Conquer Club

<King Achilles>


How can it be all right to leave negative feedback for an alliance that was CLEARLY agreed to in chat. I filed a help ticket through the proper system and King Achilles send me a note saying that negative feedback for truces is allowed even when agreed to in game chat. We had an alliance for 3 turns when the 3rd player held 3 bonus territories and half of the map, any intelligent player knows you have to fight the player holding the lead. After the 3rd round we went back to attacking each other. King Achilles has no clue what he is doing in the moderation of feedback. I still ask that the feedback from game #2445493 by George W. Bush be removed. Respectfully,

mbohn2

mbohn2 wrote:<King Achilles>


How can it be all right to leave negative feedback for an alliance that was CLEARLY agreed to in chat. I filed a help ticket through the proper system and King Achilles send me a note saying that negative feedback for truces is allowed even when agreed to in game chat. We had an alliance for 3 turns when the 3rd player held 3 bonus territories and half of the map, any intelligent player knows you have to fight the player holding the lead. After the 3rd round we went back to attacking each other. King Achilles has no clue what he is doing in the moderation of feedback. I still ask that the feedback from game #2445493 by George W. Bush be removed. Respectfully,

mbohn2

Amen. I don't even bother anymore. FYI, GWB is a great addition to your ignore list mbohn2.

You made an alliance in a 3 person game and you're wondering why you got negative feedback? Are you serious?

King is correct. It is legit to leave feedback anytime an alliance is made. Believe it or not, not everyone here likes alliances, and feedback is a tool to advise others how you play.

If you want to appeal any feedback decision, do so by responding to the email you received from etickets. This is not an abuse case, thread moved.

You are a retarded jack ass just like KA then... The 3rd player was holding 3 bonus areas to none for either of us...if you would like to be ASS HOLES and act like a truce at that point is in poor taste then go right ahead and act like the ignorant slobs you are. I suggest that if you are going to disallow truces that you make a freaking rule about it, otherwise negative feedback for legal parts of the game is ridiculous. And if you do decide to make a rule about it then you need to implement a surrender option so that a player doesn't have to go through tha last several turns for no friggin reason. Proving my point even further that the feedback moderation is an F-ing joke.
I have had SEVERAL feedbacks left by me DELETED for players working together until I WAS COMPLETELY eliminated, the partnership was announced in game chat as to eliminate me before attacking each other.....when I left feedback for each of them, my feedback was deleted because "alliances are an accepted part of the game". Now I get a bull shit different story when I try to remove a 3 round truce neg for me. You all need to get your heads out of your asses and and implement a consistent and FAIR system.

mbohn2 wrote:negative feedback for legal parts of the game is ridiculous.

Really? Feedbacks are allowed for everything from being a poor player to deadbeating, all legal aspects of the game.

Leaving feedbacks for alliances has always been allowed, since not everyone likes them. Yours may have been deleted for other reasons, I really can't say without seeing them. If you want to PM me with the ones you think you had wrongly deleted, I'll take a look.

Oh, and please keep the flaming to FW. I understand you're upset, but that's still not an excuse to result to flaming.

I think having a blanket statement that any alliance is grounds for negative feedback is silly. Open-ended, let's-just-kill-the-other-guy style alliances are inappropritae, non-strategic and not fun for anyone - I think this type of game play should be discouraged.

However, the whole strategic element of the threee man game is about knowing when to make your move to avoid the other two players ganging up on you. When someone takes a big lead in the 3-man game, the key strategy for the weaker players (especially the weakest player) is to negotiate a deal with the other guy to try to slow down the leader. Hence, one must be cautious in jumping out to a lead.

I would think someone complaining about alliances of any type in a 3-man game doesn't really understand game play - that poor understanding of risk, in fact, might be worthy of negative feedback

Skiman wrote:I would think someone complaining about alliances of any type in a 3-man game doesn't really understand game play - that poor understanding of risk, in fact, might be worthy of negative feedback

i would think that someone asking for alliances in any type of 3 player game on this site, is a poor player. i wouldn't neg them, but i doubt i'd play them again if i could avoid them (i don't like the foe list)...-0

wicked wrote:You made an alliance in a 3 person game and you're wondering why you got negative feedback? Are you serious?
King is correct. It is legit to leave feedback anytime an alliance is made. Believe it or not, not everyone here likes alliances, and feedback is a tool to advise others how you play.
If you want to appeal any feedback decision, do so by responding to the email you received from etickets. This is not an abuse case, thread moved.

wicked wrote:

mbohn2 wrote:negative feedback for legal parts of the game is ridiculous.

Really? Feedbacks are allowed for everything from being a poor player to deadbeating, all legal aspects of the game.

Leaving feedbacks for alliances has always been allowed, since not everyone likes them. Yours may have been deleted for other reasons, I really can't say without seeing them. If you want to PM me with the ones you think you had wrongly deleted, I'll take a look.

Oh, and please keep the flaming to FW. I understand you're upset, but that's still not an excuse to result to flaming.

Wicked, I can't help but feel that this is a perfect example of the inconstancy in feedback moderation that gets the blood of so many CC members boiling. You have not always held that "It is legit to leave feedback anytime an alliance is made," and I can prove this using an example from our own record together...

You and I have only played a single game together, game 1654630. In that game a third player, G.M. Albright, complained about a negative I had left him in game 1541767 for forming an alliance against me. Immediately after G.M. Albright (and also, perhaps coincidentally after I attacked you), you declared in game 1654630 that you had deleted the negative I had left Albright. The negative and responses to it are as follows:

Deleted
This match was in poor taste G.M.Albright formed a three on one alliance against me. I have talked to him about this and he continues to do it so now he is on my ignore list and he has earned his first negative. [edit]
G.M.Albright's response: Please. I've only been in 3 or four games with Gabon. He's beat me most of the time. As he started to dominate the board, I just encouraged others help put things in balance. That's usually the way most of these games go. I don't have anything personal against him. But I guess He'll be on my ignore too.
Deleted by moderator for this reason: getting attacked if you're the game leader is not a valid reason for feedback, it's how the game is played.

I am not posting this because I want to see my negative feedback restored to Albright's account. It's old news and I'm not going to take pleasure from doing damage to his account after all this time. I am somewhat annoyed that I have a thread in this forum complaining about the number of negative feedbacks I have had deleted but that is another issue entirely. Rather I am trying to bring attention to this one incident to exemplify the fact that there needs to be an objective standard which dictates what is and is not appropriate reasoning for leaving negative feedback.

After having my feedback to Albright deleted and reading the reasoning behind it I was under the impression that leaving negative feedback for an alliance is never legitimate. After having my feedback deleted I would tell players in other games to click the home tab and read where it says "Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader" when they would complain about alliances which I was a part of. If one of those players were to leave me a negative and it was not deleted I would be upset by this as I thought the rule was that "getting attacked if you're the game leader is not a valid reason for feedback." One could make the argument that it is only appropriate to form an alliance agains't the game leader but your assertion that "It is legit to leave feedback anytime an alliance is made" directly contradicts this.

The point of all of this is that it is impossible for a player to know if the feedback they are writing is inappropriate as the enforcement of policy is inconsistent. I would go as far as to say that many of the decisions which are made are not based on any official policy but rather on the quality of the relationship between a given moderator and a given member of the site. This is made worse by the seeming unwillingness of other moderators to the question validity of actions taken by there peers. The way to solve this problem is to have a list of specific causes which would warrant a negative comment posted somewhere on the site. Reasons I can think of are as follows:
1. Poor game play which negatively affects the outcome of another players game
2. Rudeness in chat
3. Missing too many turns
4. Deadbeating (3 turns missed in a row)
5. Forming alliances (I will now play under the assumption that forming alliances can warrant a negative but I ask that any negatives that I may receive from alliances formed before this post be deleted)
6. Being a poor team mate
7. Stalling
etc. as there are probably more. If people can think of them, please post them.

...On a side not I have two submitted E-Tickets which have gone unanswered for more than a month. There have been many responses to other feedback complaints in this time and I am beginning to think that I am being intentionally ignored.

*staring at GabonX, wondering if he realizes just how difficult his life in the forums is about to become* WELCOME TO THE DARK SIDE, BROTHER!!!-0

I decided against posting in here as I wasn't sure exactly how to put it. But then along came GabonX and made the point that needed to be made just perfectly, well said sir...

When someone is dominating the board... Instead of making a public truce, I just attack the person that is kicking the most ass. I dont think you need an alliance to attack the dominating player do you? It does suck to get a neg for a public alliance though... It does say that it is allowed, and you set it to 3 rounds. Thats pretty fair. I've seen people go for 5 rounds, then after 5 extend it a couple more. But anyway... I just like to stay out of alliances now.

I can't post too much about this now for a lot of reasons but keep your eyes peeled over the next week or two for some hints at how we've been working on fixing the "feedback issue" including the moderation system.

GabonX, I didn't have a chance to read your full post, but I will later once I get back (sorry, running out the door just now)

Hang in there, we'll get it right eventually
Twill

Gabon, there will always be slight inconsistencies when different people have to make judgment calls, even if they're going off the same set of rules. That is the human nature of the equation.

First of all, I was responding to mbohn in generalities, going off the info he provided, not actually looking at the game in question. I told him how to appeal his case. In your case, it was the group working together to balance the game, which is what happens in the game; there was never a declared specific alliance. Yes, I know they'll essentially give the same result, but me suggesting "hey if you attack red here it'll balance the game out, I can break his bonus over there" is different than "hey green, let's have a 5-round alliance to not attack each other." Use of the word "alliance" is pretty strong and means something specific (like "suicide").

If you're seeing inconsistencies from me, it's because I'm not here discussing an appeal, as it's not the appropriate place; I'm here talking about feedback in general. If you're seeing inconsistencies between the two feedback mods, then that's something we'll definitely look into; thanks for bringing it to my attention. At this point however, with a possible change to the feedback system looming, it might be a moot point.

wicked wrote:In your case, it was the group working together to balance the game, which is what happens in the game; there was never a declared specific alliance. Yes, I know they'll essentially give the same result, but me suggesting "hey if you attack red here it'll balance the game out, I can break his bonus over there" is different than "hey green, let's have a 5-round alliance to not attack each other." Use of the word "alliance" is pretty strong and means something specific (like "suicide").

Ah, so if I don't respond in words to a request for an alliance then they can't leave a neg. Really good to know...

wicked wrote:At this point however, with a possible change to the feedback system looming, it might be a moot point.

It's anything but a moot point. Knowing the specifics of a problem generally makes for much better fixes.

Thezz, nowhere did I say we didn't know the important issues with the current system. I myself started a thread in GD asking everyone to outline what they wanted out of a system. I think most everyone will pleased with what we're working on.

wicked wrote:

mbohn2 wrote:negative feedback for legal parts of the game is ridiculous.

Really? Feedbacks are allowed for everything from being a poor player to deadbeating, all legal aspects of the game.

Leaving feedbacks for alliances has always been allowed, since not everyone likes them. Yours may have been deleted for other reasons, I really can't say without seeing them. If you want to PM me with the ones you think you had wrongly deleted, I'll take a look.

Oh, and please keep the flaming to FW. I understand you're upset, but that's still not an excuse to result to flaming.

I am afraid I agree with those who say this is an example of inconsistancy and lack of clarity.

Personally, I don't make alliances very often. Out of maybe 4 times I have, only one was unregretted... that being when I was playing someone who decided to not just tell everyone how to play, but Pm as well. I was already losing and decided to form an alliance to be sure the jerk didn't win. Not proud of it (probably was manipulated anyway), but I am human.

I already responded to your feedback thread, but basically anything like alliances that are legal but disliked should be in a nuetral or some other form, not a neg. Negatives should be for univerally disliked things. REALLY poor sportsmanship, etc. Not the subjective or "grey issues".

If it seems like the point of my post was to pick on wicked it wasn't. I do disagree with the logic in play but I also realise that keeping up with us, the CC comunity, is probably a pain in the ass. It's human nature to react emotionaly, even in the context of an online forum so we do have to cut the mods some slack. The reason I used this example is because it all happened via the game chat meaning that I do not have to copy and paste PMs which may or may not still exist. Otherwise I may have just as readily used another example, possibly with another moderator.

With that said, my main issue, which I really want to drill in, is that it is unclear what can and cannot be written in a negative. Perhaps the new system which is being developed will make a list of more specific guidelines as to what can and cannot be said but if it is still largely text based as opposed to a number system confusion may occur. There are alot of references made regarding conversations between moderators as to what does any does not constitute reasoning for a negative. I have been able to pick up bits and pieces (if a player misses more than 3 turns in a game, if a player misses 3 turns in a row, and now that alliances can warrant negatives) of the results of these conversations but I am still unsure as to what the final outcomes were.

A list of guidelines based off of the outcomes of these conversations would make it crystal clear regarding what can and cannot be said. I don't like having my feedback deleted and if I understood ahead of time that what I was writing violated the rules, I would never write it.

I don't think you were picking on me at all Gabon. You saw a possible discrepancy and pointed it out, and did it in a manner much nicer than many others here would have. No system is going to be 100% perfect. What we have now worked well when the site was smaller. The new system will work with this site at it's current size, and probably twice this size as well (or so we hope). As the site grows, so do it's systems and infrastructure.

mbohn2 wrote:I suggest that ... you make a freaking rule about it

Rules don't mean much in CC as they are often not enforced by the mods. Furthermore mods tend to contradict themselves. So you better get used to these discrepancies applied.