[09-Jun-2008] Ratings & Medals

[A Mans Part]

you guys will never be happy. Suck it up and deal with it.

Those saying feedback can be left on the wall need to realize each player can moderate their own wall and delete any comments they don't want.

If you had fun playing with somebody and would play again, leave all 5s. Bump it down in each area they do something to annoy you. Miss a turn? Give them a 3 or 4 in the attendance rating. Whine all game and boss people around? Drop their attitude rating. Play them again and they do the same thing - give them a 1. Player keeps attacking you because you took their bonus in the early rounds and refuses to attack the player with twice as many armies? Drop their fair play rating.

[ubcman64]

I'm afraid your new rating system is a bust. I see some people have already earned a medal for leaving x number of ratings. I looked at the ratings they are leaving and they're just blowing through as many players as possible and leaving all 5 star ratings. What does this accomplish? I can't judge any player by what he/she has received for a rating by this method. The old system of feedback was much better as you were forced to actually take the time to describe a players good/bad qualities. Not just click on a star. That tells me nothing about a player. Granted there was plenty of unnecessary feedback left, but the useful feedback far outweighed the useless ones. I've thrown in my two cents worth. I hope you will reconsider reinstating the old system.
ubc

[Hrvat]

I assume that like most folks, under the previous system I'd tend to look at someone's pos-neg rating to determine if I wanted to play them, if they have more than about 5 or so negs I'd usually pass. Less then that and I'd spend some time reading the comments to determine if they were the problem or some idiot just sore about losing.

I don't know you'd fix this system now that you have thousands of ratings posted where people were assuming that anything less than a 5 meant you'd screwed up somehow. I'm afraid that this rating system will be useless, ignored and/or severely abused and unfortunately you don't usually get a do-over on something this integral to the system.

Post rating * * * * * Outstanding.

(This post has been rated at 5 Stars - excellent - comment added for zimmah and 3 star co.)

Under the previous system I'd tend to look at someone's pos-neg rating to determine if I wanted to play them, new rating system will-not and it cannot do that. New system will simply average out all the important low scores (old -ve's)

[Hrvat]

Let us say I play 20 games.
I Deadbeat in 5 of those games.
Let us say games are 2 player seq.
In 1 (one) of those games, I have best dice, best cards, and very happy in chat, very helpful, very fair, very fast in taking my turns....

Ratings arrive for my 20 games:

Attendance Ratings only:

42stars - for 14 games that I played out to the end I receive recommended 3 stars (14*3)
5 stars - for the 1 game I had best dice, and very happy in chat, very fast in taking my turns....
5 stars - for the 5games I deadbeated, wasted time (5games * 1star)

52 stars received for 20 games--- average 2.6 stars for attendance.

I deadbeated every fifth game, I deadbeated 5 out of 20 games and my attendance rating is 0.4 below recommended 3 stars.


Total ratings for the 20 games played (where I deadbeated 5games)
Assuming that I receive recommended 3's in other 2 categories (where I did not do anything wrong), my average rating would look like:
Attendance 52 stars average 2.6
Fair play 60 stars average 3.0
Attitude 60 stars average 3.0

Total ratings 172 stars average total rating 2.865

This is only 0.135 star below recommended 3 stars for a habitual deadbeater.

[T7]

This is great. Now when I'm in a bad mood, I can just abuse everyone knowing full well that any low star ratings will simply be diluted out in the future.

I can't wait to tell some players what I really think of them!!! LOL!!

Not really, I'm just making a point. But the point is that one negative feedback stands out like dog balls, and ten negative feedbacks made a real statement.

But one low star rating means very little once you've played some games - even ten low star ratings will mean nothing after a lot of games.

And I couldn't be bothered thinking about whether Joe Bloggs deserves a three or a four for attendance... I'm not wasting my life with that. Play me and you'll get a five star, a one star or a nothing. Five if I enjoyed playing with you a lot, one if I didn't like playing with you and I won't 'star' you if you didn't stand out to me.

Very professional looking, great system in some ways, but as boring as bats p**s.

[homelessguy65]

Having a look around at peoples ratings being left behind, some are leaving all 3's, all well in good, but if someone never misses a turn, is that a 3 or 5? i feel this is going to be bad idea as you dont get any idea of the real truth and these people that just leave 3's is going to lower your rating, lots of new people that dont really know whats it all about which is going to effect alot of peoples rating, esp since people are going to be able to block lower rated people, maybe there could be compulsary rating
eg, if someone dosnt miss a turn then you get a 5 and it cant be changed?
or if someone dosnt chat then no less of a 3 etc

Bring back feedback, it was really fun to read between games and helped bring about chat in the game you were playing, the whole world is making life easier and cutting jobs, you dont need to, hire someone and help the unemployment

[razman]

i think medals are great! maybe after this there will be medals for those winning Escalating, No Cards, Flat Rate format? and what about those Unlimited, Chained and Adjacent fortification as well.. should be interesting

as for the star rating.. if you play on average 20-30 maps at one time.. and you encounter one or two bad players (which you unable to tell them apart from the good guys since their star rating is above 3).. you can just ignore them in the game chat.. after all, there are 20+ more games where you dont have to face them... thats what i did.. ignore them in the game chat and focus on the game log and the map...

after all, its not life and death.. its only a game

[T7]

feedback, it was really fun

That's exactly it right there.

Some lousy people couldn't handle a bad word being said about them even if it was by some jerk... so we throw out the baby with the bath water. That's the core of it. I had three negatives by three jerks who were unnecessarily haugty, so I just put responses that made them look silly like...

Very verbal player, makes rude comments, makes game unfun
T7's response: mastermange777 played one turn then deadbeated... but how can I stay mad at him when he has such beautiful blue eyes and sparkling little toes... he's so CUTE!!! xxxx

Now we swap stars... where's the fun in that?

The star system looks professional, sure, but it kills character.

I've seen some fantastic feedbacks and responses that have been dead-set LMAO. And who doesn't enjoy looking through their feedback every now and then which are usually from the notable epic games and wandering through history lane in your memory.

All gone.

Now we've got stars. Boring.

Polished, professional stars yes.

However, stars are boring.

CC's becoming more professionally set up, but character is starting to be rubbed out in the polishing process in order to keep a few sensitive soft-hearted cafe-latte-drinking city-slicker indoor-pluming fancy-pants don't-step-on-my-heart-you-big-bully souls "non-offended" by what some big fat jerk said about them...

Ah well, it's a great site lack, I'm still very very happy to be here.

[tomtorresson]

The new feedback system blows.

I played a great game with a person I have not played before. 20 rounds in Arms Race...which I ended up winning.

We both played well, took all turns and didn't saw a word in chat.

He leaves me a 3 (instead of 5) for Fair Play? How the F do you cheat in a 2 person standard game?

Also gave me a 3 for attitude....I guess I can see if you don't go crazy in chat some will say you have a poor attitude.

I was left with a "why"...and, of course, no way to find out. Lame lame lame.

[oziris]

Someone learned nothing from the classic map change blunder. Ask people for comments somewhere on the game screens instead of only in the forums before going live with stuff.

Oz

[Didda]

I am another with a call for the old feedback system. It was useful and I relied a lot on reading feedback to decide if I wanted to play somebody. I now have no idea.

This new stars system is a bust. So far I have received only one rating, from a person I defeated in a good doubles game. My partner was knocked out earlier and I fought through to win. The player I fought at the end left me all 2s and my partner all 3s. Just a sore loser I suppose and another for the foes list, but I am now up there with a rating of 2 for no good reason.

[jiminski]

hehe, i was just asked to withdraw, very nicely i may add, a rating of '4.8' as she thought we were friends.
Well i did not mean the rating as a sign of disrespect! Anyway rating withdrawn.

[zimmah]

they can't do it Zimm, due to the problem with 'having' to moderate anything written and with the potential to slander or abuse. (not a legal thing, just a service thing!)

Well the rating system is capable of slander in a sense but as it is wholly subjective and based upon behaviour, they have slipped out of any responsibility for it. I don't blame them, as i have already said, it must have been an impossible task!

Well, here's the thing... if I understand this correctly, they changed the system for two main reasons:

1) To free up staff time from moderation
2) Some people were unhappy

The situation now is:

1) Staff time has been freed
2) MANY people are unhappy

It seems to me that keeping the comment system but removing the moderation (or adding some kind of user-moderation system like on Youtube, letting users rather than staff do the moderating) would have brought about similar results. Except maybe that fewer people would have been pissed off.

i suggested this also about a 100 times. i think it should be done like this indeed.

[jiminski]

they can't do it Zimm, due to the problem with 'having' to moderate anything written and with the potential to slander or abuse. (not a legal thing, just a service thing!)

Well the rating system is capable of slander in a sense but as it is wholly subjective and based upon behaviour, they have slipped out of any responsibility for it. I don't blame them, as i have already said, it must have been an impossible task!

Well, here's the thing... if I understand this correctly, they changed the system for two main reasons:

1) To free up staff time from moderation
2) Some people were unhappy

The situation now is:

1) Staff time has been freed
2) MANY people are unhappy

It seems to me that keeping the comment system but removing the moderation (or adding some kind of user-moderation system like on Youtube, letting users rather than staff do the moderating) would have brought about similar results. Except maybe that fewer people would have been pissed off.

i suggested this also about a 100 times. i think it should be done like this indeed.

makes no difference Zimm .. go check my suggestion in the forum consultation and i suggested it 2 months ago!

what you have to understand is that just because you want it to work doesn't mean it will! the mods would be sucked back in to deal with petty squabbles, expletives and abuse.! Fact.

Not even i am arguing against the decision on that front ... but they could have done it better.

[zimmah]

Let us say I play 20 games.
I Deadbeat in 5 of those games.
Let us say games are 2 player seq.
In 1 (one) of those games, I have best dice, best cards, and very happy in chat, very helpful, very fair, very fast in taking my turns....

Ratings arrive for my 20 games:

Attendance Ratings only:

42stars - for 14 games that I played out to the end I receive recommended 3 stars (14*3)
5 stars - for the 1 game I had best dice, and very happy in chat, very fast in taking my turns....
5 stars - for the 5games I deadbeated, wasted time (5games * 1star)

52 stars received for 20 games--- average 2.6 stars for attendance.

I deadbeated every fifth game, I deadbeated 5 out of 20 games and my attendance rating is 0.4 below recommended 3 stars.


Total ratings for the 20 games played (where I deadbeated 5games)
Assuming that I receive recommended 3's in other 2 categories (where I did not do anything wrong), my average rating would look like:
Attendance 52 stars average 2.6
Fair play 60 stars average 3.0
Attitude 60 stars average 3.0

Total ratings 172 stars average total rating 2.865

This is only 0.135 star below recommended 3 stars for a habitual deadbeater.

you're pretty much right, however not everyone leaves ratings for everyone. so you would get less ratings to average out that quickly, and people tend to leave bad feedback (for deadbeaters) or positive feedback (for really outstanding) players, faster then just plain normal ones. i mean you either remember someone playing very outstanding (he that player is nice, i'd better leave him a good rating as i think he is a nice person) and players that for example deadbeat (he this player screws the game with his deadbeating, i'd better leave him a bad rating on attendance and hope he will get a bad score)

[zimmah]

they can't do it Zimm, due to the problem with 'having' to moderate anything written and with the potential to slander or abuse. (not a legal thing, just a service thing!)

Well the rating system is capable of slander in a sense but as it is wholly subjective and based upon behaviour, they have slipped out of any responsibility for it. I don't blame them, as i have already said, it must have been an impossible task!

Well, here's the thing... if I understand this correctly, they changed the system for two main reasons:

1) To free up staff time from moderation
2) Some people were unhappy

The situation now is:

1) Staff time has been freed
2) MANY people are unhappy

It seems to me that keeping the comment system but removing the moderation (or adding some kind of user-moderation system like on Youtube, letting users rather than staff do the moderating) would have brought about similar results. Except maybe that fewer people would have been pissed off.

i suggested this also about a 100 times. i think it should be done like this indeed.

makes no difference Zimm .. go check my suggestion in the forum consultation and i suggested it 2 months ago!

what you have to understand is that just because you want it to work doesn't mean it will! the mods would be sucked back in to deal with petty squabbles, expletives and abuse.! Fact.

Not even i am arguing against the decision on that front ... but they could have done it better.

and why wouldn't comments work?

[cre8tiff]

Yeah there is a REAL ivory tower happening here. Might as well shut up and drink your juice.

It won't change because whomever coded it or came up with the idea is CONVINCED it is the best thing since sliced bread.

This is a PAY site. It is very very very bad business to p**s off your customers. So if you want to be heard, do it where it WILL be heard. Don't renew for a year. Take money out of thier pockets. That would make them listen, or they would fail.

It's just incredibly stupid to stubbornly stick to a failed strategy.

Meanwhile, I'm just giving everyone I play straight 5's

[Hound]

you're pretty much right, however not everyone leaves ratings for everyone. so you would get less ratings to average out that quickly, and people tend to leave bad feedback (for deadbeaters) or positive feedback (for really outstanding) players, faster then just plain normal ones. i mean you either remember someone playing very outstanding (he that player is nice, i'd better leave him a good rating as i think he is a nice person) and players that for example deadbeat (he this player screws the game with his deadbeating, i'd better leave him a bad rating on attendance and hope he will get a bad score)

except that now we've given an incentive to leave feedback to get the ratings medal, so people will just hammer out whatever ratings to get the medal. Before I would only give feedback if someone was either lots of fun to play, or someone to be avoided.

[jiminski]

and why wouldn't comments work?

don't get me wrong Zimm i would prefer an integrated system as you can see: My detailed suggested in April

the problem is, this site is not a faceless leviathon like youtube.. it is a very inclusive 'family' site. We talk to the owner, we rag and mix it up with the mods and the Godlike figure which is Dwight Twilley. (Power-Pop icon and community Manager)

But with this balance (which must remain sacrosanct please) the staff are required to adjudicate on every little thing... So even if we had self-moderation it would not be in reality. .. it is just not possible with the current atmosphere of equality and non polarisation.

If you had self moderation with an expletive filter, I could find a way to be very unpleasant in a far more creative way ... then what?
If the person who had feedback left for them had ability to remove it .. what it its worth?

To put this into context, I will not be partaking in the rating system.. (hehe the request to withdraw a 4.8 marking i made on the first day makes me glad)
it's no big loss or issue for me and i am genuinely not peed off .. i do think it is an opportunity lost.

But If you can think of how it could work, let us try to refine it ... but i am not sure how.

[adamfrost19]

I like the new medal system, I think that can be very effective. But this new ratings system?! It is as, if not more controversial as the feedback system. I have had 3 ratings, 2 have been all 5 stars. One was all 1 stars, from a player that has rated everyone he has lost to, with all 1 stars. Now my rating has rapidly decreased. That makes me look even worse than perhaps having one or two negative feedbacks. Please, get rid of this corrupt rating system.

[adamfrost19]

you guys will never be happy. Suck it up and deal with it.

Those saying feedback can be left on the wall need to realize each player can moderate their own wall and delete any comments they don't want.

If you had fun playing with somebody and would play again, leave all 5s. Bump it down in each area they do something to annoy you. Miss a turn? Give them a 3 or 4 in the attendance rating. Whine all game and boss people around? Drop their attitude rating. Play them again and they do the same thing - give them a 1. Player keeps attacking you because you took their bonus in the early rounds and refuses to attack the player with twice as many armies? Drop their fair play rating.

What do you do is someone gives you a completely unfair rating that is not at all a reflection of your abilities or attitude?

[cre8tiff]

you guys will never be happy. Suck it up and deal with it.

Those saying feedback can be left on the wall need to realize each player can moderate their own wall and delete any comments they don't want.

If you had fun playing with somebody and would play again, leave all 5s. Bump it down in each area they do something to annoy you. Miss a turn? Give them a 3 or 4 in the attendance rating. Whine all game and boss people around? Drop their attitude rating. Play them again and they do the same thing - give them a 1. Player keeps attacking you because you took their bonus in the early rounds and refuses to attack the player with twice as many armies? Drop their fair play rating.

What do you do is someone gives you a completely unfair rating that is not at all a reflection of your abilities or attitude?

There is nothing you CAN do. That is the entire point of unhappiness with this idiocy. There is no recourse, no defense. As said before you just "suck it up". Which is fitting because it does indeed SUCK.

I would much prefer and Arbitrator-less previous version to this cr@p. At least there you can have the final say in defending yourself. Why they feel the need to be the "world police" and have appeals is beyond me. Put the old one back and state "we aren't judging negs anymore" or let us self-regulate. This new system is useless as teats on a boar hog.

[zimmah]

basicly they just censored[ whole CC because a select few idiots placed negatives all around with insulting comments etc. they would be better off only censoring those idiots by removing their right to leave feedbacks. anyways. comments should be back, away with the mass censor

[zimmah]

and why wouldn't comments work?

don't get me wrong Zimm i would prefer an integrated system as you can see: My detailed suggested in April

the problem is, this site is not a faceless leviathon like youtube.. it is a very inclusive 'family' site. We talk to the owner, we rag and mix it up with the mods and the Godlike figure which is Dwight Twilley. (Power-Pop icon and community Manager)

But with this balance (which must remain sacrosanct please) the staff are required to adjudicate on every little thing... So even if we had self-moderation it would not be in reality. .. it is just not possible with the current atmosphere of equality and non polarisation.

If you had self moderation with an expletive filter, I could find a way to be very unpleasant in a far more creative way ... then what?
If the person who had feedback left for them had ability to remove it .. what it its worth?

To put this into context, I will not be partaking in the rating system.. (hehe the request to withdraw a 4.8 marking i made on the first day makes me glad)
it's no big loss or issue for me and i am genuinely not peed off .. i do think it is an opportunity lost.

But If you can think of how it could work, let us try to refine it ... but i am not sure how.

well i think you'll solve a lot of problems by allowing us to write a comment along with the ratings to make it more personal, and you can only withdraw your comment along with the rating, just like it is now. and off course if you play another game with the same person, you can edit the comment and rating if you want.

and off course you should have the ability to place a comment at your own comment (so someone for example left me a 5 star rating with a funny comment, then i can write a responce to the comment just like with the old feedback system)

that way it's more realiable, it won't hurt the moderaters and it's more personal and less boring than a few stars.

[jiminski]

and why wouldn't comments work?

don't get me wrong Zimm i would prefer an integrated system as you can see: My detailed suggested in April

the problem is, this site is not a faceless leviathon like youtube.. it is a very inclusive 'family' site. We talk to the owner, we rag and mix it up with the mods and the Godlike figure which is Dwight Twilley. (Power-Pop icon and community Manager)

But with this balance (which must remain sacrosanct please) the staff are required to adjudicate on every little thing... So even if we had self-moderation it would not be in reality. .. it is just not possible with the current atmosphere of equality and non polarisation.

If you had self moderation with an expletive filter, I could find a way to be very unpleasant in a far more creative way ... then what?
If the person who had feedback left for them had ability to remove it .. what it its worth?

To put this into context, I will not be partaking in the rating system.. (hehe the request to withdraw a 4.8 marking i made on the first day makes me glad)
it's no big loss or issue for me and i am genuinely not peed off .. i do think it is an opportunity lost.

But If you can think of how it could work, let us try to refine it ... but i am not sure how.

well i think you'll solve a lot of problems by allowing us to write a comment along with the ratings to make it more personal, and you can only withdraw your comment along with the rating, just like it is now. and off course if you play another game with the same person, you can edit the comment and rating if you want.

and off course you should have the ability to place a comment at your own comment (so someone for example left me a 5 star rating with a funny comment, then i can write a responce to the comment just like with the old feedback system)

that way it's more realiable, it won't hurt the moderaters and it's more personal and less boring than a few stars.

I am not sure how this solves the problems which prompted the site to take the comments out?
If we take the mods out completely and gave total free-reign, we would end with tit for tat verbal vendettas in some cases!
Well i honestly think that would be great and it would truly add some spice to proceedings! hehehe a Flamers paradise! I will fight for it with you if you are up for it!!


.....but can you see why they would not want that?