What Criteria do you use for each Rating???

[bbqpenguin]

i have not yet rated anyone and likely never will

[mightyredarmy]

Would we get 5 stars if we apologised in chat for any occasion where we took a few more hours to take a turn?

"Sorry, Soloman, I know it's been 10 hours, I set my alarm for 2AM - a really did, but it didn't go off and then the dog chewed the computer mouse..."

[Soloman]

Would we get 5 stars if we apologised in chat for any occasion where we took a few more hours to take a turn?

"Sorry, Soloman, I know it's been 10 hours, I set my alarm for 2AM - a really did, but it didn't go off and then the dog chewed the computer mouse..."

no excuses are like assholes everyone has one and they all stink. Attendence is attendence you would up your attitude points though to 4 most likely and as long as you did not miss a turn you would still most likely score average if you played me that is ...

[JoshyBoy]

Would we get 5 stars if we apologised in chat for any occasion where we took a few more hours to take a turn?

"Sorry, Soloman, I know it's been 10 hours, I set my alarm for 2AM - a really did, but it didn't go off and then the dog chewed the computer mouse..."

no excuses are like assholes everyone has one and they all stink. Attendence is attendence you would up your attitude points though to 4 most likely and as long as you did not miss a turn you would still most likely score average if you played me that is ...

I never give excuses. Excuses are a sign of a weak player. If there is a reason like CC went offline for 12 hours and you could not get on then obviously people wont really mind, apart from that... shaddup with excuses!

[PepperJack]

The title of this thread is the problem with the new rating system itself. There should be no need to ask how other players go about rating, everyone should be doing it uniformly. If everyone does their own thing then the comparitive utility of the ratings is lost. I am hoping that instead of the rating page telling us what issues to consider, it will eventually tell us how to consider those issues.

Anyways, this is how I have been rating...
Fair Play
1=You are either suspected or guilty of at least one of the outlined issues.
3=You were in the game.
5=You acted honorably ceding a lost cause game, notifying of upcoming alliance end, etc.

Attendance
1=Deadbeat or several missed turns.
3=You took your turns within 24 hours, 1 miss allowed.
5=You take your turns quickly, less than 12 hours-ish on average.

Attitude
1=Douche.
3=You were in the game. Maybe even typed something.
5=Engaging conversation whether topical or not.

Teamwork
1=You must have though it was singles.
3=Attempt to communicate/coordinate.
5=Our minds have melded.

I am of the mind that 3 is average, as that is what most people are. Most of my ratings are 3s. I don't use 2 or 4 because I don't believe these categories to have enough meat to them to merit such analization of minutia or be swayed by how hungover I am or whatnot. I do have to re-rate some friends to get them in line with my latest revision. If you want a semi-amusing read, check out the chat for this game, we refer to each other by real names so potentially confusing.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 6#map-cell

[Soloman]

The title of this thread is the problem with the new rating system itself. There should be no need to ask how other players go about rating, everyone should be doing it uniformly. If everyone does their own thing then the comparitive utility of the ratings is lost. I am hoping that instead of the rating page telling us what issues to consider, it will eventually tell us how to consider those issues.

Anyways, this is how I have been rating...
Fair Play
1=You are either suspected or guilty of at least one of the outlined issues.
3=You were in the game.
5=You acted honorably ceding a lost cause game, notifying of upcoming alliance end, etc.

Attendance
1=Deadbeat or several missed turns.
3=You took your turns within 24 hours, 1 miss allowed.
5=You take your turns quickly, less than 12 hours-ish on average.

Attitude
1=Douche.
3=You were in the game. Maybe even typed something.
5=Engaging conversation whether topical or not.

Teamwork
1=You must have though it was singles.
3=Attempt to communicate/coordinate.
5=Our minds have melded.

I am of the mind that 3 is average, as that is what most people are. Most of my ratings are 3s. I don't use 2 or 4 because I don't believe these categories to have enough meat to them to merit such analization of minutia or be swayed by how hungover I am or whatnot. I do have to re-rate some friends to get them in line with my latest revision. If you want a semi-amusing read, check out the chat for this game, we refer to each other by real names so potentially confusing.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 6#map-cell

BE wary of that as far as the real names if you know them and play them in real life you are subject to additional scrutiny and biased persecution of anything everything that has to do with you and those games I would advise if you play 1 or 2 very frequently and have a either a high or more even win loss ratio with them that you both start losing more games to random players regardless of circumstances or a block may be imposed on your play with them. But as far as your Criteria it is respectable and more of what my point was with this thread. I was kind of hoping more people would vist there views as far as the actual mental structure they use in ratings. Sadly though no one else has done so besides you for the most part they just come to argue why all should be a 5 unless you screw up with only a few of us dissenting or agreeing with using the system as was designed with 3 as an average

[MOBAJOBG]

This is my solemn oath ...I shall and will only leave rating of all 5 stars as I would like to spare my opponent the agony of being lesser than excellent.

[Ray Rider]

This is my solemn oath ...I shall and will only leave rating with all 5 stars as I would like to spare my opponent the agony of being average.

But then you render the whole rating system useless. Like in the Incredibles, "If everybody is special, nobody is." If everyone has 5's except a couple players who are hopeless, what's the point even rating anyone??

If you want a semi-amusing read, check out the chat for this game, we refer to each other by real names so potentially confusing.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 6#map-cell

That's an interesting read. A good example of 5 star chat

[PepperJack]

If you want a semi-amusing read, check out the chat for this game, we refer to each other by real names so potentially confusing.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 6#map-cell

That's an interesting read. A good example of 5 star chat

Funny you should say that b/c I gave my friend 1 star for attitude due to that chat. I thought he was crying like a little girl with a skinned knee.

[Ray Rider]

If you want a semi-amusing read, check out the chat for this game, we refer to each other by real names so potentially confusing.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 6#map-cell

That's an interesting read. A good example of 5 star chat

Funny you should say that b/c I gave my friend 1 star for attitude due to that chat. I thought he was crying like a little girl with a skinned knee.

lol well yeah, Nightman didn't seem to be very happy about your rating system, but he wasn't calling anyone names, swearing, or being offensive, I'd say. 4 stars for him...oh right, you don't use 4 stars.
I'd rather chat with him than with someone who doesn't say anything except gl and gg.

Again, this is an example of the subjective nature of the rating system.

[Soloman]

If you want a semi-amusing read, check out the chat for this game, we refer to each other by real names so potentially confusing.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 6#map-cell

That's an interesting read. A good example of 5 star chat

Funny you should say that b/c I gave my friend 1 star for attitude due to that chat. I thought he was crying like a little girl with a skinned knee.

lol well yeah, Nightman didn't seem to be very happy about your rating system, but he wasn't calling anyone names, swearing, or being offensive, I'd say. 4 stars for him...oh right, you don't use 4 stars.
I'd rather chat with him than with someone who doesn't say anything except gl and gg.

Again, this is an example of the subjective nature of the rating system.

But when used properly all of these slight differences of opinion can help people get a better picture of the rated individual especially if you do any research of your opponent.

[kwanton]

Solomon, I think your requirements for a 5 star rating are a little high for quite a few reasons. As other people have said fairplay and skill are not one in the same. Take this for example: A new player just starting out obviously won't play with the same level of strategy as someone with over 1000 games under their belt. They might not recognize the need to keep the keep a leader in check or might recognize it and not act in a way that helps much. But if they don't break any rules and don't do anything that would make gameplay unfair should they get anything less than a 5? In other words don't mix up fairplay and strategy. If someone makes every effort to play fairly (i.e. follow the rules), they should receive an excellent rating for fairplay. Just because there is no category for how skillfully a player plays doesn't mean you can manipulate another category to fit that into your rating.

Your rating system for attendance is also skewed. Just because a player does not have the opportunity to check their games every couple hours doesn't mean that their rating should suffer. Your rating system in this category has especially high expectations. Just because someone isn't stalking your every move so that they can move "immediately" after you does not in and of itself mean they are being less than excellent. Not everyone can afford to spend their time constantly checking an online game. I know it takes only a few minutes to check and take your turns but sometimes people just have other things to do and can't be in front of a computer 24/7. According to you excellence is "no longer then 3 hours From available turn". So maybe I should give up healthy resting habits and only sleep in 3 hour intervals so that I can check CC in case I have to take a turn

I'll skip the other two categories to avoid this post being too long-winded but you get the idea I'm sure

[FabledIntegral]

I think Soloman and Ray Rider are WAY over the top.

C'mon people, stop making up your own system for star ratings!

From the INSTRUCTIONS:
* Fair Play: covers suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking or respecting alliances, chivalry, etc...
* Attendance: covers deadbeating, missing turns, deliberately prolonging rounds, finding a babysitter to keep things moving, etc...
* Attitude: covers behaviour in chat, foul language, sore losers, gracious winners, "great chatters!", whining about dice, etc...
* Teamwork: covers playing with teammates - coordination, communication, etc...

As far as I'm concerned if you don't do ANYTHING offensive or against the rules, why not give someone 5 stars all around?

Fair Play is NOT strategy! It's FAIR PLAY.
Attendance is NOT whether someone took their turns according to the schedule that YOU would like them to. It's whether they took them in their allowed time and without missing turns.
Attitude is not being an annoying son of a bitch. There's NO requirement to chat so don't give people less stars because they don't feel like chatting or didn't even read the game chat.
Teamwork is self-explanatory even though the others should be too.

I recently finished a team game and near the end I killed my partner to get his cards because 1.) he told me to and 2.) the other team would have if I hadn't. The next time the yellow player had a turn they played then let themselves time out in case I could cash and kill them and get their cards. Yellow committed an unfair move so I gave them like 2 stars or something there but 5 elsewhere. I don't care if it's not specifically against the rules, if you let yourself time out so someone gets less cards when they kill you that's unfair play.

When someone deadbeats a game, where do you take stars off?
This seems like a no brainer to me but why are people taking stars off Fair Play and Attitude if someone just bails on a game (no suiciding etc.)

I don't care if you felt like having a conversation, if someone doesn't chat that's not unfair, that's not a bad attitude. Like someone said, some people play 30, 50, 70, 100 games etc. They don't feel like chatting in all of them.

Stop being a bunch of shitheads and giving people bad ratings because you they weren't up to your standards. If they're not violating what the RULES SAY are causes for low rating then suck it up and give a person 5 stars.

Personally if I play a game with someone and they don't do anything offensive and just play the game then they get 5 stars.

I believe you're wrong in nearly ever aspect. You talk about attitude - well if someone doesn't talk, isn't that average? Isn't that just mediocre? Not excellent? Hell, you're not getting 5 stars from me for that. Attendance, if you waited until the last minute to keep taking your turn... that's pretty fucking average to me. I don't see that as being "excellent" I see that as being annoying yet within the rules, so average, thus three stars.

Fair play - if you didn't do anything extraordinary, don't expect 5 stars either. If you hung someone else, I view that as a tangent off suiciding. If you autoed my stack and it didn't benefit you, I view that as well as a a detraction of fair play. And that can be viewed as strategy. It's interpretation.

And lastly - I will tell you that most people find it very VERY rude to end your turn to give the person another card. If you end early in a match amongst people who know what they are doing, be sure you'll be bitched at a lot. It's virtually an unsaid rule of proper etiquette to NOT end your turn if you're about to be killed.

[asiago]

who friggin' cares? Is this a popularity contest or a game?This is war there are no friends here,some goof gave me 1s all around for no rhyme or reason.Play the game however you want.Getting a 1 rating for not talking!what a bunch of bullshit!

[max is gr8]

Fair Play - I think that suiciding when it is impossible to win lowers ranking. Nothing else really. Because everything else in im the rules
Attendance - 5 stars for completing game, 1 star for dead beating. All or nothing.
Attitude - I lower rankings for swearing thats it. the rest get 5
Teamwork - discuss game or impulsively work for team.

[Soloman]

Solomon, I think your requirements for a 5 star rating are a little high for quite a few reasons. As other people have said fairplay and skill are not one in the same. Take this for example: A new player just starting out obviously won't play with the same level of strategy as someone with over 1000 games under their belt. They might not recognize the need to keep the keep a leader in check or might recognize it and not act in a way that helps much. But if they don't break any rules and don't do anything that would make gameplay unfair should they get anything less than a 5? In other words don't mix up fairplay and strategy. If someone makes every effort to play fairly (i.e. follow the rules), they should receive an excellent rating for fairplay. Just because there is no category for how skillfully a player plays doesn't mean you can manipulate another category to fit that into your rating.

Your rating system for attendance is also skewed. Just because a player does not have the opportunity to check their games every couple hours doesn't mean that their rating should suffer. Your rating system in this category has especially high expectations. Just because someone isn't stalking your every move so that they can move "immediately" after you does not in and of itself mean they are being less than excellent. Not everyone can afford to spend their time constantly checking an online game. I know it takes only a few minutes to check and take your turns but sometimes people just have other things to do and can't be in front of a computer 24/7. According to you excellence is "no longer then 3 hours From available turn". So maybe I should give up healthy resting habits and only sleep in 3 hour intervals so that I can check CC in case I have to take a turn

I'll skip the other two categories to avoid this post being too long-winded but you get the idea I'm sure

Respectfully that is your opinion but I do not feel it is based in reality of this game or the rating systems spirit. Fairplay and strategy are different true but directly tied to one another at the same time when a player uses a strategy that is overtly biased and appears to have no benefit to them just detriment to all others in the game or actually just helps someone other then them self that goes against fair play in my opinion. A person whose strategy or game play benefits the whole game by showing good sportsmanship or helps to keep game balanced as far as a game leader in check with the benefit being more for all then just self in my opinion has exceeded the norm in fairplay, again that is how they played the game and thus there strategy.I used the word strategy in 3 star because the way a person plays is there strategy thus further cementing the bond between the 2 terms of fairplay and strategy. I am not seeking to judge the persons strategy as a whole just how that strategy affects others in the game which in my opinion is fairplay to the fullest.

I believe the problem you have is you view 3 as bad and it is not I only give higher then 3 for those that exceed the norm. your examples are that of normal, average, regular play. thus they deserve an average score which is 3. Maybe I choose my words poorly and you are taking the 3 hours as to literal I probably should have said every few hours, but the overall sentiment and implication I was wanting is still the same and again that is my opinion of above and beyond thus excellent play. In my opinion your sarcasm is used due to you have no way of defining excellent from standard average play. It seems you want everything to be based on the idea that if nothing bad or against the rules is done it deserves a 5, which is not even what the star system says with real simple 1or 2 word instructions. Average is 3 not 5, this system justly allows you define the difference between normal, outstanding or outrageous with gray shades in between to help be more ground in reality. I feel what I listed falls into that you do not and again I respectfully disagree with that opinion and feel what I stated is closer to the spirit of the system then what you and others with your mindset are trying to impose upon the system...

[JoshyBoy]

by God this has gotten out of hand!

[KLOBBER]

by God this has gotten out of hand!

This has gotten out of hand, but God had nothing to do with it!

[PLAYER57832]

A thread like this is a nice attempt, but unless it is a uniform "code" ... whether enforced or just reccommended, folks are going to come up with their own rating schemes.

I do agree that we need to worry a lot less about giving "too many" 5's and more about what deserves a 2 or 1. There's an old saying "you catch more bees with honey than salt." This is a place for fun ... its not school or work.

[protectedbygold]

The only real area where I don't give 5 stars is in the area of attendance. If the person misses one turn I will automatically give out 3 stars. 2 missed turns and they get a 1 star rating no matter what.

[Scott-Land]

Solomon-

You are allotted 24 hours to take your turn in a casual game and 5 minutes in a speed game. If someone doesn't miss a turn, how could you possibly leave them anything under a 3 ? As 3 is average, taking your turns within the time, not missing any turns. 2 should be for someone that has missed a turn or perhaps 2. Obviously a 1 if that player deadbeats or misses 2 then takes 1 for strategic or lack of purposes--- there isn't any gray here.



i didn't bother going through the rest of your 'criteria' for ratings.

[xeno]

I leave everyone 5's in hope that they'll do the same.

[Bruceswar]

Solomon-

You are allotted 24 hours to take your turn in a casual game and 5 minutes in a speed game. If someone doesn't miss a turn, how could you possibly leave them anything under a 3 ? As 3 is average, taking your turns within the time, not missing any turns. 2 should be for someone that has missed a turn or perhaps 2. Obviously a 1 if that player deadbeats or misses 2 then takes 1 for strategic or lack of purposes--- there isn't any gray here.



i didn't bother going through the rest of your 'criteria' for ratings.

I agree with this. What I have seen a lot of is abusing the system both ways. too high and too low. I have seen so many people with straight 1's, when they never missed a turn, or said anything wrong, and even won some of these games. What I predicted is happening all over the place. I recently left a cook a 2 for fair play as this person suicides themselves into people just about every 8 man game I have ever played with this person. And yes it is has been many. I left 5's for the other 2 categories, as this person takes fairly quick moves and is pleasant in chat when they do talk. Anyhow today I just received all 1's from this person, which makes no sense at all. Ah the joys of a system like this. If it were me and this was my website I would totally scrap any feedback system at all. It is doing no good at all. As much as they try to make one that works it only goes sour. This is a website for game playing not rating others or saying if you like someone or not. The work load would be a lot less if they took away any feedback system.

[Soloman]

Solomon-

You are allotted 24 hours to take your turn in a casual game and 5 minutes in a speed game. If someone doesn't miss a turn, how could you possibly leave them anything under a 3 ? As 3 is average, taking your turns within the time, not missing any turns. 2 should be for someone that has missed a turn or perhaps 2. Obviously a 1 if that player deadbeats or misses 2 then takes 1 for strategic or lack of purposes--- there isn't any gray here.



i didn't bother going through the rest of your 'criteria' for ratings.

I agree with this. What I have seen a lot of is abusing the system both ways. too high and too low. I have seen so many people with straight 1's, when they never missed a turn, or said anything wrong, and even won some of these games. What I predicted is happening all over the place. I recently left a cook a 2 for fair play as this person suicides themselves into people just about every 8 man game I have ever played with this person. And yes it is has been many. I left 5's for the other 2 categories, as this person takes fairly quick moves and is pleasant in chat when they do talk. Anyhow today I just received all 1's from this person, which makes no sense at all. Ah the joys of a system like this. If it were me and this was my website I would totally scrap any feedback system at all. It is doing no good at all. As much as they try to make one that works it only goes sour. This is a website for game playing not rating others or saying if you like someone or not. The work load would be a lot less if they took away any feedback system.

1st off it is Soloman, I am not the king or islands. Apparently neither of you read what I wrote taking a turn within 24 hours is average to me that is a 3 unless they missed a turn. Your whole post is filled with a ignorant argument and condemnation of a position I did not take. Your argument in trying to attack is actually agreeing with most of my criteria. Reading is fundamental especially before commenting...

Attendance: covers deadbeating, missing turns, deliberately prolonging rounds, finding a babysitter to keep things moving, etc...

[Scott-Land]

Ohh sorry Riskmaster2000- I mean Soloman

Throw in flames, then complain that WIcked jacks the thread to FW.... any rate, I was just briefly going through the original post. It's not a big issue. No where do I condemn or yada yada ( didn't read the rest of your post) Apparently we agree-- why get hostile ?