute. In the forum, you get the "regulars" .. folks like myself who just like to "chat" and so forth ... and those with a gripe. It is just human nature. THAT is why the response to the community is so often at variance with the responses engendered within the forum.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I think we need to go even further and actually specify the behaviors that will make each rating.

And without moderating what good will that do? Even more grief and complaints threads probably as the big reson for the change was to make moderating free.

Thezzaruz wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:I think we need to go even further and actually specify the behaviors that will make each rating.

And without moderating what good will that do? Even more grief and complaints threads probably as the big reson for the change was to make moderating free.

It will at least offer a consistant comparison for those who choose to try.

If you can see the number of times someone leaves a bad rating, it will help a great deal more, because those who consistantly judge other people as "poor sports", etc are often the ones with the problem themselves.

The ratings are pointless. A ton of users will think that everyone should get threes and then be adjusted up or down accordingly. Also, a ton of users will think that everyone should start out with fives and be lowered if they deserve negative points in that area. Then, of course, there will also be a ton of users that get it backwards and give out ones for good actions and fives for bad actions.

They are not tied to specific games, they have no comments clarifying why the feedback was left, there is no way to report abuse since the mods are too "busy" to run their website, etc., etc., etc....

I completely agree with cicero here. His suggested guidelines are simple, but a lot more clear. USE THEM!

But i think there will still be a need to include some comments in the ratings to actually be more clear on why they are rated this way.

One of the main problems with this suggestion is that "unacceptable," by definition, is worse than "bad."

You have the order of those two reversed, for starters.

Another of the many problems with this is that nobody would care about the change even if it were implemented: they would all just rate as they have already decided to rate, regardless of the change in the words used to explain the numbers.

Personally, I love the new rating system. It's so simple just to go right down the line, giving all 5's to each and every member.

Thanks, Conquer Club!