jefjef wrote:Any way I see the rating system set up as starting at all 5 and reduced from that as needed.
jefjef wrote:If the game was a fun game & very well played 5 stars.
I rest my case. First no criteria for 5 stars, then suddenly you have some.
You say you start out viewing everyone as an excellent player in all fields. I would say the very definition of "excellent" (superior, exceptionally good, of the highest or finest quality) makes that impossible. How can everyone be superior to everyone else?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
When I play team games, I expect strategizing in team chat. However, I understand if the other team doesn't say anything because I assume they are strategizing too. I rate 5 to my teammates if they try to contribute to our team strategy. Singles, it's a lot less formulaic.
jefjef wrote:Any way I see the rating system set up as starting at all 5 and reduced from that as needed.
jefjef wrote:If the game was a fun game & very well played 5 stars.
I rest my case. First no criteria for 5 stars, then suddenly you have some.
You say you start out viewing everyone as an excellent player in all fields. I would say the very definition of "excellent" (superior, exceptionally good, of the highest or finest quality) makes that impossible. How can everyone be superior to everyone else?
Nothing has changed except for what ever twist you're trying spin. No criteria for 5 stars? Ya pulled that out of the air. But what point I think your trying to make is when rating the rated is to be compared with others? It's not the intent of the rating system. That's what rank & points are for. Rating is for individual performance evaluation. If someone plays an excellent game regardless of crap drop or bad dice game play deserves high rating. If someone is friendly and not a snake attitude deserves high ratings. If someone is not a cheat or manipulates others via cheap tactics fair play deserves high ratings. That's the intent of this rating system. FOE & GOOD BYE.
jefjef wrote:Any way I see the rating system set up as starting at all 5 and reduced from that as needed.
jefjef wrote:If the game was a fun game & very well played 5 stars.
I rest my case. First no criteria for 5 stars, then suddenly you have some.
You say you start out viewing everyone as an excellent player in all fields. I would say the very definition of "excellent" (superior, exceptionally good, of the highest or finest quality) makes that impossible. How can everyone be superior to everyone else?
Nothing has changed except for what ever twist you're trying spin. No criteria for 5 stars? Ya pulled that out of the air. But what point I think your trying to make is when rating the rated is to be compared with others? It's not the intent of the rating system. That's what rank & points are for. Rating is for individual performance evaluation. If someone plays an excellent game regardless of crap drop or bad dice game play deserves high rating. If someone is friendly and not a snake attitude deserves high ratings. If someone is not a cheat or manipulates others via cheap tactics fair play deserves high ratings. That's the intent of this rating system. FOE & GOOD BYE.
Please stop, before you embarrass yourself further.
I think I have to put this in my sig once this untenable situation with the guidelines has been resolved.
edit: I just counted, it only took me three posts to get on jefjef's list.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
I question the idea of rating somebody's gameplay when their success is almost entirely governed by random dice. They could have the best strategy ever and drop and attack with the intention of doing something amazing, but their dice go flat. Because of this, I usually give people the benefit of the doubt with the gameplay rating and only deduct when they successfully do something stupid.
Now that I think about it, though, they could be trying to do stupid things all game and get bad dice, too, but you can't see that, which makes the entire Gameplay category a bit questionable. I don't think there's really an accurate way to judge this.
lol, just to emphasize how nobody rates the right way, go to the last page of the scoreboard and look at peoples ratings. Way over half have gameplay ratings over 4, even people who have 0 wins!
Master Fenrir wrote:I question the idea of rating somebody's gameplay when their success is almost entirely governed by random dice. They could have the best strategy ever and drop and attack with the intention of doing something amazing, but their dice go flat.
LMAO, them's fighting words, especially for some of the high scorers on here; I've had a series of discussions with folks about that. I agree with you, the best strategist in the world cannot win with successive poor dice rolls.
