CC should bring back to feedback

[haha]

for the people who voted for keep the ratting system as is could you share your opinion or are you just against the idea of more work?
HAHA

[jiminski]

I had a crack at this quite a whila ago .. i suspect you won't get far but in case my findings could be useful:

viewtopic.php?f=471&t=53597&hilit=community+feedback

[Fruitcake]

I had a crack at this quite a whila ago .. i suspect you won't get far but in case my findings could be useful:

viewtopic.php?f=471&t=53597&hilit=community+feedback

I wondered if you would pitch up with that thread. A noble effort, sadly ignored.

[haha]

if the only problem is monitors i would be willing to volunteer some time to this
HAHA

[jiminski]

I had a crack at this quite a whila ago .. i suspect you won't get far but in case my findings could be useful:

viewtopic.php?f=471&t=53597&hilit=community+feedback

I wondered if you would pitch up with that thread. A noble effort, sadly ignored.

Hello Mate, Indeed you can't keep a good obsessive compulsive down. the most striking thing was the time elapsed; nearly 4 years since i tugged-clean my last remaining follicle over this fated suggestion.

[zimmah]

I'm all for it- the rating stars are a pain. What constitutes a negative rating? What's average? Generally a 3 star rating is considered bad, but surely that could be considered an average rating.

The pressure is there to give a five star rating if you enjoyed playing, a very low rating if you feel you had a bad experience, or not to rate at all. How do you rate a player on attitude who plays well every turn, and does so quickly, but doesn't respond to a simple "hi" in game chat. It's not exactly five star attitude, but you shouldn't be dropping their ratings, which are a weird amalgam of "Fair Play", "Gameplay" and "Attitude".

The labels are even weirder.

I treasure my old feedback- they really remind of the games and the players I played against.

As a suggestion, I would say that if the stars are here to stay, then get rid of the tags and allow comments.

i started out giving 3 star (average) ratings to mostly everyone because i just thought it was average, until i noticed most everyone actually gave 5's so started to do the same. however basically everyone has a 4.5+ rating and only very few have a low rating, that even counts for regular deadbeaters. i have seen only a handfull of people with a rating below 4 and they are usually real idiots.

feedback system worked very well. anyone with a large amount of negatives compared to positives was avoided and generally if anyone had 3 or more bad ratings i'd always check to see why he got so many bad feedback.

[Symmetry]

I'm all for it- the rating stars are a pain. What constitutes a negative rating? What's average? Generally a 3 star rating is considered bad, but surely that could be considered an average rating.

The pressure is there to give a five star rating if you enjoyed playing, a very low rating if you feel you had a bad experience, or not to rate at all. How do you rate a player on attitude who plays well every turn, and does so quickly, but doesn't respond to a simple "hi" in game chat. It's not exactly five star attitude, but you shouldn't be dropping their ratings, which are a weird amalgam of "Fair Play", "Gameplay" and "Attitude".

The labels are even weirder.

I treasure my old feedback- they really remind of the games and the players I played against.

As a suggestion, I would say that if the stars are here to stay, then get rid of the tags and allow comments.

i started out giving 3 star (average) ratings to mostly everyone because i just thought it was average, until i noticed most everyone actually gave 5's so started to do the same. however basically everyone has a 4.5+ rating and only very few have a low rating, that even counts for regular deadbeaters. i have seen only a handfull of people with a rating below 4 and they are usually real idiots.

feedback system worked very well. anyone with a large amount of negatives compared to positives was avoided and generally if anyone had 3 or more bad ratings i'd always check to see why he got so many bad feedback.

The star system doesn't work in the way it's supposed to. It's a very poor way of judging fellow players.

[chapcrap]

I'm all for it- the rating stars are a pain. What constitutes a negative rating? What's average? Generally a 3 star rating is considered bad, but surely that could be considered an average rating.

The pressure is there to give a five star rating if you enjoyed playing, a very low rating if you feel you had a bad experience, or not to rate at all. How do you rate a player on attitude who plays well every turn, and does so quickly, but doesn't respond to a simple "hi" in game chat. It's not exactly five star attitude, but you shouldn't be dropping their ratings, which are a weird amalgam of "Fair Play", "Gameplay" and "Attitude".

The labels are even weirder.

I treasure my old feedback- they really remind of the games and the players I played against.

As a suggestion, I would say that if the stars are here to stay, then get rid of the tags and allow comments.

i started out giving 3 star (average) ratings to mostly everyone because i just thought it was average, until i noticed most everyone actually gave 5's so started to do the same. however basically everyone has a 4.5+ rating and only very few have a low rating, that even counts for regular deadbeaters. i have seen only a handfull of people with a rating below 4 and they are usually real idiots.

feedback system worked very well. anyone with a large amount of negatives compared to positives was avoided and generally if anyone had 3 or more bad ratings i'd always check to see why he got so many bad feedback.

The star system doesn't work in the way it's supposed to. It's a very poor way of judging fellow players.

I give this post 5 stars.

[jiminski]

Community Moderated Feedback

Concise description:

Running alongside the rating system, allow users to write a comment (in a similar way to the old system.)
The option would be given at the end of a game.
Once the comment is completed, the text is forwarded to the recipient User for approval.
if they do not approve, the comment automatically goes to either an Open Forum or Special Usergroup for adjudication (*see below for 'Forum' Description)

Specifics:

The proposal gives ability, to all users, to add a comment at the end of a game.
They have 24 hours to make comment on any game/player (with game-link if it regards a specific game)
Once the 24 hours has expired no more comments can be made and the respective comments are sent directly to the recipients for approval (this will prevent retaliatory feedback)

Feedback sent for approval to the recipient via an automatic pop-up box which appears at log-in, 24 hours after game completion.
Then it is just a matter of clicking :-

'yes' - thus agreeing to allow the feedback to enter into your profile
'no' - thus sending the feedback to the community arbitration forum
'ask me later' - the box goes away till next time you log-in

Feedback can be composed of anything:

- Comment on skill and tactics
- It could be a friendly piece of prose for mutual enjoyment!

The Comment is then made available to the recipient for approval prior to it being logged into their profile. They have 5 days to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If they fail to vote the comment will be entered into their profile.
In special cases, live Comments can be taken back to the Forum for adjudication; to cover people going away and missing the right to veto.

If they say ‘yes’, they have approved the comment and it will also be logged into their profile.

If they say ‘no’, not approved, the Comment goes for arbitration by the Site in the Contentious Comment Forum. (The rules of approval need to be worked out but will mainly cover outright spiteful lies and abusive language!)

Arbitration is made by CC members: the make-up and remit of which is to be discussed;
It could be:

A) Open to all members, with a pre-forum link to the Moderation 'Forum', on the Front page after login. This will encourage those who do not normally visit the Forums to participate! *or
B) Closed select group of non-mod volunteers

Non English Comments under Open Moderation (option (A) above)
We have all of the Individual Language Forums; with varying levels of populations.
therefore we could include a select box for the destination page for each Language Moderation as sent by the recipient of the queried comment. (each Forum has it's own little Community Mod thread to vote in)
Of course if the population is small then the number of votes for passing it as acceptable would be far fewer than in the main English language forum.


Why will this work where the other failed?

- The proposed system does not affect your Pos or Neg Rating, so it will be less contentious.
- The recipient gets immediate right to take contentious Comments to the Community for adjudication of fairness and suitability, before anyone else sees it in their Profile.
- If the Comments are judged by the whole site (with say 100 votes giving a judgement on 95% agreement**) on a casual anonymous basis, there is no one to shout at, no focal figure to hate.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Gives opportunity to write creative, fun prose
Allows for people to comment on a persons Skill and be more specific about the experience
Could be integrated with the old style system to placate the dissenters, without the site having to commit people and resources

*This is participatory Forum but with anonymous perusal and voting only. The comment Forum is 'ironically' not a place for discussion by the voters.
So there will be no canvassing for support or bitching, it is simply a place to read and click 'yes' or 'no'.

**A ceiling of votes needed to constitute an authoritative decision! For example, we could set the limit at 100 votes with 95% approval to make it a live comment.

[zimmah]

Community Moderated Feedback

Concise description:

Running alongside the rating system, allow users to write a comment (in a similar way to the old system.)
The option would be given at the end of a game.
Once the comment is completed, the text is forwarded to the recipient User for approval.
if they do not approve, the comment automatically goes to either an Open Forum or Special Usergroup for adjudication (*see below for 'Forum' Description)

Specifics:

The proposal gives ability, to all users, to add a comment at the end of a game.
They have 24 hours to make comment on any game/player (with game-link if it regards a specific game)
Once the 24 hours has expired no more comments can be made and the respective comments are sent directly to the recipients for approval (this will prevent retaliatory feedback)

Feedback sent for approval to the recipient via an automatic pop-up box which appears at log-in, 24 hours after game completion.
Then it is just a matter of clicking :-

'yes' - thus agreeing to allow the feedback to enter into your profile
'no' - thus sending the feedback to the community arbitration forum
'ask me later' - the box goes away till next time you log-in

Feedback can be composed of anything:

- Comment on skill and tactics
- It could be a friendly piece of prose for mutual enjoyment!

The Comment is then made available to the recipient for approval prior to it being logged into their profile. They have 5 days to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If they fail to vote the comment will be entered into their profile.
In special cases, live Comments can be taken back to the Forum for adjudication; to cover people going away and missing the right to veto.

If they say ‘yes’, they have approved the comment and it will also be logged into their profile.

If they say ‘no’, not approved, the Comment goes for arbitration by the Site in the Contentious Comment Forum. (The rules of approval need to be worked out but will mainly cover outright spiteful lies and abusive language!)

Arbitration is made by CC members: the make-up and remit of which is to be discussed;
It could be:

A) Open to all members, with a pre-forum link to the Moderation 'Forum', on the Front page after login. This will encourage those who do not normally visit the Forums to participate! *or
B) Closed select group of non-mod volunteers

Non English Comments under Open Moderation (option (A) above)
We have all of the Individual Language Forums; with varying levels of populations.
therefore we could include a select box for the destination page for each Language Moderation as sent by the recipient of the queried comment. (each Forum has it's own little Community Mod thread to vote in)
Of course if the population is small then the number of votes for passing it as acceptable would be far fewer than in the main English language forum.


Why will this work where the other failed?

- The proposed system does not affect your Pos or Neg Rating, so it will be less contentious.
- The recipient gets immediate right to take contentious Comments to the Community for adjudication of fairness and suitability, before anyone else sees it in their Profile.
- If the Comments are judged by the whole site (with say 100 votes giving a judgement on 95% agreement**) on a casual anonymous basis, there is no one to shout at, no focal figure to hate.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Gives opportunity to write creative, fun prose
Allows for people to comment on a persons Skill and be more specific about the experience
Could be integrated with the old style system to placate the dissenters, without the site having to commit people and resources

*This is participatory Forum but with anonymous perusal and voting only. The comment Forum is 'ironically' not a place for discussion by the voters.
So there will be no canvassing for support or bitching, it is simply a place to read and click 'yes' or 'no'.

**A ceiling of votes needed to constitute an authoritative decision! For example, we could set the limit at 100 votes with 95% approval to make it a live comment.

this solution is golden

[khazalid]

the ratings system is a big pile of poopie. it is clearly useless. let's switch it back to the old feedback system, which was a) far more informative and b) quite often funny

[BoganGod]

the ratings system is a big pile of poopie. it is clearly useless. let's switch it back to the old feedback system, which was a) far more informative and b) quite often funny

+1

Ratings abuse my arse. Medal for rating? How uber lame is that. How about a medal for wiping your arse or remembering to breathe.

[betiko]

the ratings system is a big pile of poopie. it is clearly useless. let's switch it back to the old feedback system, which was a) far more informative and b) quite often funny

+1

Ratings abuse my arse. Medal for rating? How uber lame is that. How about a medal for wiping your arse or remembering to breathe.

yet you got the platinum ratings!

As I was saying in our clan forum, for me ratings make complete sense. Anyone disagrees with this?

5.0 -> mother theresa
4.9 -> very classy player
4.8 -> nice player
4.7 -> average attitude
4.6 -> mediocre attitude
4.5 -> rather bad attitude
4.4 -> ok, there is something wrong with this guy
4.3 -> are you going to deadbeat, insult or suicide?

[BoganGod]

the ratings system is a big pile of poopie. it is clearly useless. let's switch it back to the old feedback system, which was a) far more informative and b) quite often funny

+1

Ratings abuse my arse. Medal for rating? How uber lame is that. How about a medal for wiping your arse or remembering to breathe.

yet you got the platinum ratings!

As I was saying in our clan forum, for me ratings make complete sense. Anyone disagrees with this?

5.0 -> mother theresa - boring douche drippings never says anything
4.9 -> very classy player - arse kissing, noob lover
4.8 -> nice player - Capable of personality, but only just
4.7 -> average attitude - approaching normality in temperament
4.6 -> mediocre attitude - Has a habit of saying things which offend prissy snobs
4.5 -> rather bad attitude - Possibly says nasty things that hurt little people's e-feelings
4.4 -> ok, there is something wrong with this guy - Really hurts people's feelings
4.3 -> are you going to deadbeat, insult or suicide? - maybe a dead beater. More likely a sick mouthed fucker

Medals are shiny, I like medals. I prefer to earn them by playing. Now when I rate, it is generally to leave a bad rating for a deadbeat. Deadbeating gets 1star. Other than that I can't be arsed. Though sometimes is fun to mess with friends and clan mates. Sore loser tags in games we win, poor team mate, team mate killer etc. Rated Draq, clueless, deadbeat, bad teammate, and suicider + 1star's across the board.... Just to see what the unprintable response would be!

betty your a relative noob. Feedback was more fun, pity you weren't around for it.

[Artimis]

I've never used the original feedback system, it was all stars when I turned up late in 2008. I would like to be able to give a detailed assessment of my opponents game play, so +1 from me.

[chapcrap]

MERGED ratings/feedback