- A check requiring a new player to finish a certain number of games (e.g. 25 or 50) before being able to rate another player.
- A check deleting all ratings handed out by an account being deleted (e.g. for rule violations).
- A balance deleting given ratings after a certain period of time (e.g. one calendar year).
Specifics:
Self-explanatory from the concise description.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
- Generally I get the feeling that a lot of criticism of the newly implemented rating system is caused by (i) perceived unfair ratings that cannot be moderated, only responded to by writing and (ii) the fact that the ratings (no matter how outrageous) will stick to the end of time. By implementing a few checks and balances, I believe that quite a few unfair ratings can be prevented from even being handed out as well as causing quite a lot of players to come to terms with the new rating system as they know that in the long-run, it will indeed even out. Most importantly though, the suggestions here would, if implemented, not require any moderation (which I believe was one of the underlying purposes of implementing the rating system to begin with).
- A check requiring a new player to finish a certain number of games (e.g. 25 or 50) before being able to rate another player. This will cause ratings to: (i) be handed out only by players reasonably dedicated to the site, (ii) be handed out by players who have become somewhat familiar with “common” standards and have had the time to ponder what kind of rating standard he or she wishes to abide by, and (iii) avoid (albeit rare) situations where multis are created for the sole purpose of hunting down a particular individual player from also pushing down the targeted player’s ratings.
- A check deleting all ratings handed out by an account being deleted (e.g. for rule violations). This will get rid of upset and unsportsmanlike individual’s ratings, the later which may very well be as outrageous as the rule violation itself. One can, for example, imagine a player being busted as a multi using his last games to take revenge by handing out straight 1-1-1s. EDIT: Multis ratings shouldn't be there in the first place either; one player one rating seems more reasonable.
- A balance deleting given ratings after a certain period of time (e.g. one calendar year). It is not uncommon, even though the exception, for players to get into brawls and fights on this site. This may lead to the players handing out shitty ratings, using the ignore function and then never see each other again. By letting all ratings expire after a certain period of time, ratings handed out after such events will eventually disappear. Further, it is also not uncommon (but again, an exception) that some players simply hand out outrageously bad ratings just for fun or out of spite. Again, by letting all ratings expire after a certain period of time, ratings handed out after such events will eventually disappear. At the end of the day, as ratings disappear, all players’ ratings will reflect what has occurred during the specified time period (e.g. then during the last year). As the rating system should reflect some sort of “community standard” or “peer-review” it seems fair that the ratings only go back that far. This especially in cases where perhaps a player has indeed changed his ways, perhaps he or she was obnoxious in the past but has matured into a much nicer player over time. Then this suggestion would also reflect in his or hers ratings.
