Conquer Club

I just noticed how different the advice the moderators have been giving me on the new ratings system...

In response to me asking why the old feedback system was taken away (I asked because I found the feedback section far more useful than the ratings in people\'s profiles):

[quote=\"lancehoch\"]It was taking too many man-hours to moderate the old feedback system. One mod was spending 20 hours per week moderating feedback disputes, instead of moderating the visible parts of the site.[/quote]

What I get when I report someone for ratings abuse:

[quote=\"king achilles\"]This can be unfair for you if you do not really deserve it however, we no longer moderate the new ratings system.[/quote]

So, the old system was taken away because it took too long to moderate, and the new system is not moderated at all, so why in the world did we need a new system? Couldn\'t you have just stopped moderating the old one?

That's what everyone wonders. And ratings are probably in general easier to abuse.

But in the old system people could write whatever they want. In the new system the choices are very limited and therefore do not need moderation to keep out flaming and verbal abuse. The lack of moderation doesn't ensure that the ratings are fair, but then again that was never entirely possible since it is a subjective decision.

It's like those game sites where they have chat at the bottom, but you have to pick pre-selected text:
Nice game!
Great move!
Uh oh...

Play again?

etc. It allows you to communicate a bit while keeping things clean and appropriate for all ages.

Okay, I see what you are saying. But why do you not moderate it at all? It would seem as if it is put in place to have less moderation, not no moderation.

Another question: One of the people that left me an unfair rating admitted to it when I contacted him. I even have a screen shot of his confession to retaliatory ratings. Would you delete his rating if I showed you the screen shot? (you have to admit, that makes it fairly easy tell whether it is fair or not)

King Dain II wrote:Another question: One of the people that left me an unfair rating admitted to it when I contacted him. I even have a screen shot of his confession to retaliatory ratings. Would you delete his rating if I showed you the screen shot? (you have to admit, that makes it fairly easy tell whether it is fair or not)

hmmmm... sooo, although they are not going to moderate this system, you want them to moderate one bad rating you got, just this once... yeah, that won't open up a can of worms! what about the next one you get? "come on guys, you did it last time..." what about the guy that sees this thread, "come on guys, you did it for that king dude..." kind of funny to ask for a "one time" favor... we are supposed to resolve this by ourselves now... if he admitted it was unfair, try some of your diplomacy skills and ask him to remove it... that is the best you can do...-0

owenshooter wrote:try some of your diplomacy skills

is this the negotiation or movement phase?

sully800 wrote:But in the old system people could write whatever they want. In the new system the choices are very limited and therefore do not need moderation to keep out flaming and verbal abuse. The lack of moderation doesn't ensure that the ratings are fair, but then again that was never entirely possible since it is a subjective decision.

It's like those game sites where they have chat at the bottom, but you have to pick pre-selected text:
Nice game!
Great move!
Uh oh...

Play again?

etc. It allows you to communicate a bit while keeping things clean and appropriate for all ages.

Are we to infer that there are plans to change Gamechat to be along those lines Sully?

Predetermined gamechat tags on the way huh... could be good..

we move from:
2008-08-07 18:14:22 - Scott-Land: Wayne you noob-
2008-08-07 18:14:47 - Scott-Land: ohh no.... another threads gonna be made now
2008-08-08 03:27:36 - comic boy: true - all things are relative
2008-08-08 04:54:43 - waynemgough: you don't like it scott, tough shit
2008-08-08 04:55:22 - waynemgough: but letting you get that bonus from round 1, is like an extra cash
2008-08-08 07:45:20 - waynemgough: and making threads about your conduct, doesn't interest me in the slightest

To:
2008-08-07 18:14:22 - Scott-Land: "good luck"
2008-08-07 18:14:47 - Scott-Land: "My name's Barbi, What's your name?"
2008-08-08 03:27:36 - comic boy: "Good luck with the roll, friend!"
2008-08-08 04:54:43 - waynemgough: "Do you know the address of a topless masseur in the Fort William area?"
2008-08-08 04:55:22 - waynemgough:"My name's Barbi, I'm a good girl"
2008-08-08 07:45:20 - waynemgough:"good game"
2008-08-08 07:45:28 - waynemgough:"good game"

owenshooter wrote:hmmmm... sooo, although they are not going to moderate this system, you want them to moderate one bad rating you got, just this once... yeah, that won't open up a can of worms! what about the next one you get? "come on guys, you did it last time..." what about the guy that sees this thread, "come on guys, you did it for that king dude..." kind of funny to ask for a "one time" favor... we are supposed to resolve this by ourselves now... if he admitted it was unfair, try some of your diplomacy skills and ask him to remove it... that is the best you can do...-0

I am not trying to have them make an exception or me, in fact, I am really hoping that the person does not delete his rating. I am simply asking if they would moderate something when there is concrete proof. The only reason I started this thread is because the thread right before this made me notice the two hypocritical statements that I mentioned in the first post.

Do not jump to conclusions please.

jiminski wrote:

sully800 wrote:But in the old system people could write whatever they want. In the new system the choices are very limited and therefore do not need moderation to keep out flaming and verbal abuse. The lack of moderation doesn't ensure that the ratings are fair, but then again that was never entirely possible since it is a subjective decision.

It's like those game sites where they have chat at the bottom, but you have to pick pre-selected text:
Nice game!
Great move!
Uh oh...

Play again?

etc. It allows you to communicate a bit while keeping things clean and appropriate for all ages.

Are we to infer that there are plans to change Gamechat to be along those lines Sully?

Predetermined gamechat tags on the way huh... could be good..

we move from:
2008-08-07 18:14:22 - Scott-Land: Wayne you noob-
2008-08-07 18:14:47 - Scott-Land: ohh no.... another threads gonna be made now
2008-08-08 03:27:36 - comic boy: true - all things are relative
2008-08-08 04:54:43 - waynemgough: you don't like it scott, tough shit
2008-08-08 04:55:22 - waynemgough: but letting you get that bonus from round 1, is like an extra cash
2008-08-08 07:45:20 - waynemgough: and making threads about your conduct, doesn't interest me in the slightest

To:
2008-08-07 18:14:22 - Scott-Land: "good luck"
2008-08-07 18:14:47 - Scott-Land: "My name's Barbi, What's your name?"
2008-08-08 03:27:36 - comic boy: "Good luck with the roll, friend!"
2008-08-08 04:54:43 - waynemgough: "Do you know the address of a topless masseur in the Fort William area?"
2008-08-08 04:55:22 - waynemgough:"My name's Barbi, I'm a good girl"
2008-08-08 07:45:20 - waynemgough:"good game"
2008-08-08 07:45:28 - waynemgough:"good game"

your too much jiminski

But he always hits the nail on the head!!

King Dain II wrote:I am not trying to have them make an exception or me, in fact, I am really hoping that the person does not delete his rating. Do not jump to conclusions please.

i'm sorry, i just assumed that the following statement was in fact that, a statement. i didn't realize it was supposed to be hypothetical:

King Dain II wrote:Another question: One of the people that left me an unfair rating admitted to it when I contacted him. I even have a screen shot of his confession to retaliatory ratings. Would you delete his rating if I showed you the screen shot? (you have to admit, that makes it fairly easy tell whether it is fair or not)

there is nothing in that that statement that infers it is a hypothetical situation. perhaps you should have simply worded t better or made yourself a bit more clear. if you are truly not asking for what it seems you are asking for, then i am sorry. and i now get your point... next time word it better!!! and i don't think the mods will change a rating for you, with proof, because that would be considered MODERATION of the new system. you can still go post in the thread about improving the situation, that may help. but i doubt it will change, because as i said in an earlier post, it would be opening a can of worms, that they don't want to deal with, again...-0

I miss the old feedback more than anyone possibly, but know how much time and energy the feedback moderation took... it was just too much. the new ratings are silly to some degree, the number is nearly meaningless compared to the negs from before that really did let you know the player instantly.

But its the only way it can be, and it is kind of fun clicking the little stars isnt it? I enjoy it. Usually I click all five of them.

The ratings just have to be used correctly. Take a look at the bad ones, check the game... its usually obvious from there whos to be avoided.

King Dain II wrote:I asked because I found the feedback section far more useful than the ratings in people's profiles.

I didn't realize it earlier on, but you joined CC a month after the ratings were introduced and have never received or left feedback. Well, at least your current account didn't. Care to elaborate?

What is the point of selecting the 4 tick boxes?

I select them, but they aren't used in an overall average score.

I think that if the 4 most ticked selections were added to the average score of a player, it would help identify what type of a player they are.

the ratings are fucking lame, they mean nothing

and i know that my saying ,"bring back the old feedback" is a waste of effort on my part

but i would definitely renew my paid membership if we had things the way they were, now i dont think so.

Jiminski - absolutely brilliant post.

Pedronicus wrote:What is the point of selecting the 4 tick boxes?

I select them, but they aren't used in an overall average score.

I think that if the 4 most ticked selections were added to the average score of a player, it would help identify what type of a player they are.

this would never work unless you are under the delusion that everyone would be fair and give honest feedback


i say eliminate it or go to the old days they way it was, the only reason why it was changed was because so many were leaving way too many lame and bogus feedbacks, nothing has changed except the mods have much less work reading all them e-tickets and removing the negatives


it is simple, go back to the old system, bring back everyones feedback's they way they were, plus add all these new ones to it, and if a playing leaves lame or bogus feedback 3 or more different times after 2 warnings, they get banned for a week, or something, make the rules LOUD and CLEAR, ty

well when i tick the boxes they are fair and true, if someone want's to leave me the odd load of vindictive bollox instead of what I'm really like, then i don't care because the larger amount of ticked boxes would even out and be the larger average figure with time.

I want to be able to put on ignore people with sub 'X' scores to avoid idiots that have arrived at a 3-4.2 average score through being an idiot.

without that sort of a filter - it's all pretty pointless anyway leaving feedback. I've got better things to do than survey my waiting games lists and drop certain games like KLOBBER did.

Frop wrote:I didn't realize it earlier on, but you joined CC a month after the ratings were introduced and have never received or left feedback. Well, at least your current account didn't. Care to elaborate?

Yeah, I have never been here when the feedback system was around. But I look in the profile of every person I play to see what other people had to say about them (things to watch out for, expect etc.)

In ratings I get, just numbers, which do not say a damn thing in this situation (and this is coming from a geometry teacher). The feedback the person receives tells me everything I need to know. I get specifics for the negative without having to click find games, and checking all the game chats/logs to see why the person received ones.

I assume you are accusing me of cheating with the current account comment, and if I am wrong on that, forgive me. But, am I not allowed to look at old feedback of the people I am playing, and comment on how much more useful I find it? Or is that not allowed too? I did not see anything about it in the rules page, and I would not say that it is so elaborate that I would miss it by chance.

It's simply because some politically correct pussies kept crying because they got unfair feedbacks.

Any system that appeals to these lame ducks is going to be lifeless, uninformative and plain-old not fun. The old system was full of live, very informative and great fun!

What we should have done is removed moderation from the old feedback system.

But now, the next step on this path is to no longer have winners and losers - because it's not fun to lose. In fact, we could stop the game as soon as a player builds an advantage and simply award "Participant encouragement" awards to everybody! Nobody loses!

Gosh gee, we can't have anybody's feelings getting hurt can we.

My feedback has two negs, neither of them are true, so fucking what? Battlescars from battling dickheads, big deal. I used to have three, but I challenged that guy to a game playing for stakes of feedback withdrawal. Geez, have fun.

By the way - all of you are completely equal in every way. Peachy keen!

Makes me sick.

i think the new ratings are a great success and the forums should move in the same direction, that way the mods can focus on more important things.

Okay. Thanks to all that posted in this thread.

good game
good game

releaseme wrote:

jiminski wrote:i think the new ratings are a great success and the forums should move in the same direction, that way the mods can focus on more important things.

jim what are you talking about the ratings system is till complete rubbish

heheh come on man ... read my statement again.. maybe a couple of times

jiminski wrote:
heheh come on man ... read my statement again.. maybe a couple of times

I clicked on his profile and sure enough the stars and stripes came up. 'nuff said