At least it's official now, 3 = average!

[barterer2002]

so let me put it out there this way.

Here's how I'm going to view the attendance feedback.

1. Anyone who deadbeats out
2. Misses multiple turns but never quite deadbeats out for whatever reason
3. Misses a turn but play most of the game. May miss a couple of turns in a really long game.
4. Never misses a turn but pushes the envelope on it consistently.
5. Always takes turns, usually within the first 12 hours or so.

Now what you're telling me, from what I've read here is that you think that I should only give a 5 to someone who is taking turns within minutes, essentially RTing me. And apparently I'm an idiot for having a different level of standards than what you do. Personally I find my own standards to be fairly simple for me to remember which, for an idiot, is important of course. They're also somewhat subjective of course but not too much so as I can see anyone who misses a turn isn't going to rate higher than a three there. That keeps my ratings safe from my own idiocy. However, clearly my reasoning levels aren't nearly as great as yours and so you should please sign in for me and do my ratings so that everything is consistent.

[Bones2484]

And apparently I'm an idiot for having a different level of standards than what you do.

Not only that, but you "fucked up the system". Shame on you Bart. Shame. On. You.

[zimmah]

and like i said, people like you do undermine the system, because now the whole rating system has become totaly useless. thanks for fucking up the system.

Because I give 5's to people who keep me entertained in chat, don't cheat, and keep the games moving at a quick pace? While giving 3's to people who don't talk, make some shady play, and take 22 hours (or miss an occasional turn)?

Grow up, child.

because, people like you inflate the worth of the ratings as a whole, and therefore make any ranking useless. because now noone has a clue about any rating anyways. so thanks to that, ratings has became useless. duh

[Bones2484]

and like i said, people like you do undermine the system, because now the whole rating system has become totaly useless. thanks for fucking up the system.

Because I give 5's to people who keep me entertained in chat, don't cheat, and keep the games moving at a quick pace? While giving 3's to people who don't talk, make some shady play, and take 22 hours (or miss an occasional turn)?

Grow up, child.

because, people like you inflate the worth of the ratings as a whole, and therefore make any ranking useless. because now noone has a clue about any rating anyways. so thanks to that, ratings has became useless. duh

Because I don't have the same opinions on what constitutes a 4 vs, say, a 5 as you? The ratings are subjective.

[zimmah]

so let me put it out there this way.

Here's how I'm going to view the attendance feedback.

1. Anyone who deadbeats out
2. Misses multiple turns but never quite deadbeats out for whatever reason
3. Misses a turn but play most of the game. May miss a couple of turns in a really long game.
4. Never misses a turn but pushes the envelope on it consistently.
5. Always takes turns, usually within the first 12 hours or so.

Now what you're telling me, from what I've read here is that you think that I should only give a 5 to someone who is taking turns within minutes, essentially RTing me. And apparently I'm an idiot for having a different level of standards than what you do. Personally I find my own standards to be fairly simple for me to remember which, for an idiot, is important of course. They're also somewhat subjective of course but not too much so as I can see anyone who misses a turn isn't going to rate higher than a three there. That keeps my ratings safe from my own idiocy. However, clearly my reasoning levels aren't nearly as great as yours and so you should please sign in for me and do my ratings so that everything is consistent.

i think the above standard i nearly the one i suggested. i didn't really mean someone should take his turn literally in minutes, just quite fast (between 3 to 6 hours i consider fast, 6 to 12 hours or so is still good enough for 4 stars and anything slower then that a 3, unless you miss turns, that would be a 2, and if you deadbeat would definitly be a 1. so not much unlike your rating here.

and taking your turn within 3 to 6 hours is reasonably (in casual games) still it doesn't occur that much to give everyone a 5 star rating.

and off course you shouldn't really have to put a timer on everyone, just try to give everyone a rating as fair as possible.

and i'm not stating everyone who has a differnt standard is an idiot, i'm just stating that because of all the differnt standards, the whole system is fucked up. we need to get 1 simple standard and everyone should follow that guidelines. if not, you might as well not rate, because then the rating system is fucked, like it's now.

seriously how can you tell a good guy apart from a bad one, if everyone has different standards, and noone is allowed to leave comments? tell me.


btw no need to flame me, it' not flame wars. i'm actually trying to IMPROVE the system and ot f*ck it up. so either answer normally or don't answer.


most people don't even understand the whole concept of a plain simple 5 star rating, i thought it was just common knowledge but it seems like it's very difficult to understand a 3 star rating is considered 'average'

[zimmah]

The ratings are subjective.

wrong, because if they were, there wouldn't be much of a rating now would there?

[Bones2484]

The ratings are subjective.

wrong, because if they were, there wouldn't be much of a rating now would there?

So where are the magical guidelines that everyone is supposed to memorize in order to rate everyone they play against?

Last time I checked, this didn't exist and we are supposed to make our own estimations on what people deserve. Thus, the ratings are subjective. If they weren't, the whole rating system would be automated and we'd never be able to put our own opinions into what grades we give.

And guess what? Your example about movies/restaurants/etc use subjective ratings. Not everyone has the same grading scale or the same tastes. There is no "guideline" for critics that they have to strictly follow (whatever the industry might be). They all have their own personal guidelines on what they view as poor/mediocre/good.

And if I view good on CC to mean someone who moves the game quickly, doesn't cheat/deadbeat/throw a game, gives me an entertaining chat while we play... then I am damn well allowed to give them 5's if I damn well choose.

And if you view good on CC to mean someone who moves the game quickly, goes beyond normal "fair play", gives you the most exhilarating chat you've ever seen... then you are damn well allowed to give THAT person a 5.

The ratings are subjective.

[lackattack]

Since it was obviously needed I just updated the instructions and rate page with a clear scale for stars:

The number of stars given should be based on this scale:

1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.

[firth4eva]

We need it for the page where you award feedback.

[Bones2484]

Since it was obviously needed I just updated the instructions and rate page with a clear scale for stars:

The number of stars given should be based on this scale:

1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.

Thank you Lack, greatly appreciated.

Although this still means that the ratings are subjective.

I just don't understand why some people can't understand that what I view as "excellent" is different than what they view as "excellent"... and there is no problem with that.

The previous system allowed for personal opinion and so does the new one (on a larger scale). And even if 3 doesn't turn out to be the average of all the accounts then that is ok. Think of it as a curve at school. The bad people (not players, people) on this site will drive the average up since they make everyone else look so good.

[zimmah]

Since it was obviously needed I just updated the instructions and rate page with a clear scale for stars:

The number of stars given should be based on this scale:

1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.

Thank you Lack, greatly appreciated.

Although this still means that the ratings are subjective.

I just don't understand why some people can't understand that what I view as "excellent" is different than what they view as "excellent"... and there is no problem with that.

The previous system allowed for personal opinion and so does the new one (on a larger scale). And even if 3 doesn't turn out to be the average of all the accounts then that is ok. Think of it as a curve at school. The bad people (not players, people) on this site will drive the average up since they make everyone else look so good.

you are either really dumb or really stubborn, either way it's very annoying:

Ratings are valuable indicators of your reputation on Conquer Club. They are publicly viewable and stay on your record. Ratings can be useful to find good opponents and avoid bad ones.

Whenever leaving ratings, use caution and good judgement. You are responsible for the ratings that you leave and they become a permanent part of the other member's record, so be sure to leave only fair and factual ratings that relate to the member's behaviour in the game.
Oh, and please be a good sport and earn yourself a decent rating. In the future we will release a tool for members to block those with low ratings from joining their games!

how are we going to have a fair rating system if everyone just messes around with the ratings? therefore, the ratings are not ment to be subjective

[Bones2484]

you are either really dumb or really stubborn, either way it's very annoying:

Ratings are valuable indicators of your reputation on Conquer Club. They are publicly viewable and stay on your record. Ratings can be useful to find good opponents and avoid bad ones.

Whenever leaving ratings, use caution and good judgement. You are responsible for the ratings that you leave and they become a permanent part of the other member's record, so be sure to leave only fair and factual ratings that relate to the member's behaviour in the game.
Oh, and please be a good sport and earn yourself a decent rating. In the future we will release a tool for members to block those with low ratings from joining their games!

how are we going to have a fair rating system if everyone just messes around with the ratings? therefore, the ratings are not ment to be subjective

I appreciate you flaming me. It really helps get your point across when you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

I'd like for you to explain to me how these ratings (or the previous system) is not subjective. Just for help I have included the definition of the word below, since I don't believe you know what it means...

Subjective: relating to or determined by the mind as the subject of experience.

As far as I can tell, we are giving ratings based on how we perceive the opponent in the games we play against them. Everyone will have differing opinions on what "average" is or what "excellent" is. And again, I say, nothing is wrong with that. It will balance out if we give it some time.

[zimmah]

you know what? i'm done with you, go f*ck up he ratings if you like. have fun with guessing around if a player is worth spending time with or not. is that what you want? i can hardly imagine!

you are missing the point here. the whole rating system is created so we can all easily see who is fun to play with and who isn't. and to make this system working, we must have a clear scale to see who is nice and who is not.

and yes, someone can be really fun in one game and less fun in another, but it will eventually average out for most regular players, and it will get the bad players to have a worse rating then everyone else, so they will not be likely to be accepted in much games anymore unless they change their behavoir and get their ranking up a little.

but if everyone just gives out subjective rating it will not work at all

i am not trying to insult you, i do not want to have arguments with you or anyone else here. but i do want a Rating systems that tells me if someone is a good sport with a nice attitude and that is trustworthy. so instead of flaming on each other i suggest we find a sollution we are all happy with.

[suggs]

It would just be easier if went back to the old system.

[Bones2484]

you know what? i'm done with you, go f*ck up he ratings if you like. have fun with guessing around if a player is worth spending time with or not. is that what you want? i can hardly imagine!

you are missing the point here. the whole rating system is created so we can all easily see who is fun to play with and who isn't. and to make this system working, we must have a clear scale to see who is nice and who is not.

and yes, someone can be really fun in one game and less fun in another, but it will eventually average out for most regular players, and it will get the bad players to have a worse rating then everyone else, so they will not be likely to be accepted in much games anymore unless they change their behavoir and get their ranking up a little.

but if everyone just gives out subjective rating it will not work at all

i am not trying to insult you, i do not want to have arguments with you or anyone else here. but i do want a Rating systems that tells me if someone is a good sport with a nice attitude and that is trustworthy. so instead of flaming on each other i suggest we find a sollution we are all happy with.

This is what I don't get. Why are you freaking out when we are basically saying the same thing? I completely agree with what you are saying, and I believe that we DO have a solution that we all can be happy with. Certain people are just so hung up on the fact that not everyone has the exact same view of what each star means on each of the four areas that are being graded. ie: Someone might believe that a 5 star in Attendance means a player takes a turn every 6 hours while I believe it to be every 8. Is that REALLY that big of a deal?

I don't disagree with anything you have said other than you claiming that the ratings aren't subjective. I am not saying that people should treat 1 or 5 as "average" since it is clear that this is what 3 means. By subjective I only mean that people can interpret what "excellent" or "average" means to them however they would like and how their opponents fit these descriptions.

Have you even read what I've been saying, or are you so hung up on the word "subjective" that you can't see past your own ideas?

[BaldAdonis]

It would just be easier if went back to the old system.

Not for the mods, they're having fun laughing at this instead of replying to angry feedback requests.

[zimmah]

at least it's official now, 3 is the average

[barterer2002]

But what does the word Average mean?

[Bones2484]

But what does the word Average mean?

Zimmah. What Bart said is my point.

I will not argue about 3 being the average. It has been said by the admins and thus it will be.

All I'm trying to say is that people will have varying ideas on what average is and how they relate an experience with a player to the score that they give. Nothing more. This is the part that is subjective.

[edbeard]

at least it's official now, 3 is the average

I don't think 3 being 'official' means squat.

What's going to happen to players that use 5 as a basis and go down from there? Nothing.


Also, it's way easier to see differences in people if you use 5 as a basis and go down from there. That's what the rating system is all about. Separating the bad from the good.

But only time will tell if the system actually works or (more likely) everyone has generally the same score so it's almost worthless.

[zimmah]

But what does the word Average mean?

Zimmah. What Bart said is my point.

I will not argue about 3 being the average. It has been said by the admins and thus it will be.

All I'm trying to say is that people will have varying ideas on what average is and how they relate an experience with a player to the score that they give. Nothing more. This is the part that is subjective.

here is my answer:

average means normal/regular/ something you see everyday 'not good, not bad either' just like i guess 80% of CC should get 3 stars, that's average. if 80% of the people would get 5, then 3 wouldn't be average anymore and then there's something wrong with the ratings. because 3 is the average which means either most of the people should havea rating of 3, or the amount of 5's compared to 1 and 4's compared to 2's is about the same, so the average score of the community as a whole averages out at about 3

since i think it's quite impossible that everyone has exactly the same rating, i think it should be the latter. so:

if you would count up all the (overal) ratings of all players and divide that number by the number of players you counted, you should get 3 as a result, or at least pretty close to 3. then it's average.

therefore: a player with more then 3 stars (let's say 3.5 overal) is considered to be 'slightly above average' so 'just a bit more kind then others'

what do you consider being kind is up to you, and noone can tell but you. however i guess everyone would agree with me a player insulting, cursing or using rasism in chat is not to be considered an average person (unless 80% of the community does this, then it is considered average) so that persons would get either 1 or 2 stars, whether you give 1 or 2 stars will be decided by how badly you think someone behaves.

please keep in mind for fair play: it means how fair someone is, so how much 'respect to the rules' does someone has. and since alliances (as long as agreed in game chat, and not in personal messages) is perfectly legit, therefore rating someone a low rating for creating alliances is actually wrong, even if they team up against you! (as long as it's a legit team up) if they backstab however, it's poor fair play, so they deserve a poor rating too.

[zimmah]

at least it's official now, 3 is the average

I don't think 3 being 'official' means squat.

What's going to happen to players that use 5 as a basis and go down from there? Nothing.


Also, it's way easier to see differences in people if you use 5 as a basis and go down from there. That's what the rating system is all about. Separating the bad from the good.

But only time will tell if the system actually works or (more likely) everyone has generally the same score so it's almost worthless.

read the rules, hover your mouse over the stars, you'll see i'm correct. they changed it now. so you'd better stick to it if you want to have a usefull rating, cuz if you don't stick to the official way of rating, you are abusing the rating.

[zimmah]

at least it's official now, 3 is the average

good.

But only time will tell if the system actually works or (more likely) everyone has generally the same score so it's almost worthless.

everyone should have about the same score, at least if they almost behave the same way, only people that behave better/worse should have a better/worse rating then anyone else. it's not like the whole community has to have 5 stars.

at least you'll be able to tell who's a likely deadbeater/slow player or you can tell if someone is just plain rude in the chat or anything.

and yes, most players will get an 'average' rating, so what? you think you're better in any way then the mayority of CC?

btw, if you leave everyone at a 5, everyone will still have the same rating. just higher. so you'll effectifly deflate the rating, nothing more. and the last thing i'd like to see is a rating deflation

[zimmah]

ie: Someone might believe that a 5 star in Attendance means a player takes a turn every 6 hours while I believe it to be every 8. Is that REALLY that big of a deal?

no, as long as you can still effictefly tell the deadbeaters etc. apart from the rest. because that is after the whole point of the ranking system.

so the rating might be a bit subjective, however they should at some degree have some kind of standard. otherwise you'll not be able to tell who's good and who's bad

[edbeard]

at least it's official now, 3 is the average

I don't think 3 being 'official' means squat.

What's going to happen to players that use 5 as a basis and go down from there? Nothing.


Also, it's way easier to see differences in people if you use 5 as a basis and go down from there. That's what the rating system is all about. Separating the bad from the good.

But only time will tell if the system actually works or (more likely) everyone has generally the same score so it's almost worthless.

read the rules, hover your mouse over the stars, you'll see i'm correct. they changed it now. so you'd better stick to it if you want to have a usefull rating, cuz if you don't stick to the official way of rating, you are abusing the rating.

lol. you're quite high on yourself on this. average doesn't necessarily mean the same to everyone.

It's my right to rate people as I see fit and your right to rate people as you see fit. Don't tell people how to rate when they're just doing what they see as right. That's quite arrogant of you.

This is completely different than people who are giving 1 and 2s to everyone for no reason or for spite. They are the ones abusing the system.


Though to be honest, as long as everyone is rating people equally (all of their 3s mean the same thing. all of their 5s mean the same thing etc...) then it doesn't really matter. It's impossible to get everyone on the same scale when the numbers are subjective. If you were to convert everyone's scores to a normalized scale, that would probably help out.