jrh_cardinal wrote:My points are perfectly valid. I know that he current rating scale isn't perfect, I'm stating my opinion why this new system will not work, you're saying why you think it will. Respond to my points or don't comment from now on, thanks.
If your points have no meaning in this debate, then there's no point wasting time discussing them. All of the arguments that are potential reasons why people might not change their ratings attitude are irrelevant, because they're pure speculation. As long as there are legitimate reasons why people might actually change the way they rate (which there are), then the change is worth a shot. Neither of us can accurately predict how people will respond to this change. It is my belief that people will rate more as a result of this change being put into place, and as a result, the ratings system will become more accurate, which is the goal here. Furthermore, even if people don't rate more, the mean score will still be about 0, and having the center of the scale be the mean is ideal, which is reason enough to implement this change.
Yes, it would be ideal if people would use all 5 stars from the beginning, so that the average was 3. But since people tend to rate in such a way that the average is heavily skewed towards the tail of the scale, clearly we need to try something new if we ever want it to change.
Ans no, I don't agree. I have conceded all of the stuff I can not prove, such as motivation, to say why even if your ideas work exactly as you want them to, we will still be worse off.
I'm tired of saying the same things twice with no substance from you in the middle. If you are going to continue to spew out bs like this without responding to my actual point, I'm not going to respond.
I'm not "spewing out BS," and that's an unfair way to avoid responding to what I'm saying. I've answered your points reasonably by observing that none of what you said shows that we'll be worse off
. The only point that even comes close to that is your claim that because most people will have a score with magnitude no higher than 0.2, it will be harder for clans and other groups to figure out who the good (and bad) players are. What you fail to also observe is that since the current scale now has everyone more or less at 4.8 plus or minus 0.2, this can't make the system any worse. Furthermore, it gives you more room at the top of the spectrum to figure out who the truly exceptional players are - having a 4.9 or 5.0 does not indicate greatness currently, because people are so free with their 5's. Anyone who scored above 0.2 in the new system would actually be legitimately highly rated, and so you could find players that way.
The reason why it's a bad idea to discard players with ratings under 4.6, for clans, is that it effectively reinforces the pettiness of the current system. You're encouraging players to artificially inflate the ratings system in order to make themselves look better. Someone with a 4.4 rating ought to actually be a very good player, if you consider the scale objectively. Plus, all it takes is a few vindictive 1's from spiteful players to bring down a newer player's average - and I know that's happened to all of us. This is why I have no sympathy for that argument - the best way to fix the system is to reward people for giving honest ratings. Barring that, the next best thing is what was suggested here.
No, incorrect. Another thing I conceded in order to conclude that even if it works out perfectly for you guys most people's rating will be 0 so it will still be a bad change. I think that either people will continue to not rate, or in your utopia, people will continue to rate high, as you proved in your own post a while back (another thing you stopped responding to).
That doesn't make it a bad change, that just means that some of our goals might not be achieved. And no, I didn't "prove" that people will continue to rate high. I actually observed that people will be motivated to simply give more ratings in the hopes that players will rate them back highly - and players may rate them back, and give them low ratings, but that's a good thing if it means people are giving honest ratings. I find it unlikely that if players get low ratings, they'll suddenly stop giving out ratings - we don't see that in the current system, and there's even more of a motivation now in that sense, since low ratings affect you more.
So you're worried about what someone who you gave a 1 thinks about you? Personally, anyone that is deserving of me giving a 1, I'd rather never play again anyway, at least not for a while.
Again, you're outright enforcing the terribleness of the current system. It is true that in many cases now, people give spiteful 1's, perhaps because they didn't like your personality in game chat and so they rate you a 1 for gameplay. Still, if someone legitimately thinks you're a bad player and rates you a 1, you're going to just ignore them? Above, you said that I need to respond to your points and not ignore them. Are you not going to apply that logic to your own situation? Are you so convinced that you are absolutely a great player that you're not even willing to consider someone else's point of view on the matter?
If someone gives me a non-spite 1, it means that in some way I wasn't doing a good job, and I certainly care when people tell me that. If you don't care about the same, then why are you even bothering discussing the ratings system?
Below average is not a criticism?
It's not a huge
criticism. Please don't take my words out of context just to try to win a point - it's childish.