What do YOU want out of a feedback system?

[owenshooter]

"Did the player take a proper amount of time for his turns?"

sooo, if i have 24 hours for a turn, and i take 23 and a half hours for my turn, you are going to leave me a negative? see how VAGUE that is already? we are looking for stricter guidelines, not more vagueness!!! this could lead to my getting a negative for taking 12 hours to take my turn, instead of the amount of time my opponents THINK i should be taking. missing turns is not grounds for a negative, why should taking too long to take a turn be grounds for a neg? sigh...-0

[Kaplowitz]

bragging rights.

[KoE_Sirius]

"Did the player take a proper amount of time for his turns?"

sooo, if i have 24 hours for a turn, and i take 23 and a half hours for my turn, you are going to leave me a negative? see how VAGUE that is already? we are looking for stricter guidelines, not more vagueness!!! this could lead to my getting a negative for taking 12 hours to take my turn, instead of the amount of time my opponents THINK i should be taking. missing turns is not grounds for a negative, why should taking too long to take a turn be grounds for a neg? sigh...-0

I'm not...I say delete the feedback system .Everytime I leave a negative I get one back hence the 12 next to my name .Then when I leave a Negative out of shear frustration .I either delete it myself or a Mod steps in and argues the edition,because I haven't worded it correctly .Get rid Get rid Get rid !!!

[Snorri1234]

"Did the player take a proper amount of time for his turns?"

sooo, if i have 24 hours for a turn, and i take 23 and a half hours for my turn, you are going to leave me a negative? see how VAGUE that is already? we are looking for stricter guidelines, not more vagueness!!! this could lead to my getting a negative for taking 12 hours to take my turn, instead of the amount of time my opponents THINK i should be taking. missing turns is not grounds for a negative, why should taking too long to take a turn be grounds for a neg? sigh...-0

I'm not...I say delete the feedback system .Everytime I leave a negative I get one back hence the 12 next to my name .Then when I leave a Negative out of shear frustration .I either delete it myself or a Mod steps in and argues the edition,because I haven't worded it correctly .Get rid Get rid Get rid !!!

EVERYTIME I LEAVE POSITIVE I GET NOTHING!

NOTHING YOU HEAR ME!


BUNCH OF UPTIGHT WANKERS!!!

[0ojakeo0]

Abilities to give ridiculous and absolutley false negative feedbacks and retaliatory feedbacks

[roelbianca]

Get rid of it!!

[BADPAT]

System in general is oke but needs a few adjustments.

Lots of feedback isnt according to the guidelines. Specially not all the cursing and name calling thats written in it.

You can say what ever you like in them as long as you mark the "This feedback meets the guidelines" box.

In my opinion you should eiher put a filter on the feedback system or get yourselfs more mods that can help you with dealing with feedback thats not posted according to CC guidlines quicker.

Also keep in mind we have loads of minors playing ( they probably doing the most cursing).
CC can say it has a liberal stance on whats been said in games or feedbacks but i do think it has a responsibility as well to protect members from cursing and namecalling.

just my 2 cents.

[jiminski]

An Integrated system may play to all audiences.

firstly, this relies upon doing away with the old style positive/negative feedback, replacing it with an averaged mark out of 10, for 4 categories, displayed in your profile, the system should be almost entirely self-contained and self-regulated (barring foul language):

A Rating 1-10 for:
1. Attendance and Promptness
2. Strategy and Skill
3. Politeness
4. Entertainment

Like a ranking on-line for a restaurant, the ratings are entirely subjective and irrevocable! no wingeing to mods to get a '3' changed to an '8' for entertainment, due to the funny joke you told! If you are a good player and person the minority of idiots (not you Daz, I like my neg) who abuse the system will be negated by the majority!

Running alongside the displayed rating system and in the same place as the old Feedback (with pos/neg rating removed) we have facility to write a Comment

I think it will work, as the initiation of ratings for various titles will free up the Comment/feedback and lessen the burden upon the mods, who only need adjudicate on matters of foul language and nastiness.

In so doing you could accommodate all those who wish to write more surreal prose
eg: "The truculent herring chose this endeavour to rear his ugly offspring! damn your cheeky dervish! for there will be hell to pay when Seraphine wears her jodhpurs!"

and those who wish to just write more game related details
eg: "good skilled opponent. knows what he is doing. We got unlucky with the dice"

both schools of thought being equally valid in their own way!

[Robinette]

An Integrated system may play to all audiences.

firstly, this relies upon doing away with the old style positive/negative feedback, replacing it with an averaged mark out of 10, for 4 categories, displayed in your profile, the system should be almost entirely self-contained and self-regulated (barring foul language):

A Rating 1-10 for:
1. Attendance and Promptness
2. Strategy and Skill
3. Politeness
4. Entertainment

Like a ranking on-line for a restaurant, the ratings are entirely subjective and irrevocable! no wingeing to mods to get a '3' changed to an '8' for entertainment, due to the funny joke you told! If you are a good player and person the minority of idiots (not you Daz, I like my neg) who abuse the system will be negated by the majority!

Running alongside the displayed rating system and in the same place as the old Feedback (with pos/neg rating removed) we have facility to write a Comment

I think it will work, as the initiation of ratings for various titles will free up the Comment/feedback and lessen the burden upon the mods, who only need adjudicate on matters of foul language and nastiness.

In so doing you could accommodate all those who wish to write more surreal prose
eg: "The truculent herring chose this endeavour to rear his ugly offspring! damn your cheeky dervish! for there will be hell to pay when Seraphine wears her jodhpurs!"

and those who wish to just write more game related details
eg: "good skilled opponent. knows what he is doing. We got unlucky with the dice"

both schools of thought being equally valid in their own way!

I LIKE IT!

[armyman44us]

Feedback should be free speach. Although no harassment and no untrue things, kinda obvious :P

sry, free speech do include both harassment and untrue comments..so by ur definition, thats not free, thats confined free, and which arent free actually. check the dictionary.com for free definition

[armyman44us]

take off the moderating of feedback comments. that's all.
agreed, since the feedback comment is pretty useless and we only need a note for previous cheaters and 1 comment can count it for all...

i mean the point is, ok having 100-0 means nothing than u are a good player and it does not improve ur rank actually..i mean 100-0 with 0-0 can be both scoring 1000 points though..

since that does not stand for winning percentage, which is what we really need, i mean
i suggest, its kinda not related but, the winning percentage instead of the feedback..of course there is when u go inside that player' stat and profile but thats not showing at the first place and u need to click around which is very annoying and stupid...

what the system should provide is the winning percentage for each player so u know whose big winner though...i mean feedbacks,,yes keep it but not denoted like right now..i think they should both switch places...lol

[jiminski]

I LIKE IT!

Yeas i know.. but what about my feedback proposal!? ^^

[what,me worry?]

Have seperate star rankings for

1. strategy/ tactics
2.Attendance (turns missed/ deadbeat/ speed of turns)
3. citizenship (behavior)
4. Overall

Have 0-5 stars that you can pick for each or create your own levels ie; poor, average, good, great, perfect

After submitted, your ranking get averaged

[PLAYER57832]

1. no distinction between freemium and premium, but DO limit newbies ability to post.
Newbies don't really understand the "culture" yet and often leave meaningless, though well intentioned, feedback (myself included, by-the-way).


INSTEAD: have a separate new player ranking. For first five ... or maybe even first 20 or so? they will get one question ... was player nice or even helpful. This will be a separate ranking from regular feedback.

Experienced players PLAYING newbies might also have a different rating.
key issues : did player deadbeat, miss turns?
was player abusive or nasty in chat?
Did player whine and complain about "dice", "unfair" tactics (not unnannounced alliances, but things that are legal) , etc.

These newbie ratings will be listed separate from other feedback and will expire after, say 2-3 months of active play OR about 50 games. (inactive player rankings will remain in case they come back .. until profile is deleted/expires)


TEAM Play should also have a separate ranking. This covers things that matter ONLY, or primarily to team play.

Specifics:
1. does person communicate? (do they speak English well enough to be understood?) I won't team with someone who doesn't speak my languages (note the "s", please), but I am happy to play them otherwise.
2. Are they just a poor teammate in another way? Do they try to dictate strategy, though they have less experience, fewer wins? etc.
3. ???? sugggestions I don't play teams much ...

FOR EXPERIENCED PLAYERS:

I like a rating system. I want to know:
1. does person deadbeat or miss turns excessively OR without a reason. Here comments ARE important. For example, if someone is forbidden from playing on Saturday,they will miss turns, but I consider that acceptable .. some folks might not. Also, some folks have to travel a lot or may be in the military .. again, if I know, I will excuse it, but others may not.

2. Swearing. I put foul language speakers on my ignore list, but that is a choice.

3. Chat -- Abuse OTHER THAN swearing. Excessive whining or complaining about things like dice, drop, etc. ... trying to dictate play of other players ... insulting or belittling other players ... etc.

4. reports of cheating, NOT cleared. I want to know if someone has 20 accusations against them before taking them on in a 3-way game. On the other hand, 1 or two complaints may not even be founded.

5. "dirty", but not illegal, tactics --- perhaps person tends to form alliances with the same people (but not in regular teams),

6. number of negative and nuetral comments the person has LEFT. A person who leaves a lot of negatives either considers them a "game" or is probably not that nice. I can find this by looking, but that takes time.

TOURNAMENT PLAY:

I have no experience here, but can imagine it has its own issues. It should be rated, too.

[matt c.]

keep it the way it is, but maybe have like those 5 star rating things

[PLAYER57832]

"Did the player take a proper amount of time for his turns?"

sooo, if i have 24 hours for a turn, and i take 23 and a half hours for my turn, you are going to leave me a negative? see how VAGUE that is already? we are looking for stricter guidelines, not more vagueness!!! this could lead to my getting a negative for taking 12 hours to take my turn, instead of the amount of time my opponents THINK i should be taking. missing turns is not grounds for a negative, why should taking too long to take a turn be grounds for a neg? sigh...-0

I'm not...I say delete the feedback system .Everytime I leave a negative I get one back hence the 12 next to my name .Then when I leave a Negative out of shear frustration .I either delete it myself or a Mod steps in and argues the edition,because I haven't worded it correctly .Get rid Get rid Get rid !!!

Have you considered that maybe you have acted inappropriately? I have played over 2500 games and only had a bare handful of negative experiences. I have only left 2 negatives. You tend to get what you give .... everywhere

[laci_mae]

Thanks Wicked for trying to unify the discussion of this topic. I see the lack of use and approval of the feedback system as a cultural issue. Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned adopting a system similar to eBay's with the 5 point scales and option to leave a comment. These technical improvements will be beneficial, but eBay's system works because most users strive for positive feedback. After a purchase is complete, you are directed to the feedback page, and the seller will often send a reminder message after they have given you feedback. This is a cultural issue because the feedback is highly reliable, sought, and utilized. I don't regard the feedback at CC to be any of these things. Sure, a frequent deadbeat will have more negs, but the total feedback number is not anywhere near the total number of games played.

My main issue is this: Rank and feedback are the 2 descriptors of other players that appear next to their names. It's confusing to me that feedback is supposed to be so important (it made the top 2), but it is totally ignored by most players. I suggest a notice that pops up in the interaction menu next to My Feedback (i.e. New! or [# new]). This will prompt the recipient to check the new comment, and, most likely, reciprocate.

Best,
Laci

[Ditocoaf]

It seems a lot of the new suggestions are a lot like I mentioned back on page 4:

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.

This is like jminski's suggestion on page 5, but it combined his 'politeness' and 'entertainment' into just 'behavior.'

People seemed to like this. However, I don't think wicked's been reading this for a while.

[hairingtons]

Any news on a new feedback system yet?

Yet again i have been stiffed by the system. i have a feedback removed because "it is not factual" (i said the guy was a poor player/tactician) and his feedback which he only left as a retaliatory, is left to stand. (evidence being he sent me two PMs before the feedback telling me to remove my feedback).

once my current two games are done, i wont be logging in to CC until this shit is sorted out. i honestly thing that because ive been outspoken on a couple of things before, and may have upset the wrong people, that im being singled out.

more to the point as i have replied to MOD...Feedback rules have to be consistent. if mine is removed for being not factual surely half the feedback in CC can be removed!! including his for me, in which he stated opinion about my gameplay...as i did about his.

[gdeangel]

Some form of anonymous feedback would be nice. It could be just something like an anonymous poll, where you have the option to rate the player on a 1-10. So like now, I could leave a negative with my name and some comments (and obviously probably get some retaliatory negs back) when I play a bone-head, or just rate the play anonymously at like 1 being poor / 10 being A-list player.

[PLAYER57832]

The biggest problem is to separate those issues which are opinion, matter only to some and those which are truly unappreciated by just about everyone.I have given maybe 2 negatives.  One was for a player who announced on his second turn that he was going to lose and saw no reason to continue.  Bad enough, but then he came back and actually COMPLAINED that the game was the "most boring every".   The other was when someone not only tried to dictate how other players should play, but had to pm us all rather virulantly as well when we did not follow his dictates.Things I think most folks dislike: -- 1. backbiting, trying to dictate what other players do in singles games, particularly when they aren't exactly conquerer material. 2. deadbeating without a good reason.  3.constant complaints about the "dice" and failures to understand that random isn't "equal".4. missing a LOT of turns without a very good reason (religion won't allow them to play on Saturday, for example or they are in the military ..etc. I would call good reasons)  ESPECIALLY if the person seems to consistantly quit whenever losing5. Always forming alliances with the same people, even if announced.5. TEAM ISSUES:           a.  joining when you don't speak the language of the team.           b.  new folks who join, but won't listen to advice of more experienced teammates ... and losing as a result.           c. actual, intentional sabotage of teammates ... and not apologizing if by accident. Things that are serious matters to some, but not others:1. Cursing2. missing turns, even with a good reason.3. deadbeating no matter the cause.4. general poor sportsmanship.  Harder to define, but constant complaints about other players.Things about which there is no real agreement:1. Poor strategy -- in just who's opinion.  Too often those declaring "poor strategy" are themselves not exactly conquerer material.   Also, good players often like to experiment.  The fact that it doesn't work out isn't reason for a neg.2. Politely disagreeing on strategy in a team game, particularly when ranks, experience in the game are just about equal. (NOTE rank doesn't gaurantee experience in a particular game)3. forming   alliances properly announced.4. more general poor sportsmanship  -- harder to define, open to opinion.5. Teams -- just not "pulling one's weight".  Again, this is subject to opinion.  Sometimes dice are just bad.  And, a person may be a poor teammate, but fine in singles.  6. "doubling up" turns in freestyles games, sitting out a turn as "strategy" in any game type,  other plays not specifically forbidden in the rules, but disliked by some.

A final issue -- is this person nice to newer players.  This is probably of great concern to Lack, though not necessarily to general players.  The first few games often decide if someone will or will not "stic" with CC, perhaps go premium. 

[gdeangel]

Going through your list, player, and perhaps unfairly coopting it to my suggestion of an anonymous ratings system, I would boil down what you said (all of which I agree with, maybe not in same order) to being able to rate players on scale of say, 1 to 5 or 1 to 10 based on:

1) Consistency of play (this would be things like not deadbeating, etc.)
2) Attitude (are they fun to play against / with ... whatever that means to you (e.g., cursing in chat? dictating?)
3) Team Support (need and NA option here, but both teammates and opponents should be able to rate on this as often your on the other side saying if he fortifies his teamate here, they've got the game, and of course the guy doesnt' fortify and you win).
4) Skill (you didn't mention this, but it's got to be there somewhere)

I think you can't really do more than five areas of rating or else it become unmanageable and then nobody will also take the time to fill it out.

[laci_mae]

A 7 point scale is the most likely to be reliable if you have positive and negative anchors.
* Example: Player takes turns promptly and consistently. 1= Strongly disagree, 4 = Neutral, and 7 = Strongly Agree

I would recommend a 6 point scale if there is one positive and one null anchor.
* Example: Player takes turns promptly and consistently. 0 = Never, 1 = almost never, 5 = almost always

For either scale (for our purposes), questions must be carefully worded so that the highest value represents the desirable outcome.

LMR

[PLAYER57832]

Right now, I feel like a kind of "check off" system would be better than a rating.

Why? Because a lot of things that are big for some don't matter to others or are hard to assess. Deadbeating and missed turns are big reasons I actually READ negative feedback. Most people are understanding when emergencies or even regular religious issues come up (no Saturdays, for example). In a rating system, those distinctions would be too blurred.

ON the other hand, it takes time to read through, so a lot of people don't bother.

I definitely DON'T think it should be anonymous. People are much more likely to give unwarranted and irrational negatives if they can do so anonymously.

[Ditocoaf]

Do this!

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.

It's DiM approved!