Conquer Club

I've been seeing players give each other ratings of 5s ever since this new ratings system was introduced. Now according to the instructions, this is what each number means:

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

And there is also an explanation for each of the ratings:

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...

So this raises a question about what ratings to give...do the 5s go out to the average player that just plays, or are they reserved for those that go above and beyond?

Let's say that you have this scenario (I made this up, so don't ask why you can't find a game in my recent games that matches this scenario)...
You played an 8 player game. Let's say that each of the players did the following:

Player A is you.
Player B won the game. He said 'gl' and 'gg' in the game chat, and also moved quickly.
Player C verbally abused others in the game chat and also suicided into other players.
Player D missed 2 turns and didn't specify why in the game chat but came back to play the rest of the game. Did not speak in the game chat.
Players E and F appeared to be in a secret alliance. Player E also took longer than others to move in the game, but moved within the time allotted. Player E did not speak in the game chat, and Player F complained about the dice.
Players G and H were the only other players that spoke in the game chat and appeared to be friendly. They also had an openly announced NAP that was mutually respected.

These should be examples of typical players in ConquerClub. If you were to rate each of the players (B to H) on all of the categories except teamwork, what rating would you give them and why? In addition, what do you think justifies a 5?

not another thread about the same thing. if u check out GD, there are like 3 threads debating the same thing.

some people think on a mindset of either someone is a 1 or a 5. they dont really use 2-4. others use the whole scale. its really dependent on individuals but be assured, it will balance out as more people rate u.

do the 5s go out to the average player that just plays

No. Average = 3. People should expect 3's, not 5's.

, or are they reserved for those that go above and beyond?

Yes. You should have to "earn" a 5.

wicked wrote:

do the 5s go out to the average player that just plays

No. Average = 3. People should expect 3's, not 5's.

, or are they reserved for those that go above and beyond?

Yes. You should have to "earn" a 5.

i like giving 5s...high five wicked?

Wicked, if someone shows up every turn on time and never misses how can you justify giving them a 3 for attendance?

GoVegan wrote:Wicked, if someone shows up every turn on time and never misses how can you justify giving them a 3 for attendance?

Just not missing your turns isn't really that big of an achievement. I will probably not give out a 4+ to anyone that uses more than 12 hours to take all/most of their turns.

Thezzaruz wrote:Just not missing your turns isn't really that big of an achievement. I will probably not give out a 4+ to anyone that uses more than 12 hours to take all/most of their turns.

People have 24 hours to take their turns, you cannot get annoyed with someone who only logs on once per day to take their turns. Personally, I suggest the following:
5: never missed a turn, or timed out
4: missed 1 or 2 turns/timed out 1 or 2 times
3: consecutive turns missed/more than 2 time outs
2: missed most of their turns
1: deadbeated

lancehoch wrote:People have 24 hours to take their turns, you cannot get annoyed with someone who only logs on once per day to take their turns.

Of course I'm not annoyed with someone that takes their turns once a day, they have 24h and as long they aren't missing turns then they aren't doing anything wrong.

But you are kind of missing the point with the ratings, they are supposed to reflect our behavior so that we can get an idea of players before we join games with them. And thus a high rating (5 stars) goes to those that takes their turns (fairly) promptly, a average rating goes to those that meets the minimum requirement and uses the full 24 hours and a low rating (1 star) goes to those that doesn't even manage to meet the minimum requirement and deadbeats.

People needs to wake up and realize that they don't deserve the maximum rating just for existing but rather that you need to earn it by doing something good.

I think there will be two camps on this, people of your opinion and people of mine. Also, neither of us is technically wrong, since all we have is the simple bad to excellent system. I do however agree with making the system automated: a) you get a score out of 5 based on the number of turns you took out of the number of turns you had, with an automatic 0 for a deadbeat (similar to my system); b) you get a score out of 5 for the amount of time you take in your turns (similar to your system). I still prefer my version to yours, but there is no ruling on this.

Thezzaruz wrote:

lancehoch wrote:People needs to wake up and realize that they don't deserve the maximum rating just for existing but rather that you need to earn it by doing something good.

People need to wake up and realize that it doesn't matter what rating they give someone, it will be engulfed by the flood of fives that people are leaving to win the medal. The feedback has lost any credibility that it once had. It's 100% meaningless now.