Gotta say, I care a whole lot more about whether I'm entering a game with a guy who's prone to stupid moves than one who's mean or misses a lot of turns.
That said, I can also understand why it's taboo. I mean, the rest is very measurable. Did they swear a bunch in game chat? Did they miss a bunch of turns? (oh and btw, this could be completely automated and not require feedback. CC could just keep track of how many games you've been kicked out of for missing turns and display that). None the less, I digress, MUST STAY ON TOPIC. Bad play is pretty subjective. Perhaps in this case the dude hung him out to dry and basically gave the game away. But where do you draw the line? I know where I've liked to draw it, and I usually do so with neutral feedback. Something like this:
Not bad enough for negative feedback but none the less. Renewed an alliance that he had earlier made with a player who, by the time they renewed had built a very substantial lead on the board. This ultimately sealed his and everyone else's fate. I've never understood the notion of basically "waiting to die" which is essentially what that you're doing if you agree not to attack someone with a decided lead on the board and basically help him eliminate everyone else. How does it feel to be someones errand boy?
Of course, there's game chat to support this but still, it's ultimately just mine and another players opinion of the situation. Mind you, it played out exactly as we said it would. The dominant player ran the board in short time.
I don't know, it is a sticky situation and one that will hopefully be fixed with the new system.
Gotta love wicked's tone though. Way to be calming influence.
