At least it's official now, 3 = average!

[zimmah]

Zimmah wrote:
i suggest the following to keep in mind

* Fair Play: covers suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking or respecting alliances, chivalry, etc...)
1 star = very unfair, high chance of cheating, etc. most likely somoene you put directly on your ignore list
2 stars = possibly a bit unfair, like breaking truces, trying to make secret alliances etc.
3 stars = average, not unfair, didn't do anything 'wrong' nor did anything exceptionally good
4 stars = good, makes alliances in game chat, doesn't break them, might even remind you of ending the truce/alliance 1 or 2 turns before they end

that's how much of your quote I read before I ignored the rest.


You would give somebody a posotive rating for making an alliance when most veterans understand the game enough to know alliances are never needed. I have never been in a game where I felt it was important to announce who is over powered or needs to be attacked. your self quote did nothing for me.

i'm not stating alliances are neccesary, nor i'm saying you must have an allaince to be good, i'm just stating that IF you make an alliance, do it in the game chat.

besides the rules say alliances ARE LEGIT, so there is no way you can give someone 1 or 2 stars for making an alliance (even an allaince against you) and doing so in the game chat, since that's perfectly legit.

again, it has to do with FAIR PLAY, and not with SKILL.

what's the average IQ here? 50? i wouldn't rate it 5 stars either way

[zimmah]

1 Star


2 Stars


3 Stars


4 Stars


5 Stars

at least someone who understands!

[zimmah]

Cheating and deadbeating, neither are bad behavior.

actually, read the game rules and instructions:

Fair Play: covers suiciding,(aka cheating) secret alliance suspicion, (aka cheating) breaking or respecting alliances, chivalry, etc

Attendance: covers deadbeating, missing turns, deliberately prolonging rounds, finding a babysitter to keep things moving, etc...

[zimmah]

common sense isn't so common

congratiolations for the quote of the year.

i think they should sell 'common sence' at ebay

[jako]

looks like to satisfy both sides in this arguments, 4's across the board.

[gloryordeath]

What about this i did nothing wrong but play the game better than him and will likely get 1s for it?

Re: RATINGS

Postby gloryordeath on Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:04 am
I think we will have a lot more of this bullshit now...

- onkin: No one has taken a country away from PDAL yet.....I guess I will have to step upto the plate since no one else is interested in preventing him from taking over the world...
2008-06-03 18:08:32 - onkin: (sigh)
2008-06-04 00:06:49 - onkin: Sweet, PDAL takes over the world
2008-06-05 02:24:01 - onkin: Yo Gloryordeath, we can battle over Asia later rather than now; what do you say to a TEMPORARY truce?
2008-06-06 02:34:11 - onkin: gloryordeath, offer for a truce still stands...that way I can cut into PDAL a little bit...you watch my flank, I'll watch yours...for three rounds...whatcha think
2008-06-06 20:57:16 - runedrig: im sry im having bad rolls and couldn't get pdal at all
2008-06-06 22:13:04 - onkin: no prob at least you tried
2008-06-07 19:05:33 - onkin: RED and GREEN just continue to amass armies on each other's border, and do nothing; and they do nothing about PDAL taking over the world, and do nothing to break his bonus
2008-06-07 19:05:53 - onkin: I SMELL A SECRET ALLIANCE
2008-06-07 19:08:52 - onkin: RED & GREEN, U SUCK
2008-06-08 18:00:28 - gloryordeath: LOL onkin you clearly have no clue on how to play a terminator game. Nor do you know that no member of xiGAMES will ever take part in an alliance in any shape or form.
2008-06-09 02:30:44 - onkin: i don't buy your xigames BS; I think you are full of it with that garbage
2008-06-09 02:37:07 - onkin: also gloryorpest, is the strategy in a terminator game to allow someone to get a continent bonus, and just sit there and do nothing? That's a really sound strategy, pal. I hope PDAL steamrolls your a--!!!
2008-06-09 02:40:45 - onkin: also RED, since you have only won 28% of your games, you have room to talk about not having a clue; I'm a newbie, I'm not expected to know much, what's your excuse, Mr. 509-games-completed-but-still-a-loser???
2008-06-09 03:49:23 - runedrig: there you go onkin
2008-06-09 13:44:04 - onkin: I WENT DOWN SWINGING; AT LEAST I TRIED TO BREAK PDAL'S BONUS; I JUST GOT SOME BAD DICE; GOOD LICK WITH YOUR LOSER STRATEGY AND YOUR SECRET ALLIANCES, gloryorpest
2008-06-09 13:45:22 - onkin: AND NO I DID NOT MEAN "LUCK;" I MEANT LICK, SINCE YOU AND mamatroshka ARE ALL ON EACH OTHERS NUUUUUUTS
2008-06-09 22:40:32 - gloryordeath: that was worth every last click
2008-06-09 22:45:20 - gloryordeath: dang bad dice
2008-06-10 00:17:16 - ganguscalm: what a frickin looser onkin
2008-06-10 12:25:45 - onkin: Run ur mouth about sometihngyou know nothing about ganguscalm; u must be a stupid, little, 90 lb. nerdy freak to even think about commenting on as game game you are not involved with. GET A LIFE, DORK!

[gloryordeath]

Sent at: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:53 am
From: onkin
To: gloryordeath
Thanx 4 tip in regards xiGAMES, now I know

Private onkin

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 10:20 pm
Location: nunya

* Private message
* Website
* MSNM/WLM
* YIM
* AIM

Top
Previous PMNext PMMove to folder:
Expand view Message history:
Re: Game #2544744

Sent at: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:55 am
by gloryordeath
you did ask in game i'm sorry. but still it goes against my code of conduct so i can not take you up on it.

* Quote onkin

Re: Game #2544744

Sent at: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:53 am
by onkin
Thanx 4 tip in regards xiGAMES, now I know

* Quote onkin

Re: Game #2544744

Sent at: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:51 am
by onkin
I thought it was OK to propose an alliance if I talked about it in Gamechat first????
Re: Game #2544744

Sent at: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:49 am
by gloryordeath
secret alliances are against the rules. so you know if you see a player in xiGAMES we do not do alliances ever but thanks for the offer for what it was.

* Quote onkin

Game #2544744

Sent at: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:43 am
by onkin
Yo gloryordeath,

Game #2544744, PDAL looking pretty strong, and you look like you are interested in going after Australia anyway.

I propose a three round truce; that way, on my next turn, I can stack up all my movable armies in Alaska, and do some damage to PDAL's ever strengthening position.

Whaddayasay????

Top

[zimmah]

The ratings aren't for grades or restaurants (or cars or movies or iTunes, or any other terrible analogy you can come up with). They're for courteous behaviour in games. Did the player get mad that you attacked him, and spent the rest of the game just trying to kill you? Then he deserves a low rating. Was the player more or less "fair"? Then that's a 5. It's not very complicated.

Trying to introduce outside sources will skew your results more than giving a 5 to everyone who isn't an ass. Our way is good, because it identifies who is obnoxious (they consistently get less than 5). Your way is bad because it makes ratings more subjective than they need to be ("That was a fun game, although it wasn't as good as that steak I had at the 4-star restaurant last night, but was definitely better than that 2-star movie I saw afterwards. I'll give a 3.")

Feel free to rate people like that, just stop complaining when others don't follow your lead. I suspect the only outcome will be that people who give 5s will give 5s to each other, and you and your ilk will give 3s to each other, and we'll all look better than you.

obviously it is, since you still don't get the point. the whole concept of a FIVE star rating, means you rate someone/something with 1, 2, 3, 4 OR 5 stars accoringly to how much they deserve it. EVERY other 5 star rating works like this: 1 bad 2 below average 3 average 4 above average/good 5 fantastic/great/very very good/younameit, anything but average

if you just randomly give out 5's to everyone, you'll screw up the system, end of discussion, it's true. how the hell are we supposed to seperate the good guys from the bad guys if everyone keeps giving 5's to everyone for no reason other then 'not being a total asshole'

congratiolations you got 5 stars for 'playing not as bad as you could have played' or something.

i don't give a shit about the ratings if it stays like this anyways. hell even give me 1 stars for everything i couldn't care less. i think the rating system is quite good, could use some fixes but the community screws it over.

once again: people who give out nothing but 5's just want to get nothing but 5's in return. whether they know it from themselfs or not, it's the truth. you're just greedy for 5's

[Hrvat]

New rating is highly subjective, everyone will rate differently, according to their own standard or mood or weather, time of the day...
Therefore new rating is completely useless to weed out deadbeats, rude players, bigheads...
-----------------
Rating of the New rating system:
0 stars for the ability to weed out players you do not wish to play
0 stars for the ability to weed out deadbeaters
0 stars for the ability to weed out rude, obnoxious players

0 stars overall rating for the New rating system
----------------

New rating system - 0 stars

[Bones2484]

The ratings aren't for grades or restaurants (or cars or movies or iTunes, or any other terrible analogy you can come up with). They're for courteous behaviour in games. Did the player get mad that you attacked him, and spent the rest of the game just trying to kill you? Then he deserves a low rating. Was the player more or less "fair"? Then that's a 5. It's not very complicated.

Trying to introduce outside sources will skew your results more than giving a 5 to everyone who isn't an ass. Our way is good, because it identifies who is obnoxious (they consistently get less than 5). Your way is bad because it makes ratings more subjective than they need to be ("That was a fun game, although it wasn't as good as that steak I had at the 4-star restaurant last night, but was definitely better than that 2-star movie I saw afterwards. I'll give a 3.")

Feel free to rate people like that, just stop complaining when others don't follow your lead. I suspect the only outcome will be that people who give 5s will give 5s to each other, and you and your ilk will give 3s to each other, and we'll all look better than you.

obviously it is, since you still don't get the point. the whole concept of a FIVE star rating, means you rate someone/something with 1, 2, 3, 4 OR 5 stars accoringly to how much they deserve it. EVERY other 5 star rating works like this: 1 bad 2 below average 3 average 4 above average/good 5 fantastic/great/very very good/younameit, anything but average

if you just randomly give out 5's to everyone, you'll screw up the system, end of discussion, it's true. how the hell are we supposed to seperate the good guys from the bad guys if everyone keeps giving 5's to everyone for no reason other then 'not being a total asshole'

congratiolations you got 5 stars for 'playing not as bad as you could have played' or something.

i don't give a shit about the ratings if it stays like this anyways. hell even give me 1 stars for everything i couldn't care less. i think the rating system is quite good, could use some fixes but the community screws it over.

once again: people who give out nothing but 5's just want to get nothing but 5's in return. whether they know it from themselfs or not, it's the truth. you're just greedy for 5's

Or maybe YOU don't get HIS point. There is NO guideline from the admins on how to rate. Just because YOU believe 3 is average does not mean everyone will believe this when they have reason to believe otherwise.

I agree with BaldAdonis. I use 5 as the starting point. If someone does something that bothers me I will start taking points away. And until an admin clarifies how I am supposed to grade, I will keep doing it this way because it is my choice on how I view the rating system. Just like it is your choice to use 3s as the break-even. Also, he never said anything about "not being a total asshole". He's giving 5's when people give him a pleasant game. If they are "assholes" then I don't think Baldy will be giving them a perfect score.

Stop trying to push your opinion on everyone else just because you think you are right. Heaven forbid people disagree, right?

edit:

if you just randomly give out 5's to everyone, you'll screw up the system, end of discussion, it's true.

I'd like to know how you are so positive that this "is true". Your poll clearly shows that the system is undefined and people are taking the ratings to mean different things. Again, I say, stop shoving your opinions down our throats as facts. Especially when no one knows what the intent is.

[BaldAdonis]

If they are "assholes" then I don't think Baldy will be giving them a perfect score.

Exactly. If I played zimmah (don't think that'll ever happen) then there'd be plenty of 3s (or less) going around.

[Rusty_Shakelford]

the rating system is the stupidest thing ever

[Bones2484]

Oh, I just want to add that while I use 5 for a starting point I'm not about to go throwing out 5's left and right if I have NO interaction with a player during a game. I might give them a score for Attendance, but as for Fair Play and Attitude I am more apt to just leaving them blank.

Kind of like with the old system... I'm too lazy to bother with rating people who I can't even remember as soon as the game ends. If I had a poor experience I'll dock some points to what I feel was appropriate. If I had a great experience I'll give them a 5.

I hope this is ok by ratings police.

[FabledIntegral]

The ratings aren't for grades or restaurants (or cars or movies or iTunes, or any other terrible analogy you can come up with). They're for courteous behaviour in games. Did the player get mad that you attacked him, and spent the rest of the game just trying to kill you? Then he deserves a low rating. Was the player more or less "fair"? Then that's a 5. It's not very complicated.

Trying to introduce outside sources will skew your results more than giving a 5 to everyone who isn't an ass. Our way is good, because it identifies who is obnoxious (they consistently get less than 5). Your way is bad because it makes ratings more subjective than they need to be ("That was a fun game, although it wasn't as good as that steak I had at the 4-star restaurant last night, but was definitely better than that 2-star movie I saw afterwards. I'll give a 3.")

Feel free to rate people like that, just stop complaining when others don't follow your lead. I suspect the only outcome will be that people who give 5s will give 5s to each other, and you and your ilk will give 3s to each other, and we'll all look better than you.

obviously it is, since you still don't get the point. the whole concept of a FIVE star rating, means you rate someone/something with 1, 2, 3, 4 OR 5 stars accoringly to how much they deserve it. EVERY other 5 star rating works like this: 1 bad 2 below average 3 average 4 above average/good 5 fantastic/great/very very good/younameit, anything but average

if you just randomly give out 5's to everyone, you'll screw up the system, end of discussion, it's true. how the hell are we supposed to seperate the good guys from the bad guys if everyone keeps giving 5's to everyone for no reason other then 'not being a total asshole'

congratiolations you got 5 stars for 'playing not as bad as you could have played' or something.

i don't give a shit about the ratings if it stays like this anyways. hell even give me 1 stars for everything i couldn't care less. i think the rating system is quite good, could use some fixes but the community screws it over.

once again: people who give out nothing but 5's just want to get nothing but 5's in return. whether they know it from themselfs or not, it's the truth. you're just greedy for 5's

Or maybe YOU don't get HIS point. There is NO guideline from the admins on how to rate. Just because YOU believe 3 is average does not mean everyone will believe this when they have reason to believe otherwise.

I agree with BaldAdonis. I use 5 as the starting point. If someone does something that bothers me I will start taking points away. And until an admin clarifies how I am supposed to grade, I will keep doing it this way because it is my choice on how I view the rating system. Just like it is your choice to use 3s as the break-even. Also, he never said anything about "not being a total asshole". He's giving 5's when people give him a pleasant game. If they are "assholes" then I don't think Baldy will be giving them a perfect score.

Stop trying to push your opinion on everyone else just because you think you are right. Heaven forbid people disagree, right?

edit:

if you just randomly give out 5's to everyone, you'll screw up the system, end of discussion, it's true.

I'd like to know how you are so positive that this "is true". Your poll clearly shows that the system is undefined and people are taking the ratings to mean different things. Again, I say, stop shoving your opinions down our throats as facts. Especially when no one knows what the intent is.

The mods have made it quite apparent that 3 is average on many occasions. Either way, use your head, it's not too hard to figure out that this system would most likely correspond to nearly every other system in existence. Movie ratings, etc. They probably didn't think they'd have to baby everyone.

[Bones2484]

The mods have made it quite apparent that 3 is average on many occasions. Either way, use your head, it's not too hard to figure out that this system would most likely correspond to nearly every other system in existence. Movie ratings, etc. They probably didn't think they'd have to baby everyone.

I asked this to you in another thread, but I'll do it here too:

So if I am giving 5's to people who were pleasant to chat with, took their turns reasonably, and didn't cheat... I fail to see what I'm doing wrong by you.

And when the previous system made it so you either were only positive or negative (neutrals were useless) then you can't blame us for treating 5 as the positive and docking points for anything under that.

[FabledIntegral]

The mods have made it quite apparent that 3 is average on many occasions. Either way, use your head, it's not too hard to figure out that this system would most likely correspond to nearly every other system in existence. Movie ratings, etc. They probably didn't think they'd have to baby everyone.

I asked this to you in another thread, but I'll do it here too:

So if I am giving 5's to people who were pleasant to chat with, took their turns reasonably, and didn't cheat... I fail to see what I'm doing wrong by you.

And when the previous system made it so you either were only positive or negative (neutrals were useless) then you can't blame us for treating 5 as the positive and docking points for anything under that.

1. You didn't ask me anything here... but I'll try to find a response.
2. Someone is pleasant to chat with. That's better than average. That means that person gives enjoyment to you. It's better than a typical "gl hf" and "gg" and "hey can you move from X to Y?". So if that person was indeed pleasant, then I would say, yeah give that person a 4 or 5.
3. Took their turns "reasonably." That's average. Average is 3. That's not BAD. You should NOT associate 3 with poor performance. You should associate it with adequate performance. You should see a 3 and think "that person is most likely like everyone else - he will probably take his turns reasonably." If that person takes his turns in a very fast and efficient manner, then he should be rewarded with higher than a 3. But you have no reason to give someone a 5 unless it met above normal circumstances. For example someone who never missed a turn in a game with 30+ rounds, and didn't make everyone wait 20+ hours to take his turn each time. Something like that, could be a 5. Otherwise, either just average or no rating (or some other rating, etc.).
4. If you've come to believe not cheating shows absolutely above and beyond sportsmanship - then you highly underestimate what you should come to expect out of players. Far from a 5. Once again, that's average, that's a 3, you should associate 3 with AVERAGE.

All you're doing is skewing the system from its actual intention. Therefore you are virtually breaking the system. That's how I view it, and that's how a lot of mods are going to start viewing it as it wasn't their intention, which once again is obvious. We'll see how it plays out, however.

[barterer2002]

So I guess the question for you then is this. If a person tends to take his or her turns within 12 hours you're going to rate them as average-3. Does this mean that only player who RT a game when you want to RT it deserve a 5? Or is it fairly impossible to get a 5.

Here's my problem with your assumption. You're trying to tell me what makes for an enjoyable game experience for me. What makes you think that I need anyone to rate everyone 3s to be accurate?

A good game is one that moves along, has some pleasant game chat and overall good play. You can rate that anywhere you choose, I choose to rate it a 5. If you rate it a 1 and I rate it a 5 that doesn't make either of us wrong because rating systems are subjective in nature.

Of course Zimm is free to continue to question the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with him because that's usually a sure way to win any argument.

[zimmah]

here is one good example of someone who TRULY DESERVES a 5 star rating (for attitude at least)

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53431&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

now you guys see why you shouldn't give 5's just to anyone?

[zimmah]

The ratings aren't for grades or restaurants (or cars or movies or iTunes, or any other terrible analogy you can come up with). They're for courteous behaviour in games. Did the player get mad that you attacked him, and spent the rest of the game just trying to kill you? Then he deserves a low rating. Was the player more or less "fair"? Then that's a 5. It's not very complicated.

Trying to introduce outside sources will skew your results more than giving a 5 to everyone who isn't an ass. Our way is good, because it identifies who is obnoxious (they consistently get less than 5). Your way is bad because it makes ratings more subjective than they need to be ("That was a fun game, although it wasn't as good as that steak I had at the 4-star restaurant last night, but was definitely better than that 2-star movie I saw afterwards. I'll give a 3.")

Feel free to rate people like that, just stop complaining when others don't follow your lead. I suspect the only outcome will be that people who give 5s will give 5s to each other, and you and your ilk will give 3s to each other, and we'll all look better than you.

obviously it is, since you still don't get the point. the whole concept of a FIVE star rating, means you rate someone/something with 1, 2, 3, 4 OR 5 stars accoringly to how much they deserve it. EVERY other 5 star rating works like this: 1 bad 2 below average 3 average 4 above average/good 5 fantastic/great/very very good/younameit, anything but average

if you just randomly give out 5's to everyone, you'll screw up the system, end of discussion, it's true. how the hell are we supposed to seperate the good guys from the bad guys if everyone keeps giving 5's to everyone for no reason other then 'not being a total asshole'

congratiolations you got 5 stars for 'playing not as bad as you could have played' or something.

i don't give a shit about the ratings if it stays like this anyways. hell even give me 1 stars for everything i couldn't care less. i think the rating system is quite good, could use some fixes but the community screws it over.

once again: people who give out nothing but 5's just want to get nothing but 5's in return. whether they know it from themselfs or not, it's the truth. you're just greedy for 5's

Or maybe YOU don't get HIS point. There is NO guideline from the admins on how to rate. Just because YOU believe 3 is average does not mean everyone will believe this when they have reason to believe otherwise.

I agree with BaldAdonis. I use 5 as the starting point. If someone does something that bothers me I will start taking points away. And until an admin clarifies how I am supposed to grade, I will keep doing it this way because it is my choice on how I view the rating system. Just like it is your choice to use 3s as the break-even. Also, he never said anything about "not being a total asshole". He's giving 5's when people give him a pleasant game. If they are "assholes" then I don't think Baldy will be giving them a perfect score.

Stop trying to push your opinion on everyone else just because you think you are right. Heaven forbid people disagree, right?

edit:

if you just randomly give out 5's to everyone, you'll screw up the system, end of discussion, it's true.

I'd like to know how you are so positive that this "is true". Your poll clearly shows that the system is undefined and people are taking the ratings to mean different things. Again, I say, stop shoving your opinions down our throats as facts. Especially when no one knows what the intent is.

dude, get a fucking brain or something, in every single 5 star rating, 3 stars means average and 5 means fucking awesome, almost not of this world. and really most CC players aren't worth 5 stars by far, most are hardly even worth 2 stars.

go find any 5 star rating that has 5 stars as average and if you succeed on finding only 1 example, go post it here. come on guys think! how the hell can 5 stars be average? do you think a 5 star hotel is average too? and all the 4 star hotel 'did something wrong so they don't desserve 5 stars? there not "good enough?"
no way!

[zimmah]

Stop trying to push your opinion on everyone else just because you think you are right. Heaven forbid people disagree, right?

have a look at the poll, most people still vote 3 stars as an average, a lot still vote 5 stars for average and only a few people vote 4 or even 1 as average.

we really need to have the same rating system or we'll screw up the whole system. how the hell is the game gunna filter out the bad guys if everyone has a rating of 4 stars or higher anyways?

there are 2 main reasons why people keep saying 5 stars is average:

1) giving 5 stars make them feel better, mainly because they would like to see them back, and they think they did something good towards the other player.

2) they are still used to the feedback system, where it was often kind to leave a positive, and with that system it was either 'all or nothing'

but actually, if you give out 5 stars to everyone, then the system will be flawed. since there will be an update where you can filter out the players with a lower rating so they can't join your games anymore. this will not work however, because everyone has basicly the same rating (everyone will have a rating somewhere around 3.7 average or so. because too much people will hand out 5's and the other halve will give 3's it will average out at somewhere near 4, and the players who vote 4's as an 'average' will get the ranks to increase even more, so i thihk it will average out at something like 3.7 for everyone. and it doesn't really matter how bad you behave because everyone will have the same ratng basicly

[zimmah]

if you just randomly give out 5's to everyone, you'll screw up the system, end of discussion, it's true.

I'd like to know how you are so positive that this "is true". Your poll clearly shows that the system is undefined and people are taking the ratings to mean different things. Again, I say, stop shoving your opinions down our throats as facts. Especially when no one knows what the intent is.

that's exactly the point, the system wil get flawed, because if half of the site randomly hands out 5's then it's impossible to know whether someone who has a 3 star rating is actually considered to be a 'pretty bad player' or just an 'average' player, there is no way you can figure it out, and even worse: YOU CAN EVEN LEAVE A COMMENT WITH YOUR RATING so noone would know if someone means 'i gave him a 3 star rating because i think he played well' or 'i gave him a 3 star rating because he's a pretty bad teammate, he didn't even fortify me when i asked him, but at least he tried his best so i don't give him a 1 star because he is still quite fun to play with'

so i think there should be strict guidelines about using the rating, and maybe even all the ratings should be reset, because now the ratings are pretty random anyways and they tell NOTHING about someone. if i see someone with a 4.7 star rating i don't go like 'wow he must have been a pretty nice player. nor can i think he player 'bad' because he doesn't have the full 5 stars. i can't think anyhing of him because:

1) there are no comments i can read (like with the feedback)
2) everyone has his own standard for rating anyways, so a 4 star rating handed out by player A isn't the same as a 4 star handed out by player B. which is the worst thing that can happen EVER.

i think it should be like youtube, when you mouse over your cursor at the stars it wil show what a star means.

in the case of youtube it is:

1 star = poor
2 stars = nothing special
3 stars = worth watching (aka average)
4 stars = pretty cool (aka above average but just doesn't cut it to get the full 5 stars)
5 stars = awesome!

at least here you can see what it means while you mouse over it, so there can be hardly any confusion about it.
i think they should do the same here too, so then this endless discussion will finaly be put to an end! so who's with me and let's spam the GO's/WM's to re-make the rating system and demand of them they change it in the following way:

1) add an option to leave a comment allong with the ratings (and maybe even like youtube, the option to 'rate' the rating/comment itselfs!'
2) add a DESCRIPTION of the rating (something that everyone can understand) while you mouse over, so every rating is about the same, a 4 star by player A should be like about the same s a 4 star left be player B.
3) maybe also link the rating to a specific game or something, so you can see for yourself why someone got a really good or really bad rating (this was one of the best options of the old system, the ability to look back at a game, the games are archived anyways, how hard is it to give us a link!?)

so let's all get the GO's/WM's to fix this!

[MeDeFe]

I'm with you Zimmah, where do I sign up?

Although I think comments with the ratings and rating the ratings would be hard to do and would lead to unnecessary clutter and load for the server.

A description of what exactly the stars are supposed to mean (preferably according to the otherwise widely accepted system of 3 being average and 5 being totally awesome) is a must, though.

Links to examples could be useful for people to make up their own mind of whether the overall rating is accurate or not. Maybe a system where people can submit games to link to and the latest 10 will be displayed.

[barterer2002]

[quote="zimmah]have a look at the poll, most people still vote 3 stars as an average, a lot still vote 5 stars for average and only a few people vote 4 or even 1 as average.
[/quote]

You know that isn't true. 3 stars has a plurality of the votes but clearly not most people.

[MeDeFe]

have a look at the poll, most people still vote 3 stars as an average, a lot still vote 5 stars for average and only a few people vote 4 or even 1 as average.

You know that isn't true. 3 stars has a plurality of the votes but clearly not most people.

One can say that out of all options, "3 stars" was voted for by the most people, because every other option has fewer votes. Now don't come and argue semantics with someone from the S&G Nazis, you've had fair warning.

[jiminski]

Marking out of 10 is so much better!


with 10 it is easier to not give someone 10 without leading to offence!

1. Hitler Clone
2. Crikey you must have insulted my Mother
3. I want to insult you
4. Very poor
5. Poor
6. Not quite right
7. Average
8. Good
9. Very good
10. Outstanding.. you made me laugh so hard i pooped a little!


with a mark out of 5 it goes:

1. i hate you! i hate you! i hate you!
2. May as well give a '1'
3. i really want to offend you but i can't justify a '1'!
4. you bug me, so i will hold back the 5
5. Average to Sainthood