Conquer Club

Many have experienced the same thing. Youve done nothing wrong and your judged on criteria out of your control. How do you judge a persons ingame behavior if there is no chat during the game but youve made all your turns? I asked the person why he gave me 3 stars when I had perfect attendance.fair play?? what the hell is that? Either you play fair or you dont. Attitude? How do you judge if there is no interaction?

I politely inquired on their reasoning and received this reply:

Apparently I use the word 'average' different from most people around here. I suspect I will get a lot of these e-mail. I expect people to not miss a turn, this is 'average' to me. I would give a player a higher rating if a game went a really long time, or if they stuck around after they were obviously out of the game, but above average would be rare.

I have no clue as to what 'fair play' is supposed to mean, but unless a person wins, average seems about right to me. The winner usually gets a four. A winner who comes from behind might rate a five.

Attitude is an option I use to reflect in game chat. Average is none, or perhaps a 'good luck everyone'. Actually chatter can get a four, unpleasant chatter could be a two, being so rude that I feel the need to block someone would get them a one.

Honestly though, the original games are based on my memory of a game played before I felt the need to think about things in this fashion, so getting higher then a three, when I wasn't aware that the change is system was coming, would require something really note worthy.

Feel free to give me the same rating. Or worse, if it makes you feel good. The new system is so vague, it really doesn't matter to me anyway.


Its nice to seee that were all on the same page when it comes to the rating system

At least you got "average"!
Look at this.
The guy is gonna give me 1 star on everything simply because i made a comment on how I didn't appreciate his style of play, which most people would find cheap anyway! He's gonna give me a 1 star on attendance... why??? fair play why?? It makes no sense.

Yeah, unfortunately no matter what type of rating system we have some people will abuse it... or give people 3 stars because they're "average" lol

-deleted-

Well, the main point of the new system is so the mods don't have to worry about everyone complaining about unfair feedback and such. I guess they figured this was fool-proof and fair. They were probably way too backed up with e-tickets about feedback and needed to get rid of that system. This one is a lot easier for them to deal with.

Yeah, it pretty much sucks for those getting unfair ratings, but as of now I don't think there is anything anyone can do.

(unless bull22 aka Jan really plans to "hack" the site by the end of the month....I mean...I take all threats verrrrry seriously...maybe Jan will hack the new ratings system to the ground, but one can only hope)

Yep, it pretty much sucks to get less than 5s until you realize that it doesn't mean a damned thing. Seriously, what's the point of ratings? To learn who to avoid. Well, as long as people are all doling out based on different criteria, everyone's going to realize that they're completely random and not really pay any attention to it. So, instead of a 5.0, you're going to have a 4.6. Hell, right now you might have a 3.5. So? Anyone who'd avoid you based on that isn't paying any attention at all. And, unlike rankings or medals, there's no pride at stake because, again, everyone understands that the whole system is crap.

So, CC has created a completely useless manner to determine who you want to play and who you don't. So, why does anyone care what their rating is?

InsomniaRed wrote:Well, the main point of the new system is so the mods don't have to worry about everyone complaining about unfair feedback and such. I guess they figured this was fool-proof and fair. They were probably way too backed up with e-tickets about feedback and needed to get rid of that system. This one is a lot easier for them to deal with.

Yeah, it pretty much sucks for those getting unfair ratings, but as of now I don't think there is anything anyone can do.

(unless bull22 aka Jan really plans to "hack" the site by the end of the month....I mean...I take all threats verrrrry seriously...maybe Jan will hack the new ratings system to the ground, but one can only hope)

The easiest solution is to go ahead and keep the 5 star rating if they wish but allow feedback with no recourse. That would solve everything. Regards.

I find the new system pointless for reflecting a players true style.
If a player is a chronic deadbeater, or the type to suicide, or quit a game when losing becomes apparent, I WOULD LIKE to know. That way I can avoid joining their games. With the old system I could at least see if the negs were warranted, and decide from there if I wanted to expose myself to a player of that type. With this new system , people will abuse it, either giving unrealistic high scores, or uncalled for low stars.
The days of knowing who the deadbeat sore losers are, seem to be over. As a result we are now stuck with a rating system that is inaccurate, as well as lacking any real detail on why a person has a good or bad rating.
Yes I do realize that the mods were probably over worked with the old system, but come on people !!!, whats the point of a blanket rating system , that is clearly already being abused?

More ratings left will end up with a fairer over view of each player. after I had received 5 ratings my overall was 4.8 - but now I've got over 30 - my feedback is 5


It will all even out over time. play more games and even ask your mates to leave you feedback to compensate the shitty feedback you get. in 4 months no one will give a shit. The old feedback made mods take up valuable time sorting out niggles instead of more serious issues. This new system will eventually be an improvement over the old. Give it time and stop banging on about it in the forums.
They didn't offer up a medal for leaving 500 feedbacks for no reason! vote on players and vote fair - it will all come out in the wash.

InsomniaRed wrote:Well, the main point of the new system is so the mods don't have to worry about everyone complaining about unfair feedback and such. I guess they figured this was fool-proof and fair. They were probably way too backed up with e-tickets about feedback and needed to get rid of that system. This one is a lot easier for them to deal with.

Yeah, it pretty much sucks for those getting unfair ratings, but as of now I don't think there is anything anyone can do.

(unless bull22 aka Jan really plans to "hack" the site by the end of the month....I mean...I take all threats verrrrry seriously...maybe Jan will hack the new ratings system to the ground, but one can only hope)

Here's a fn simple idea: Why wouldnt they simply STOP deleting feedbacks.
E-ticket problem solved.

Why wouldnt they set-up the archive things on the previous feedack system, that wouldve avoid retaliation as well.
But noooooooooooo, they had to go fancy and create something perhaps equal or worst, surely not better..

I play every 12 hours and got less than 5 stars for attendance....am i suppose to stay online all day?

Pedronicus wrote:More ratings left will end up with a fairer over view of each player. after I had received 5 ratings my overall was 4.8 - but now I've got over 30 - my feedback is 5


It will all even out over time. play more games and even ask your mates to leave you feedback to compensate the shitty feedback you get. in 4 months no one will give a shit. The old feedback made mods take up valuable time sorting out niggles instead of more serious issues. This new system will eventually be an improvement over the old. Give it time and stop banging on about it in the forums.
They didn't offer up a medal for leaving 500 feedbacks for no reason! vote on players and vote fair - it will all come out in the wash.

Exactly how does the fact that everyone will end up near 5 and not give a shit make this system worth waiting out?

detlef wrote:Exactly how does the fact that everyone will end up near 5 and not give a shit make this system worth waiting out?

Makes perfect sense. This way, everybody's a winner! We all get trophies and our self-esteem will develop free of the burden of actual achievement. If you don't believe me, look how well the system works in U.S. public schools.

detlef wrote:Yep, it pretty much sucks to get less than 5s until you realize that it doesn't mean a damned thing. Seriously, what's the point of ratings? To learn who to avoid. Well, as long as people are all doling out based on different criteria, everyone's going to realize that they're completely random and not really pay any attention to it. So, instead of a 5.0, you're going to have a 4.6. Hell, right now you might have a 3.5. So? Anyone who'd avoid you based on that isn't paying any attention at all. And, unlike rankings or medals, there's no pride at stake because, again, everyone understands that the whole system is crap.

So, CC has created a completely useless manner to determine who you want to play and who you don't. So, why does anyone care what their rating is?

You are right on. I'm tempted to take advantage of this confusion and play like a real sonnofabitch backstabbing, suiciding, trash talking, cheap-bonus breaking, no-cards pointless taker-outer MOFO and get me some 1's!

I think the new system is better, but could definitely evolve more. I think any rating under 3 stars should pull up a "comment window". Then the player could describe what happened and why. All of these comments would expire after 60 days (or 45 or 30) so if someone unfairly rated you, instead of fighting with mods to get it deleted, it would eventually dissappear.

So your rating would be something like:

jbrettlip has been rated by 500 players, Score 4.5

3 comments:

5/15/08 made semi veiled racist remark-Twill rated 2
5/19/08 realized my daughter has a crush on him-ctwong1 rated 1
6/7/08 Wife called out his name in bed- owenshooter rated 1

So people could see while I am an ass and a chick magnet, I do play the game fairly and quickly.

BadMoonRising wrote:Many have experienced the same thing. Youve done nothing wrong and your judged on criteria out of your control. How do you judge a persons ingame behavior if there is no chat during the game but youve made all your turns? I asked the person why he gave me 3 stars when I had perfect attendance.fair play?? what the hell is that? Either you play fair or you dont. Attitude? How do you judge if there is no interaction?

I politely inquired on their reasoning and received this reply:

Apparently I use the word 'average' different from most people around here. I suspect I will get a lot of these e-mail. I expect people to not miss a turn, this is 'average' to me. I would give a player a higher rating if a game went a really long time, or if they stuck around after they were obviously out of the game, but above average would be rare.

I have no clue as to what 'fair play' is supposed to mean, but unless a person wins, average seems about right to me. The winner usually gets a four. A winner who comes from behind might rate a five.

Attitude is an option I use to reflect in game chat. Average is none, or perhaps a 'good luck everyone'. Actually chatter can get a four, unpleasant chatter could be a two, being so rude that I feel the need to block someone would get them a one.

Honestly though, the original games are based on my memory of a game played before I felt the need to think about things in this fashion, so getting higher then a three, when I wasn't aware that the change is system was coming, would require something really note worthy.

Feel free to give me the same rating. Or worse, if it makes you feel good. The new system is so vague, it really doesn't matter to me anyway.


Its nice to seee that were all on the same page when it comes to the rating system

Your whining about being rated average for average gameplay and turn taking is part of the problem. Another part is everyone expecting to be rated higher then average for not higher then average games. Yet another is those that just give out 5 for nothing special helping to set this expectation of all to do so unless you do something bad. The most heinous component is those literate and observant few that actually read what each star ranking means and doles them out based upon that weighed against there own sensibilities. So for now all will be miserable and cry about the differences in everybody's use of the system and the fact it is opinion based with no recourse but to hope and pray you can sway the person who gave you the rating to either change or withdraw it based on your opinion and and application being better then theres...

detlef wrote:Yep, it pretty much sucks to get less than 5s until you realize that it doesn't mean a damned thing. Seriously, what's the point of ratings? To learn who to avoid. Well, as long as people are all doling out based on different criteria, everyone's going to realize that they're completely random and not really pay any attention to it.

Any player-rated system is going to vary, because people's criteria vary. BUT, it would be nice if there was enough detail that we could at least tell WHY someone gave the rating they did.

Soloman wrote:

BadMoonRising wrote:Many have experienced the same thing. Youve done nothing wrong and your judged on criteria out of your control. How do you judge a persons ingame behavior if there is no chat during the game but youve made all your turns? I asked the person why he gave me 3 stars when I had perfect attendance.fair play?? what the hell is that? Either you play fair or you dont. Attitude? How do you judge if there is no interaction?

I politely inquired on their reasoning and received this reply:

Apparently I use the word 'average' different from most people around here. I suspect I will get a lot of these e-mail. I expect people to not miss a turn, this is 'average' to me. I would give a player a higher rating if a game went a really long time, or if they stuck around after they were obviously out of the game, but above average would be rare.

I have no clue as to what 'fair play' is supposed to mean, but unless a person wins, average seems about right to me. The winner usually gets a four. A winner who comes from behind might rate a five.

Attitude is an option I use to reflect in game chat. Average is none, or perhaps a 'good luck everyone'. Actually chatter can get a four, unpleasant chatter could be a two, being so rude that I feel the need to block someone would get them a one.

Honestly though, the original games are based on my memory of a game played before I felt the need to think about things in this fashion, so getting higher then a three, when I wasn't aware that the change is system was coming, would require something really note worthy.

Feel free to give me the same rating. Or worse, if it makes you feel good. The new system is so vague, it really doesn't matter to me anyway.


Its nice to seee that were all on the same page when it comes to the rating system

Your whining about being rated average for average gameplay and turn taking is part of the problem. Another part is everyone expecting to be rated higher then average for not higher then average games. Yet another is those that just give out 5 for nothing special helping to set this expectation of all to do so unless you do something bad. The most heinous component is those literate and observant few that actually read what each star ranking means and doles them out based upon that weighed against there own sensibilities. So for now all will be miserable and cry about the differences in everybody's use of the system and the fact it is opinion based with no recourse but to hope and pray you can sway the person who gave you the rating to either change or withdraw it based on your opinion and and application being better then theres...

Well, I'm still waiting to hear from one of you guys who read the instructions and "does it the right way" to explain how one earns a 5 in fair play. I mean, I'm assuming that the norm is that somebody doesn't cheat, right? So, merely not cheating should earn a guy no better than a 3 from you. How does someone really, really not cheat in an extraordinary manner?

hahaha3hahaha wrote:I got all 1's from this freemium noob because i didnt play real-time.
...and as far as ive heard these new rtings dont get deleted by mods

Game# Player?

If that is what really happened, this seems a good person to add to my ignore list!

Het, maybe that is an idea ... Maybe we should start a thread and post the names and game numbers (so people can judge for themselves) of folks who do this stuff.

If folks new they would be "outed", it might, just might change their behavior.

BUT, I think the "al 5's equal abuse" is silly. For one thing, no one really minds getting all 5's. For another, many people play withe people they already "know" and are rating them based on these many games. Why should I give Mustapha Mond, for example a 3 or even 4, because there was not much chat in the last game we played ... I have many, many games both winning and losing. many with nice chat, etc. At some point, you just don't have to have a long conversation.

Similarly, though this thread was started because of a 3, I really don't think that is grounds for a real complaint or issue. Average is not bad, it just isn't a superior.

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

BadMoonRising wrote:Many have experienced the same thing. Youve done nothing wrong and your judged on criteria out of your control. How do you judge a persons ingame behavior if there is no chat during the game but youve made all your turns? I asked the person why he gave me 3 stars when I had perfect attendance.fair play?? what the hell is that? Either you play fair or you dont. Attitude? How do you judge if there is no interaction?

I politely inquired on their reasoning and received this reply:

Apparently I use the word 'average' different from most people around here. I suspect I will get a lot of these e-mail. I expect people to not miss a turn, this is 'average' to me. I would give a player a higher rating if a game went a really long time, or if they stuck around after they were obviously out of the game, but above average would be rare.

I have no clue as to what 'fair play' is supposed to mean, but unless a person wins, average seems about right to me. The winner usually gets a four. A winner who comes from behind might rate a five.

Attitude is an option I use to reflect in game chat. Average is none, or perhaps a 'good luck everyone'. Actually chatter can get a four, unpleasant chatter could be a two, being so rude that I feel the need to block someone would get them a one.

Honestly though, the original games are based on my memory of a game played before I felt the need to think about things in this fashion, so getting higher then a three, when I wasn't aware that the change is system was coming, would require something really note worthy.

Feel free to give me the same rating. Or worse, if it makes you feel good. The new system is so vague, it really doesn't matter to me anyway.


Its nice to seee that were all on the same page when it comes to the rating system

Your whining about being rated average for average gameplay and turn taking is part of the problem. Another part is everyone expecting to be rated higher then average for not higher then average games. Yet another is those that just give out 5 for nothing special helping to set this expectation of all to do so unless you do something bad. The most heinous component is those literate and observant few that actually read what each star ranking means and doles them out based upon that weighed against there own sensibilities. So for now all will be miserable and cry about the differences in everybody's use of the system and the fact it is opinion based with no recourse but to hope and pray you can sway the person who gave you the rating to either change or withdraw it based on your opinion and and application being better then theres...

Well, I'm still waiting to hear from one of you guys who read the instructions and "does it the right way" to explain how one earns a 5 in fair play. I mean, I'm assuming that the norm is that somebody doesn't cheat, right? So, merely not cheating should earn a guy no better than a 3 from you. How does someone really, really not cheat in an extraordinary manner?

Given that this is based on opinion, my opinion on fair Play would be someone who goes out of there way to keep game balanced or leader in check would earn a 5, a 3 for me would be someone who plays a normal strategy and covers there butt while not shitting on anyone else, a 2 would be someone who seems biased toward either attacking or not attacking a certain player a 4 would be someone who works well with other in situations like letting fort out of a area, and a 1 would be a suicider or some other BS player with no sense in attacks. But again that is my opinion, we all are open to interrupt however we feel but I believe based on the simple words of the system my criteria hold true to the spirit.

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

BadMoonRising wrote:Many have experienced the same thing. Youve done nothing wrong and your judged on criteria out of your control. How do you judge a persons ingame behavior if there is no chat during the game but youve made all your turns? I asked the person why he gave me 3 stars when I had perfect attendance.fair play?? what the hell is that? Either you play fair or you dont. Attitude? How do you judge if there is no interaction?

I politely inquired on their reasoning and received this reply:

Apparently I use the word 'average' different from most people around here. I suspect I will get a lot of these e-mail. I expect people to not miss a turn, this is 'average' to me. I would give a player a higher rating if a game went a really long time, or if they stuck around after they were obviously out of the game, but above average would be rare.

I have no clue as to what 'fair play' is supposed to mean, but unless a person wins, average seems about right to me. The winner usually gets a four. A winner who comes from behind might rate a five.

Attitude is an option I use to reflect in game chat. Average is none, or perhaps a 'good luck everyone'. Actually chatter can get a four, unpleasant chatter could be a two, being so rude that I feel the need to block someone would get them a one.

Honestly though, the original games are based on my memory of a game played before I felt the need to think about things in this fashion, so getting higher then a three, when I wasn't aware that the change is system was coming, would require something really note worthy.

Feel free to give me the same rating. Or worse, if it makes you feel good. The new system is so vague, it really doesn't matter to me anyway.


Its nice to seee that were all on the same page when it comes to the rating system

Your whining about being rated average for average gameplay and turn taking is part of the problem. Another part is everyone expecting to be rated higher then average for not higher then average games. Yet another is those that just give out 5 for nothing special helping to set this expectation of all to do so unless you do something bad. The most heinous component is those literate and observant few that actually read what each star ranking means and doles them out based upon that weighed against there own sensibilities. So for now all will be miserable and cry about the differences in everybody's use of the system and the fact it is opinion based with no recourse but to hope and pray you can sway the person who gave you the rating to either change or withdraw it based on your opinion and and application being better then theres...

Well, I'm still waiting to hear from one of you guys who read the instructions and "does it the right way" to explain how one earns a 5 in fair play. I mean, I'm assuming that the norm is that somebody doesn't cheat, right? So, merely not cheating should earn a guy no better than a 3 from you. How does someone really, really not cheat in an extraordinary manner?

Given that this is based on opinion, my opinion on fair Play would be someone who goes out of there way to keep game balanced or leader in check would earn a 5, a 3 for me would be someone who plays a normal strategy and covers there butt while not shitting on anyone else, a 2 would be someone who seems biased toward either attacking or not attacking a certain player a 4 would be someone who works well with other in situations like letting fort out of a area, and a 1 would be a suicider or some other BS player with no sense in attacks. But again that is my opinion, we all are open to interrupt however we feel but I believe based on the simple words of the system my criteria hold true to the spirit.

Well, that's actually some pretty solid criteria. Still more work than I'm prepared to put into something that is destined to be averaged into an arbitrary assortment of 3s and 5s, but solid criteria indeed.

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

detlef wrote:

Soloman wrote:

BadMoonRising wrote:Many have experienced the same thing. Youve done nothing wrong and your judged on criteria out of your control. How do you judge a persons ingame behavior if there is no chat during the game but youve made all your turns? I asked the person why he gave me 3 stars when I had perfect attendance.fair play?? what the hell is that? Either you play fair or you dont. Attitude? How do you judge if there is no interaction?

I politely inquired on their reasoning and received this reply:

Apparently I use the word 'average' different from most people around here. I suspect I will get a lot of these e-mail. I expect people to not miss a turn, this is 'average' to me. I would give a player a higher rating if a game went a really long time, or if they stuck around after they were obviously out of the game, but above average would be rare.

I have no clue as to what 'fair play' is supposed to mean, but unless a person wins, average seems about right to me. The winner usually gets a four. A winner who comes from behind might rate a five.

Attitude is an option I use to reflect in game chat. Average is none, or perhaps a 'good luck everyone'. Actually chatter can get a four, unpleasant chatter could be a two, being so rude that I feel the need to block someone would get them a one.

Honestly though, the original games are based on my memory of a game played before I felt the need to think about things in this fashion, so getting higher then a three, when I wasn't aware that the change is system was coming, would require something really note worthy.

Feel free to give me the same rating. Or worse, if it makes you feel good. The new system is so vague, it really doesn't matter to me anyway.


Its nice to seee that were all on the same page when it comes to the rating system

Your whining about being rated average for average gameplay and turn taking is part of the problem. Another part is everyone expecting to be rated higher then average for not higher then average games. Yet another is those that just give out 5 for nothing special helping to set this expectation of all to do so unless you do something bad. The most heinous component is those literate and observant few that actually read what each star ranking means and doles them out based upon that weighed against there own sensibilities. So for now all will be miserable and cry about the differences in everybody's use of the system and the fact it is opinion based with no recourse but to hope and pray you can sway the person who gave you the rating to either change or withdraw it based on your opinion and and application being better then theres...

Well, I'm still waiting to hear from one of you guys who read the instructions and "does it the right way" to explain how one earns a 5 in fair play. I mean, I'm assuming that the norm is that somebody doesn't cheat, right? So, merely not cheating should earn a guy no better than a 3 from you. How does someone really, really not cheat in an extraordinary manner?

Given that this is based on opinion, my opinion on fair Play would be someone who goes out of there way to keep game balanced or leader in check would earn a 5, a 3 for me would be someone who plays a normal strategy and covers there butt while not shitting on anyone else, a 2 would be someone who seems biased toward either attacking or not attacking a certain player a 4 would be someone who works well with other in situations like letting fort out of a area, and a 1 would be a suicider or some other BS player with no sense in attacks. But again that is my opinion, we all are open to interrupt however we feel but I believe based on the simple words of the system my criteria hold true to the spirit.

Well, that's actually some pretty solid criteria. Still more work than I'm prepared to put into something that is destined to be averaged into an arbitrary assortment of 3s and 5s, but solid criteria indeed.

Thank you, I do not apply alot of forethought to it the game3 usually is fresh On my mind and I just rate based on that in Fairplay my criteria is similar in the other areas just a balanced sense I have handed a few 5's out but I only treat those who in my opinion deserve it, I do give a fair rating again in my opinion to all based on my set mental criteria.