Is it a reasonable expectation

[zimmah]

No they are within 24 hours they have done nothing wrong you can't mark them down for having no computer access during the day and infact anyone that does give people a low rating because of that I would add to my foes.

i'm not maring them down, i'm giving them a normal rating for a normal achievement. they did not do anything out of the ordinairy, so they don't deserve to get an out of the ordinary rating. how many times i need to tell you that?

But you're not giving them a "normal" rating. You're giving them an unsatisfactory rating. If you think this is a 3, that's fine. If you want to save 4s and 5s for people who are johnny on the spot and always take their turns quickly, that's fine. But to advocate giving someone less than a 3 who's done nothing wrong seems silly.

read my explanation above, makes perfect sence. unless you guys don't know what the worth average means?

either way, system is flawed, or too much people are abusing it for it to work.

and yes, maybe i'm the only one who has this point of view, but my point of view is at least clear as a glass of water which the ratings are not at the moment.

for me it's like this:

poor rating: someone who clearly does something wrong, and iif i get the feeling someone does it on purpose or does it very often. if it's not on purpose i'll think of a 2 or maybe even a 3 if given a really good reason. either that or i'll average it out on attitude
below average: anything that is not really bad, maybe not even on purpose, but still is below the mayority of the community (again: below average)
average: no clear differences from the rest of the community, not better, not worse either (note: if the whole community acts like an asshole, then i will rate anyone behaving better then 'asshole' a 4 or 5 star rating, if the mayority of the community however acts like an angel, i'll grand everyone not behaving like an angel a 2 or 1 star rating! that's the whole point, average the magic word!) in other words: 3 stars(average) = met the expectations. and since i play this game for months already i think i should have quite an accurate expectation of the community as a whole.
above average: anyone exceeding the expectations by doing something the mayority of the community wouldn't do. so it's not likely to recieve this, since if everyone would get a 4, then it wouldn't be above average anymore, but it would more be like average which i thought was not the intention of this system?
excellent: anyone that really exceets the expectation, and therefore is a whole difference from 90% of the community.

[Deltron]

You mean besides the fact that we're right and you're wrong?

You're right about how the feedback is to be used, even though there isn't any clear mandate about it from the site owners? Can I get what you're smoking? Because it must be good!

[owenshooter]

You're right about how the feedback is to be used, even though there isn't any clear mandate about it from the site owners? Can I get what you're smoking? Because it must be good!

*touching my nose*-0

[zimmah]

Why did you highlight prolonging rounds but not "deliberately"? That's the deal here isn't. Say you're the guy who has carved out 8-9 am to take your turns each day. If your opponent doesn't take his until that afternoon, then you're going to be inside the magical 18 hour mark. It just so happens, in this case, you're opponent takes his right after you (but not so quickly after you that you are able to take another turn right away because it would still be during your hour for play.

How is this "deliberately prolonging the round"? You're not letting the game drag on as a plan, you simply take your turn at the same time every day.

Now, before you find a bigger and bolder font and continue to act like nobody understands what you're saying, realize that we do understand what you're saying and simply think that you're wrong.

Out of curiosity, why do you think it is more important to have a good rating system than a fun game. You seem to imply as much by saying you wont spend another penny here if they don't fix this despite how much you enjoy the game. Do you come here to engage in game or get worked up about ratings? Shouldn't the ratings be a means to an end? That is a way to avoid bad players? Well, I agree that this rating system seems absolutely useless but, until because of it I'm subjected to tons of bad players it's failures won't matter at all.

Give those windmills a break.

it's just a statement i want to make with doing that. they should come out of their ivory tower and accept they made a mistake that isn't solved that easily. don't get me wrong, the rating system is a step in the right direction, still they need to go miles before they even get near the finish line. a lot of suggestions has been made already, and it seems like they don't even care about most of them (however they still updated it a bit by adding a link and a 'mouse over' thingy, both things i suggested, so big kudo's for that)

and you might be right about them not intentionally prolonging the rounds, but they still do. and i'm not staing it's a bad thing. just i'd like to see a difference in attendence rating who is a real casual gamer who logs in just 1 time a day and who's a gamer who logs in 3 or 4 times a day or whatsoever. it's just plain normal. a lot of websites have this stat on it where you can see how often someone logs in. and why should someone logging in once a day have the same rating as someone who logs in multiple times? it's not harsh in my opinion, and it's not a bad thing in my eyes if someone just logs in once a day, just let them have fun it's their right, i understand if someone doesn't have time to log on more then once a day, but still i wouldn't play an 8 player game with them, because it would take a week before you finaly get your turn, do you get my point?

i don't say it's bad to 'log in while enjoying your morning cup of coffee' but i still think it should be visible in the rankings ESPECIALLY in large games (either multi-turn games on big maps without much bonusses or cards or any other game setting that might take 80 rounds or whatever) or games with 6, 7 or 8 players.
don't get me wrong i like players who only log in once a day, they are often quite friendly and nice to play with, i'd just rather play 4 player games with them then playing a 8 player game with them. especially if that means having 7 of them in a game. go figure 7 players each taking 23 hours to take their turn every turn = about 161 hours = nearly 7 days before it's your turn again!

[detlef]

Listen Zimmah, we both agree that this system is useless but you really need to get off your high horse. Frankly, I would imagine that our interpretations of what should earn each of these scores are likely the same. It's just that I lack the imagination it takes to read only the parts of the rules that suit my version of what the ratings should mean. So, here, we're arguing over what's a 2 and whats a 3. In the big picture, you are illustrating precisely why this ratings system is doomed.

Logically you are correct. Of course, you are embarking down a road that's going to end up with an inbox full of people complaining about their ratings. That's something I don't care to deal with. You might be one of a few people who are truly judging people accurately but your accurate ratings are going to be swallowed up and averaged in to the sea of 5s that everyone is throwing out there. Further your abuse thread paints you in a very unfortunate light.

So does stomping your feet and holding your membership hostage over this. Rather than cutting off your nose to spite your face, think for a second how much it really matters.

[max is gr8]

So you're telling me that I deserve a 2 for being educated? I go to school, I wake up early in the morning but I don't go on the computer then why? Because the majority of CC has a job or education. The people that can log on all day are the people who need a life.

[zimmah]

Listen Zimmah, we both agree that this system is useless but you really need to get off your high horse. Frankly, I would imagine that our interpretations of what should earn each of these scores are likely the same. It's just that I lack the imagination it takes to read only the parts of the rules that suit my version of what the ratings should mean. So, here, we're arguing over what's a 2 and whats a 3. In the big picture, you are illustrating precisely why this ratings system is doomed.

Logically you are correct. Of course, you are embarking down a road that's going to end up with an inbox full of people complaining about their ratings. That's something I don't care to deal with. You might be one of a few people who are truly judging people accurately but your accurate ratings are going to be swallowed up and averaged in to the sea of 5s that everyone is throwing out there. Further your abuse thread paints you in a very unfortunate light.

So does stomping your feet and holding your membership hostage over this. Rather than cutting off your nose to spite your face, think for a second how much it really matters.

well i wanted to put some guys in who only gave out 1's though the ones i knew doing that withdrew all their ratings or something

[zimmah]

So you're telling me that I deserve a 2 for being educated? I go to school, I wake up early in the morning but I don't go on the computer then why? Because the majority of CC has a job or education. The people that can log on all day are the people who need a life.

so, be honored with your low attendance rating then, then it effectifly means you have a life and i don't, if that's what you want to say.

if you're really that educated you should know what average and below average means dumbass.

[detlef]

You mean besides the fact that we're right and you're wrong?

You're right about how the feedback is to be used, even though there isn't any clear mandate about it from the site owners? Can I get what you're smoking? Because it must be good!

It's not cheap so if you can't fork over $2 a month here, I'm guessing you can't afford this.

None the less, how is what I said any different than your post I quoted?

You basically showed what another poster said, accepted that as fact, end of story and asked why we were arguing. In other words saying exactly what I said. Now remember, this thread is not even about 2 v 3, this is about your unreasonable expectations of another player. Something that quite simply, you're wrong about.

Again, why bother phrasing the initial post as a question when you're mind is obviously made up. I understand that you were hoping for a cascade of, "Dude, that's uncool!" "I'd be pissed as well!". Well, you didn't. You were reminded that he's not obliged to play on your clock, just to play on his. Sorry it didn't work out better for you.

[owenshooter]

first, a freemium is expecting people to play close to RT because he has unreasonable expectations and wants fast games to avoid paying up for membership, and is giving out poor ratings to people following the rules...

secondly, zimmah is in this thread too, dropping HER VERSION OF STAR RATINGS, which are not the official rules, and people are acting as if they are THE RULES. no, it is one persons interpretation. the same interpretation she is spamming up all the star threads with. i can already see this star rating becoming the "new dice". won't be long before all threads on Stars are merged into one...-0

[detlef]

first, a freemium is expecting people to play close to RT because he has unreasonable expectations and wants fast games to avoid paying up for membership, and is giving out poor ratings to people following the rules...

secondly, zimmah is in this thread too, dropping HER VERSION OF STAR RATINGS, which are not the official rules, and people are acting as if they are THE RULES. no, it is one persons interpretation. the same interpretation she is spamming up all the star threads with. i can already see this star rating becoming the "new dice". won't be long before all threads on Stars are merged into one...-0

very accurate account of the proceedings from my esteemed associate.

[zimmah]

first, a freemium is expecting people to play close to RT because he has unreasonable expectations and wants fast games to avoid paying up for membership, and is giving out poor ratings to people following the rules...

secondly, zimmah is in this thread too, dropping HER VERSION OF STAR RATINGS, which are not the official rules, and people are acting as if they are THE RULES. no, it is one persons interpretation. the same interpretation she is spamming up all the star threads with. i can already see this star rating becoming the "new dice". won't be long before all threads on Stars are merged into one...-0

first of all it's HIS version


actually, the rules state it is. even though the mods disagree with me, it's written in the rules and therefore i consider it true, i can't help it they're too stupid to know what they wrote in their own rules! i dare you to prove me wrong. you can't i know you can't you even know it yourself you can't everything i said makes perfect sence, and even though i might be the only one rating this way, it is the right way. however it might or might not be the only way. as there might or might not be multiple way to interpret the rules. and that's the whole point. everyone has a different point of view and a different 'system' or even no system at all to rate people, and noone is even going to care anyways. hooray for the random star rating.

yes, you might be right about interpretation, but that's what i'm trying to say. everone else has a different interpretation, and most of them are 100% correct by the rules. that's the whole point.

[Deltron]

Again, why bother phrasing the initial post as a question when you're mind is obviously made up. I understand that you were hoping for a cascade of, "Dude, that's uncool!" "I'd be pissed as well!". Well, you didn't. You were reminded that he's not obliged to play on your clock, just to play on his. Sorry it didn't work out better for you.

My mind wasn't made up. Several people here commented that it's within the time rules. It seems more than a handful of folks here are real sticklers about that. I played 15 games with great speed, then I hit some folks that don't play much. The thread started out as a way to gauge what the expectation should be. The experienced here didn't really comment on what the norm for the board is, only what the rules are. Thanks, I can read the rules just fine.

After that, the thread turned into a debate about the rating system. And this is just bizarre

None the less, how is what I said any different than your post I quoted?

You claimed I was wrong and you were right, then you claim there was nothing different about what I said and what you were saying. You don't ever seem to have your story very straight, other than, its the rules followed by snarky comment.

first, a freemium is expecting people to play close to RT because he has unreasonable expectations and wants fast games to avoid paying up for membership, and is giving out poor ratings to people following the rules...

I don't want to play every 3 minutes at this point in time. I don't want to have the ability to play eleventy games at once, create private games, etc. I am interested in playing a few 1v1 games every few hours though, which is what I got for 15 games. I may go premium in the near future.

[detlef]

Dude, my point is that you basically posted another members point and said, "there you go, case closed, why are we arguing?" In other words, we're right, you're wrong.

That, my dear boy, is the extent to which we were saying the same thing.

[Deltron]

You'd help everyone if you'd be a little bit more explicit. Or, you could just make another snarky comment.

[PLAYER57832]

You haven't convinced me it isn't a reasonable expectation. I played nearly 15 1v1 freestyle games where I played frequently and my opponent did. This is what I expected out of freestyle when I started and was happily rewarded. I'm not sure why anyone else would expect different. Now, games have ground to a halt. If I wanted 24 hrs between turns, I would have picked sequential games. Please don't try to sell me on the rules and the fact that it is a 24 hour limit, expectations != letter of law. I might get around to premium, but I'm not exactly interested in 5 minute games.

People who set up casual games set them up for a reason - they are not prepared to play a speed game. Therefore, if you are not going to play a speed game, shut up, stop complaining, and play casual.

I agree... and this is one of my pet peaves. If you want to play speed games, pay the $25 and you can play all you want. In the mean time, don't harrass players who either can't or just don't want to sit on the computer constantly.

I tell anyone who asks that I cannot gaurantee "real time" I have kids, a husband who is a volunteer fire chief and other issues. Often it works out that I will stick around and do finish games, but not always.

[detlef]

You'd help everyone if you'd be a little bit more explicit. Or, you could just make another snarky comment.

I think those with a modicum of intelligence can understand what I'm saying.

(So as you can see, not needing to be any clearer that I already was, I chose to go the snarky comment route )

[Deltron]

I think those with a modicum of intelligence can understand what I'm saying.

Ok, let's deconstruct this, because I think the weed has frazzled your sad little brain, starting here

None the less, how is what I said any different than your post I quoted?

How is what you said where? You've said a lot of different stuff in this thread. I suppose you meant your most recent post, I mean, maybe a little bit of clarity or being explicit would help everyone, in leiu of, say, some lame snark? If we assume you did mean the most recent comment, lets look at that

Listen Zimmah, we both agree that this system is useless but you really need to get off your high horse. Frankly, I would imagine that our interpretations of what should earn each of these scores are likely the same. It's just that I lack the imagination it takes to read only the parts of the rules that suit my version of what the ratings should mean. So, here, we're arguing over what's a 2 and whats a 3. In the big picture, you are illustrating precisely why this ratings system is doomed.

So, you went on for a couple of pages about how zimmah was wrong and you were right, then, you just decide that both of your interpretations are the same? Sure, you both could agree that the system is doomed, but that isn't what you were debating for 2 pages.

Even a retarded pot head monkey could agree that you need to be a little more clear with what you are talking about before you post your lame comments like you've won the thread or something.

You really sound like a rambling stoner most of the time.

[owenshooter]

Even a retarded pot head monkey could agree that you need to be a little more clear with what you are talking about before you post your lame comments like you've won the thread or something.

You really sound like a rambling stoner most of the time.

name calling is only going to get you a slap on the wrist from the mods, and make people stop reading any of your posts in a serious light. you lower the level of discourse and discussion when you stoop to name calling and making assumptions about other people. detlef is a successful restaurant owner that works hard and plays CC with his real life friends for a bit of relaxation. calling him names, when you don't even know him, just shows that you are not capable of a mature conversation/discussion, in which someone does not agree with you. the GD is not for name calling or flaming. i suggest you take a deep breath and think before you take this thread in the wrong direction. you have embarrassed yourself.-0

[fwblb]

Even a retarded pot head monkey could agree that you need to be a little more clear with what you are talking about before you post your lame comments like you've won the thread or something.

You really sound like a rambling stoner most of the time.

name calling is only going to get you a slap on the wrist from the mods, and make people stop reading any of your posts in a serious light. you lower the level of discourse and discussion when you stoop to name calling and making assumptions about other people. detlef is a successful restaurant owner that works hard and plays CC with his real life friends for a bit of relaxation. calling him names, when you don't even know him, just shows that you are not capable of a mature conversation/discussion, in which someone does not agree with you. the GD is not for name calling or flaming. i suggest you take a deep breath and think before you take this thread in the wrong direction. you have embarrassed yourself.-0

i agree completely with owen.

in a freestyle game, you still have 24 hours to take your turn. that's all there is to it.

[detlef]

I think those with a modicum of intelligence can understand what I'm saying.

Ok, let's deconstruct this, because I think the weed has frazzled your sad little brain, starting here

None the less, how is what I said any different than your post I quoted?

How is what you said where? You've said a lot of different stuff in this thread. I suppose you meant your most recent post, I mean, maybe a little bit of clarity or being explicit would help everyone, in leiu of, say, some lame snark? If we assume you did mean the most recent comment, lets look at that

Listen Zimmah, we both agree that this system is useless but you really need to get off your high horse. Frankly, I would imagine that our interpretations of what should earn each of these scores are likely the same. It's just that I lack the imagination it takes to read only the parts of the rules that suit my version of what the ratings should mean. So, here, we're arguing over what's a 2 and whats a 3. In the big picture, you are illustrating precisely why this ratings system is doomed.

So, you went on for a couple of pages about how zimmah was wrong and you were right, then, you just decide that both of your interpretations are the same? Sure, you both could agree that the system is doomed, but that isn't what you were debating for 2 pages.

Even a retarded pot head monkey could agree that you need to be a little more clear with what you are talking about before you post your lame comments like you've won the thread or something.

You really sound like a rambling stoner most of the time.

Dude, yer bumming my high.

[owenshooter]

well i wanted to put some guys in who only gave out 1's though the ones i knew doing that withdrew all their ratings or something

yeah, you jumped to a conclusion. the player in question thought 1 was the highest and 5 was the lowest., so he gave out all 1's... he even put up a thread about it... under your system, he is a double offender.-0

[Deltron]

name calling is only going to get you a slap on the wrist from the mods, and make people stop reading any of your posts in a serious light. you lower the level of discourse and discussion when you stoop to name calling and making assumptions about other people.

Perhaps you should educate your clan buddy in this regard. In the week or so I've been here, he seems to be routinely inflammatory. You could say his "modicum of intelligence" comment started it in this thread.

detlef is a successful restaurant owner that works hard and plays CC with his real life friends for a bit of relaxation.

So? Doesn't mean he has it together when it comes to posting in the forums.

calling him names, when you don't even know him, just shows that you are not capable of a mature conversation/discussion, in which someone does not agree with you. the GD is not for name calling or flaming. i suggest you take a deep breath and think before you take this thread in the wrong direction. you have embarrassed yourself.-0

I asked him to be more explicit about what the hell he was talking about, and I got a snarky comment in return. This isn't a formal debate, I don't have a problem stooping to someone else's level.

Dude, yer bumming my high.

See? He can't resist being a bitch.

[zimmah]

well i wanted to put some guys in who only gave out 1's though the ones i knew doing that withdrew all their ratings or something

yeah, you jumped to a conclusion. the player in question thought 1 was the highest and 5 was the lowest., so he gave out all 1's... he even put up a thread about it... under your system, he is a double offender.-0

i don't believe that's the same guy actually.

[owenshooter]

Dude, yer bumming my high.

See? He can't resist being a bitch.

that was in response to your calling him a stoner, and it's funny... and you have yet to learn that
name calling is not par in the GD. now you call him a "bitch"? i hope a mod sees this thread and you are politely asked to refrain from flaming. and detlef may make inflammatory comments, but they are always on topic, always his opinion, always well worded, and he does not name call. perhaps you should take some notes. oh, and buy premium if you expect to play real time speed games with members.-0