[PC] Additonal Explanatory Tags

[bMC1000]

Howdy all,

So I wanted to know how often players use tags when rating a fellow competitor? Do you just give them stars and click away to the next game? I find I only use the tags when someone was a memorable opponent, for better or worse.

I do like to use them, but feel that the current list doesnt always give me the adequate terms to refer to the player that I just beat or lost against. For example, I don't think I have ever tagged anyone as brave, helpful (I could only see this applying to SoC), irrational or as a coward. I'm not sure how those terms would apply? I'm also aware and quite sure that the tags are specifically generic as not to induce fighting etc as Risk/CC is a game that can induce a screaming match.

For instance I would like to see tags like the following:

Tough - For those 'tough' bastards you just can't kill, or at least take forever to take out because they have sound strategy.
Whinger - For those who just like to whine and cry 'poor me' in the game chat. (I admit, at times this can be me when the dice just aren't falling my way). I know we have complainer, maybe it's an Aussie thing.
Dominant/Dominator - For those times when it's literally like someone just wiped the pieces off the board.
Ya face - For when you really have nothing else to say to someone.

Just thought I'd put this out there as I know I would particularly use tough.

Feel free to come up with your own suggestions.

Peace.

[GeneralRisk]

Dickhead is one I would use often

[bMC1000]

Believe me General, I am all in favour of using more derogatory tags. HAHA.

[chapcrap]

So, I found some similar suggestions that wanted more tags added...



Here's a similar suggestion: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=164101

And another: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=121196

One more: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=121145

Here: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=109315

And: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=108821

And: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=99228

Another: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=96551

Yep: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=86657

Another tag suggestion: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=88712

Boom: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=81518

Here: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=74810

[bMC1000]

Thanks for being so informative Chapcrap. Shame I got bored of reading the load of wank that those threads became. So while I appreciate I have obviously put forward something that has been raised before, the smartass attitude wasn't required.

And if raised so many times before, why has nothing changed?

[chapcrap]

Thanks for being so informative Chapcrap. Shame I got bored of reading the load of wank that those threads became. So while I appreciate I have obviously put forward something that has been raised before, the smartass attitude wasn't required.

And if raised so many times before, why has nothing changed?

Ok, first of all, I didn't have a smartass attitude. I was cross referencing, because I might make a thread for all of tag options. And, you said you wanted to know about other tag ideas. Sorry if that upset you.

Second, Nothing has changed, because the owner/developer/administrator didn't want to add more tags. At some point there has to be a limit to the number of tags. Honestly, the tags that you suggested, I feel like there are already tags for. Here's what I would use:

• Tough - Good Strategy
• Whinger (did you mean whiner?) - Complainer
• Dominant - Bully, Good Strategy, Reckless, Balanced Play (whichever fits)
• Ya Face - If I didn't have anything else to say, I wouldn't say anything.

[bMC1000]

Ok, sure, let's say you didn't have an attitude.

However, I do now.

Thanks for making me feel welcome on the forums champ.

In response to your point and getting back to the actual original post.
To have good strategy and be tough are different. I'll admit the similarity, but they evoke a different emotion.
Whinger/whiner/complainer, whatever.
Dominant, again you totally missed the point. Or chose to miss it. A bully is not a dominant player, a bully is a bully, that as nothing to do with a players ability. To suggest reckless fits, it doesn't. Do you need a dictionary?

Maybe my terms weren't quite defined enough. I also appreciate you don't need a bazillion tags, I was just offering up some suggestions.

[agentcom]

The links that chap provided wasn't him being a smartass. He's trying to trying to direct you to similar suggestions. We don't want a million of the same suggestions floating around because we'll misplace them and lose the feedback that has been provided. That's how this forum works.

Additionally, cross-referencing to similar posts allows us to merge topics later on to prevent the same situations from happening again.

[Metsfanmax]

There's no good line to be drawn when we start adding tags that are slightly different from each other. It would be better if someone sat down and took a good look at the current set of tags, and rewrote them so as to better capture the gamut of possible emotions. If you do it right all in one shot, then you don't need to consider additions later.