Conquer Club

One standard of CC was always "no retaliatory feedback". Basically, the idea was that you should be able to rate someone who plays badly without worrying that they will, in turn rate you down.

HOWEVER, the problem is that sometimes it is the feedback itself (under the old system) OR , now, the rating that IS the problem. That is, someone who gives all 1's just because they lost.

Under the old system, this usually became evident over time. Now, it is all but impossible.
There is no real way to know if someone got all 1's because they were in a really bad game in that one game or because they played a jerk. More importantly, it becomes even more difficult to avoid those players that consider this a reasonable way to rate.

I suggested posting the number of 1's someone leaves as a possible answer. But, I don't know if that is the real answer.

PLEASE DISCUSS!

This system encourages pettiness. The hard part with this is that you really have no idea of who is going to write what until its to late.

The wall is where one can explain why someone rated you the way they did.

The thing I liked about the old system is that it was either thumbs up or thumbs down.

Either one was an asshole or they wernt....none of this inbetween bullcrap where you were "kind of ass hole" but not fully so ill give you a 2 instead.

I have made the decision not to use the ratings system unless it is REALLY warranted for good or bad play.

There is a thread in Suggs & Bugs that you might find helpful: Link.

Yes, I have kept up with that thread, but most of the suggestions are dealing with preventing retaliatory feedback. I am suggesting that some of what used to be called "retaliatory feedback" really is OK... but that we need to define "when and where"

There are couple of posting asking that the number of times someone gives a low rating soehow be displayed.. which, over time will help with this, but I am saying we need a bit of a change in administration's/CC view on this perhaps first.

Specifically:

If you get all 1's and have not missed a single turn ... or get 1's in attitude and have just said "gl". Well, I think OTHER people might like to know what kind of person this is. The suggestions will let you defend yourself, but do nothing to warn other players

For your concern over receiving 1s for attendance: Link. And the problem with allowing "some" retaliatory feedback is, who decides what is allowed? This then becomes subjective which is what lack was avoiding when he changed the feedback system to the rating system. Also, the link I posted before should be to a thread that talks about letting a player leave a comment after being rated, similar to the response that people were allowed to leave under the feedback system.

Iron Butterfly wrote:This system encourages pettiness. The hard part with this is that you really have no idea of who is going to write what until its to late.

The wall is where one can explain why someone rated you the way they did.

The thing I liked about the old system is that it was either thumbs up or thumbs down.

Either one was an asshole or they wernt....none of this inbetween bullcrap where you were "kind of ass hole" but not fully so ill give you a 2 instead.

I have made the decision not to use the ratings system unless it is REALLY warranted for good or bad play.

Neutral is good for "well you kind of were a jerk but not that bad".

Maybe there can be some kind of an abuse counter, and every player who feels someone abused the ratings system can give that player an abuse point. Once the player gets enough abuse points, the mods can look into the bad ratings the player gave and see if there is really any reason for these ratings based on the games they played together. The mod can then ban the person from leaving ratings.

The only problem with this would be that some players would abuse the report abuse function- they might report an abuse that wasn't legit. for the rare cases that this would occur, people could fill out a cheating and abuse report every time someone reports them for no good reason. Again these people could be put on a rating ban and a report abuse ban.

lancehoch wrote:For your concern over receiving 1s for attendance: Link. And the problem with allowing "some" retaliatory feedback is, who decides what is allowed? This then becomes subjective which is what lack was avoiding when he changed the feedback system to the rating system. Also, the link I posted before should be to a thread that talks about letting a player leave a comment after being rated, similar to the response that people were allowed to leave under the feedback system.

I probably should have left the attendance issue out, because, as you pointed out, it almost certainly will be solved seperately.

As for the subjectivity issue, you are correct. BUT, this is no more subjective than any other criteria. In many ways less subjective.

The problem before was that mods had to make the decision. Jimiskis' idea was that a CC panel of players would decide. BUT, in both cases, you are not truly eliminating the subjectivity, just shifting it. (granted, we would hope that mods and a panel would be somewhat consistant ... but the reality is we are all human and fallible).

The suggestion to post comments in response to the feedback is OK, but that is really just a "defense". If folks read it, they can see that "abc" gave "pdq" alll 1's and "abc does not feel it justified. If they wish, they can go read the chat. BUT, that only happens if you are looking at the profile of "abc".

The clincher, of course, is that people don't like when other people say bad things about them. BUT, on the other hand, if folks know that others CAN say bad things ... it often motivates folks to improve.

wrestler1ump wrote:Maybe there can be some kind of an abuse counter, and every player who feels someone abused the ratings system can give that player an abuse point. Once the player gets enough abuse points, the mods can look into the bad ratings the player gave and see if there is really any reason for these ratings based on the games they played together. The mod can then ban the person from leaving ratings.

The only problem with this would be that some players would abuse the report abuse function- they might report an abuse that wasn't legit. for the rare cases that this would occur, people could fill out a cheating and abuse report every time someone reports them for no good reason. Again these people could be put on a rating ban and a report abuse ban.

One way to limit the abuse would be that this kind of rating would ONLY be allowed if you got all 1's or perhaps 1's and 2's.

Folks could still give unwarrented ratings, but I am not so much concerned with just "differences of opinions". The problem is the real and true cases.

Just like with the old system, almost everyone will get at least one "bad" mark once ... and as long as it is just the 1 or 2, folks will know it probably speaks more of the rater than the ratee.