NUMBER RANKS

by **THE ARMY** on Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:13 pm

ok i get the ranking system and i think everyone should read this and understand.

1=poor
2=below average
3=******AVERAGE****** (IMPORTANT)
4=above average
5=awesome

that means everyone should be ranked around a 3 unless they are very nice, or win the game

I kept on giving people 5's most of the time because they didn't do anything bad, but now i know the ranking system i will be giving everyone 3's unless otherwise.

EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD DO THE SAME TO KEEP THINGS RELEVANT, i don't want poor feedback because i give people 3's from now on

by **freeroll84** on Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:17 pm

bad news for you... your post probably won't change many peoples minds, and people will still get ticked when you give a 3... but good luck

by **Frop** on Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:20 pm

No shit, Sherlock. Unfortunately everybody is just as slow as you and consequently the ratings system is just as invigorating as a stillborn baby.

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

by **freeroll84** on Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:28 pm

Frop wrote:No shit, Sherlock. Unfortunately everybody is just as slow as you and consequently the ratings system is just as invigorating as a stillborn baby.

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

oh come on frop... this isn't flame wars

by **Army of Achilles** on Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:30 pm

this is why I don't bother rating people

nothing personal if I haven't provided you a rating

by **t-o-m** on Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:38 pm

I only rated people to get the medal - now i just leave it unless i dont like them or i really like them.

Before i rated for medals most of my ratings were 1's for people, because i only rated them because i didnt like them.

Im rude, obnoxious, and a bully at time in games - i should have a rating of 1.

Yay me.

by **Frop** on Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:41 pm

freeroll84 wrote:
Frop wrote:No shit, Sherlock. Unfortunately everybody is just as slow as you and consequently the ratings system is just as invigorating as a stillborn baby.

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

oh come on frop... this isn't flame wars

Who are you to question my perception? 1 star for Attitude, 1 star for attitude!

by **The Neon Peon** on Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:42 pm

I used to rate people, but no longer do because of this. Still need to remove my ratings. Going to go do that now...

The Average CC'er wrote:The number of stars given are based on this scale: 1 = Horrible, 2 = Really Bad, 3 = Bad, 4 = Okay, 5 = Average.

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

But it is a system that will never work. If we had only tags, things might be better, but there are way too many people giving all 5's or all 1's occasionally that the whole thing is meaningless. although if someone has an overall of less that 4, and has 100 people rate them, I would be cautious.

by **CaptainMoo** on Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:54 pm

t-o-m wrote:I only rated people to get the medal - now i just leave it unless i dont like them or i really like them.

Before i rated for medals most of my ratings were 1's for people, because i only rated them because i didnt like them.

Im rude, obnoxious, and a bully at time in games - i should have a rating of 1.

Yay me.

LMAO

"it's funny cuz it's true" (Homer Simpson, year unknown)