Change to rule #2

[gdeangel]

... so we've got like 5 threads on the medals, even more on the ratings... but (and I know it was discussed before in a couple of topical threads) what about the change to rule #2. That the powers that be would think that they need to babysit and protect against "unfair" play simply means to me basically an admission that the ratings - with all the shiny medals, and wall boards, and 1-5 start fancy ratings matrix - amount to crap if they aren't a good criteria with which to figure out what kind of player you might be getting mixed up with going into a match.

Old system... player develops a reputation for "secretly proposing alliances outside chat"... but always follows the rule about announcing it in the game. Recourse - leave a feedback message - "player send PM to me outside of chat to form an alliance", and give them a subjective "neutral".

New system... who knows??? put it on the wall. They'll just erase it, right. leave them some "1s"... well, it's just be averaged out, and also nobody will know why you game a 1. Then you'll look at all their shiny medals and think, wow, I want to play this person. And so freedom of choice gets replaced by command and control. Sad day folks... and nobody even seemed to be bothered by it...

[Timminz]

Report them for attempting to break rule #2.

[cicero]

... leave them some "1s" ... well, it's just be averaged out, and also nobody will know why you gave a 1 ...

On the first point - I'm pretty sure that a series of 1's will average out in a way that reflects the behaviour (ie the average of five 1s is 1).

On the second point whilst I agree that it would be 'interesting' to know why someone left a poor rating I believe it is actually fairer, and makes for a better rating system, not to know.

Why? Because when leaving a rating, or for that matter deciding if you can even be bothered to leave a rating, you won't be prejudiced in either direction by the existing feedback. Under feedback if someone did something bad and they already had a huge negative feedback there was an inclination not to leave feedback as "everyone already knows". Equally if someone did something mildly bad and they previously had a pretty good feedback rating there was an inclination not to leave (negative) feedback just in case "it's just me that thinks this" or "the person will just go off on one as they've always 'been perfect in the past' " ...
With ratings I think that these cues won't be present to negatively affect your likelihood of (a) leaving a rating in the first place and (b) being entirely honest. And more + honest = more accurate/meaningful.

So ... that's what I'm thinking at the moment

[wcaclimbing]

I agree with cicero.
Sure, all 1s might make the guy mad, but in the long run it'll even out with all the good scores and bad scores to give a pretty good indication of how good (or how not good) the person is.

[Timminz]

I think you guys are missing the point of the OP's scenario. If someone is attempting to form an alliance by PM, or anywhere else that isn't game chat, they are breaking the rules. It's cheating, and they should be reported.