Conquer Club

If we're going to do a 1-10 or 1-5 ranking system, I'd like to see it ranked on three separate criteria:
Skill
Reliability
Behavior
Usually feedback will be based on one of these three things, but there is no way to differentiate at a glance whether someone's 4 negs refer to their skill, or the fact that they don't get along with others.

The (#-#) after someone's name could be replaced with (#/#/#), with their average score for each of the criteria.

However, there should be a "null vote" option for each, in case you only want to comment on one or two of the criteria.

Ditocoaf wrote:If we're going to do a 1-10 or 1-5 ranking system, I'd like to see it ranked on three separate criteria:
Skill
Reliability
Behavior
Usually feedback will be based on one of these three things, but there is no way to differentiate at a glance whether someone's 4 negs refer to their skill, or the fact that they don't get along with others.

The (#-#) after someone's name could be replaced with (#/#/#), with their average score for each of the criteria.

However, there should be a "null vote" option for each, in case you only want to comment on one or two of the criteria.

i like this.

I not read thread because I is drunk. I want feedback system where complaints aren't immediately honored.

I like Ditocoaf's suggestion.

Also, what about the ability for the user community to rate feedback? Similar to amazon's comments, where you see something like 10 out of 15 users found this feedback useful.

That way if someone leaves really useless feedback the user community can help indicate whether it should be removed or not.

And yes, this could be abused I suppose but then there's nothing that's completely tool proof.

Suspect cheater? Leave this out.
Reason: Not proven only suspicions. Anybody can accuse/claim anybody of anything.

Retaliatory feedback: If someone leave a feedback and others feedbacked later so they retaliated? This is not correct.

Gameplay/Strategy: With all due respect to the mods, the person to judge gameplay, luck etc is not you.
Reason: You were not in the game. Second, how many steps do you see in the history of the game? How many steps do you see ahead so you can contradict a major/colonel/brig and so on regards tactics or the game in general? It is better not to let your personal biases interfere by concluding them as unnecessary.

Abusive chat: I have something to say about this too.

In short: No moderation of comments please

Well, that's three supports for the (skill/reliability/behavior) suggestion. And one of them's DiM, so the count should really be around 6-7.

Dito, we're not voting on anything here, but we appreciate your enthusiasm to fix this today.

You're not voting on anything. I'm voting on everything from the 1912 election, to whether to use the bathroom now or wait until tomorrow!

wicked wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:a better system would be to allow players to leave a comment and rate their playing experience with that player out of 10. Then each player's feedback would come out as an average out of ten.

Is that not a ranking/rating system DM?

No.

It's just a different way of representing the way that other players percieve a player. Currently we just have two seperate raw figures side by side (so one neg looks like a mighty big deal), but if we allowed people to give a 'score' for how they enjoyed the game (0-10) then each player would end up with a single number, which represented how much other players enjoyed their playing style.

Sure, people might use it to 'rank/rate' players against each other, but they'd be the same kind of sad fuckers who already do that with the current system. My idea is no more a ranking system than the system we currently have in place.

Fruitcake wrote:

KoE_Sirius wrote:

hairingtons wrote:a) get rid of it altogether

b) a simple YES or NO option on 'would you play them again' something like that

or

c) just dont moderate it. everyone gets to say their piece. simple.

Yes B and can you display next to someones name how people have him on ignore

If you mean, how many have someone on ignore, that has to be one of the better ideas to come out of this thread.

Yeah Like KoE_Sirius
Feedback ---- Ignore List
159-10 ------ 12-2

KoE_Sirius wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:

KoE_Sirius wrote:

hairingtons wrote:a) get rid of it altogether

b) a simple YES or NO option on 'would you play them again' something like that

or

c) just dont moderate it. everyone gets to say their piece. simple.

Yes B and can you display next to someones name how people have him on ignore

If you mean, how many have someone on ignore, that has to be one of the better ideas to come out of this thread.

Yeah Like KoE_Sirius
Feedback ---- Ignore List
159-10 ------ 12-2

I think he means...

How many times this person appear on an ignore list...

i.e. solidwolf34 100 lackattack 0

C.

PS - note that this info is also Very easy to get from the database.

yeti_c wrote:

KoE_Sirius wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:

KoE_Sirius wrote:

hairingtons wrote:a) get rid of it altogether

b) a simple YES or NO option on 'would you play them again' something like that

or

c) just dont moderate it. everyone gets to say their piece. simple.

Yes B and can you display next to someones name how people have him on ignore

If you mean, how many have someone on ignore, that has to be one of the better ideas to come out of this thread.

Yeah Like KoE_Sirius
Feedback ---- Ignore List
159-10 ------ 12-2

I think he means...

How many times this person appear on an ignore list...

i.e. solidwolf34 100 lackattack 0

C.

PS - note that this info is also Very easy to get from the database.

How?

wicked wrote:mightylemon, the topic at hand is what people would like to get out of a new feedback system, not how they use the current system to join games. yes, they're both tangentially related, but not really the the purpose of this thread.

Wow.

yeti_c wrote:

KoE_Sirius wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:

KoE_Sirius wrote:

hairingtons wrote:a) get rid of it altogether

b) a simple YES or NO option on 'would you play them again' something like that

or

c) just dont moderate it. everyone gets to say their piece. simple.

Yes B and can you display next to someones name how people have him on ignore

If you mean, how many have someone on ignore, that has to be one of the better ideas to come out of this thread.

Yeah Like KoE_Sirius
Feedback ---- Ignore List
159-10 ------ 12-2

I think he means...

How many times this person appear on an ignore list...

i.e. solidwolf34 100 lackattack 0

C.

PS - note that this info is also Very easy to get from the database.

I MEAN I HAVE 12 PEOPLE ON MY IGNORE
AND 2 PEOPLE HAVE ME ON IGNORE.

Leave feedback how it is. Its fun seeing all the stupid things people write! We are all here for fun and as far as i can see, there are no Professional Risk players here

And every1 should be treated equally and fairly when it comes to having there feedback moderated.......

Anything else?

What about 4/5 areas and you can score the player and that will go towards an overall average.

areas could be. Tactics, teamwork, character, etc etc

It would show a single % next to their Name, but if you wanted a bit more detail the breakdown woud be on the players profile page

Example:
You then see at a glance that a player may have good tactics but be a bit of an arse.

How about having feedback based on respect points! you are allowed to give -1, 0, 1 or 2.

the more respect points you have , the more respected player you are! You are only allowed to give respect points to a player once!

Don't allow 'freemiums' feedback.

firstholliday wrote:Don't allow 'freemiums' feedback.

why not? whats wrong with us? dont stereotype us

lozzini wrote:

firstholliday wrote:Don't allow 'freemiums' feedback.

why not? whats wrong with us? dont stereotype us

i had never even thought of this... but, the 3 times i did receive negative feedbacks, they were from freemiums that were pissed that they lost to me (in one, the guy didn't like that he had been eliminated, and thought it was unfair i didn't give him a "chance" to win). none of them justified, and all removed with simple PM's asking the writers to do so. it is kind of odd that someone that pops onto the site for a few weeks, can leave someone a negative that can impact their reputation and ability to join games, without any consequence to themselves. perhaps, freemiums should only be allowed to receiver feedback from premiums and leave feedback after they have completed a certain amount of games. now THAT is interesting...-0

surely if you are setting a minimum game limit for feedback it should be for everyone - which is a gr8 idea

It's possible to allow for feedback without allowing comments- a simple group of checkboxes from 1-5 on questions that pertain to the game would work.

The questions would be things like, "Did the player take a proper amount of time for his turns?", or "Was the player a good sportsperson in general?", that sort of thing. And then an average of all the numbers could be displayed as a percentage.

My thoughts here would be two: 1) taking the time out to fill the boxes would delay the anger that prompt so many posts, which is why I might also suggest a 24 hour wait before posting, and 2) by eliminating the ability to write anything you want would stop a lot of personal comments that just don't have anything to do with anything, really.

Oh: and it would stop a lot of the misspellings that are just painfully embarrassing to read.

ok... I think the feedback system is pretty good as it is. my view is that a feedback system should reflect a person's behavior and is the equvilant of a reputation, obviously people who break treaties, agreements, alliances, truces, etc. should be negged with a short description of the crime. The problem with just rating people's character on a number scale is it doesn't tell people looking at somebody else's feedback just what this persod did to get that number. Feedback should also reflect your stance on some of the "ethical grey areas" of CC rules, such how seriously you take your word when you just mention something in game chat like "I won't attack you any time soon". for things like this, people should be able to leave neutral feedback if the other person doesn't put any value on such statements at all. It's not much of a formal agreement, but some people can take such statements seriously. And players should scan through other player's feedback before making agreements with them. So I'm not proposing any radical changes. (although the discussion on fremiums not being able to leave feedback for a certain amount of games is interesting, that's a fine idea.)

BUT, what I want is the Mods to put some order to the feedback system. Offer better feedback guidelines, such as criteria for what should deserve a neutral or negative feedback. Are negs just for actual crimes, or is it also ok to neg somebody because they acted incredibly stupid in a game (suiciding or something, etc.)? So, I want you guys to figure out what should constitute basis for a negative feedback, and then write what you decide more explicitly on the rules and on the "Leave Feedback" page, instead of just saying what we can't do, like leave retaliatory feedback. Btw, the current "Guidelines for leaving feedback:" on that page sucks, and is too vague and open to interpretation. Just incase you haven't gotten the idea yet, I don't like it when things are vague and open to interpretation, because you get a bunch of wierd acusations of rule-breaking and a lot of "questionable activity". Rules should be specific.

wow, i wrote a lot.

TheTeacher wrote:*insert a bunch of crap about breaking treaties and wanting more specific rules for feedback*

as my eyes glazed over and i nodded off a half dozen times, i thought to myself, "is this ever going to end?" however, now that i have finished it, and am well rested from my several naps, let me comment on your academic journal.

i complete agree that the guidelines for leaving feedback should be far more rigid, especially concerning negative feedbacks. so, kudos on that part. however, from the portion of your novel about treaties, i would assume you leave negative feedbacks for people breaking truces, etc... to that, i roll my eyes. just don't get involved with them. nobody is going to honour a treaty to the point of losing whatever advantage they have gained. people will keep treaties until they know they have the advantange, and it is then over.

anyway, stricter guidelines, and keep freemiums from giving feedback until they have played a certain amount of games!! no way a person should be able to join the site, play 10 games, become frustrated by losing, and tarnish other players reputations with bogus feedback that will last longer than the freemiums stay at Conquer Club-0