New Feedback System Preview

[frogger4]

The only problem is if a clan bans together to give someone ELSE a bad rating.

Which would most likely fall under "Gross Abuse" and would then be punishable.


--Andy

that makes sense to me. In the original post though, it said ratings would not be moderated at all, so that would need to be edited slightly if indeed mods would step in in the case of "gross abuse"

[JesusReigns]

Ok I'll pitch in here on your last Idea about people with 2.0 rating underneath you. I like this idea very creative, it shouldn't apply for private b/c in most cases someone has to invite them. I really don't see how it would hurt to have this as an option but either way, it needs to be in. I love the idea so whatever it's worth at least include it as an option. I'm pumped about the rating system can't wait. Is there a specific date set?

[bringiton4]

Bump about the un-commented about idea of having actual (1) missed turn % and (2) deadbeat percentage for speed games.

Help me uncover people who have a tendency to leave in the team games I normally play, and leave their team-mate dead in the water

[Night Strike]

Bump about the un-commented about idea of having actual (1) missed turn % and (2) deadbeat percentage for speed games.

Help me uncover people who have a tendency to leave in the team games I normally play, and leave their team-mate dead in the water

Mentioned earlier in the thread as well, but sorta died off. Why can't we get actual site calculated numbers on % turns missed, % games kicked out for missing three turns?

That's a whole other beast and requires a whole other chunk of code outside the scope of this update. Yes, it may come in the future, but until then a crowdsourced option is going to have to do

[SkywardShadow]

I love the idea of not allowing players with much lower rankings to join my games.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of mutual removal, because I feel like someone will give me a low rating, purely for the purpose of removing their own.

[wicked]

I'm not comfortable with the idea of mutual removal, because I feel like someone will give me a low rating, purely for the purpose of removing their own.

You rate the players before you see how they rate you. The ratings don't show up until after the game is archived.

[Ditocoaf]

yess... you essentially used my suggestion!

one question, though: what's the difference between "attitude" and "sportsmanship"?

[wicked]

Read the first post.

[Ditocoaf]

Read the first post.

man do I feel the idiot noob...

I must have read every part of the post except for that important bit towards the top...

[Bruceswar]

The only problem is if a clan bans together to give someone ELSE a bad rating.

Which would most likely fall under "Gross Abuse" and would then be punishable.


--Andy

Punishment on CC is a joke! End of that story.

[hulmey]

The only problem is if a clan bans together to give someone ELSE a bad rating.

Which would most likely fall under "Gross Abuse" and would then be punishable.


--Andy

what you going to ban 30 plus clan members?

[Bruceswar]

The only problem is if a clan bans together to give someone ELSE a bad rating.

Which would most likely fall under "Gross Abuse" and would then be punishable.


--Andy

what you going to ban 30 plus clan members?

No they will remove the feedback and tell them not to do it again, and then if they do they will tell them this is the last warning, and then they do it again and get feedback privs taken for a week (OMG, So scary) What a joke! Feedback would not have the problems it does if CC had an iron fist about it. Instead they were a grass skirt and dance to the Hawaiian music.

[Thezzaruz]

I'm not comfortable with the idea of mutual removal, because I feel like someone will give me a low rating, purely for the purpose of removing their own.

You rate the players before you see how they rate you. The ratings don't show up until after the game is archived.

Simple logic, give a low rating to your opponents as that will make them more interested in removing it and thus also removing the one you got (and if you got a high rating the low one you left doesn't affect your rating anyway). Sneaky? Perhaps.

[kletka]

Wow, it is excellent idea overall but...

1 The lack of verbal feedback is pity. Reading someone's negatives is often hilarious and it serves a purpose to explain what the other person has done wrong. Maybe, one can still have a place for 2 sentences, which are not seen to public! This will answer a lot of questions why a certain feedback is left but leave no job for moders as they won't be able to see it

2 Blocking based on feedback is nonsense This actually defeats the main purpose of less interference by moders. This just creates an incredible opportunity for abuse of the system and will creats tons of work for moders. Just implement the rest and see how it works first

BTW, blocking based on rating score has much more sense. This is actually why people create private games, to avoid players with low score! I am personally against any blocking: the foe system works well and any additional filtering is not required...

[Telvannia]

Sorry if this has been suggested already, but 15 pages is a lot for a small simple suggestion, could we have it colour coordination, for example: 1 star could be red, 2 orange, 3 yellow, 4 green, 5 blue.
That way it looks nicer, and it is easier to look at the colour of a star quickly when joining a game, rather than reading numbers...

[lancehoch]

Sorry if this has been suggested already, but 15 pages is a lot for a small simple suggestion, could we have it colour coordination, for example: 1 star could be red, 2 orange, 3 yellow, 4 green, 5 blue.
That way it looks nicer, and it is easier to look at the colour of a star quickly when joining a game, rather than reading numbers...

This actually has not been suggested before, but sounds pretty interesting. However, I think the numbers will still be necessary. There are people on the site who are colorblind.

[Timminz]

I just see the situation where you give a guy a low rating while he gives you a high one. So why should you give up your high rating even if the low one you gave was a bit harsh???

If that happens, you can deny the request for mutual withdrawal.

[Thezzaruz]

I just see the situation where you give a guy a low rating while he gives you a high one. So why should you give up your high rating even if the low one you gave was a bit harsh???

If that happens, you can deny the request for mutual withdrawal.

Of course I can, but you missed the point. The mutual element brings a incentive to give unwarranted low ratings just for the sake of having it easier to get rid of a low rating received. Quite sure that was the issue Skyward was getting at too, it could lead to the average rating given (site wide) becomes lower than it should be.

[ronsizzle]

i like it, as i do ebay.

[Twill]

I just see the situation where you give a guy a low rating while he gives you a high one. So why should you give up your high rating even if the low one you gave was a bit harsh???

If that happens, you can deny the request for mutual withdrawal.

Of course I can, but you missed the point. The mutual element brings a incentive to give unwarranted low ratings just for the sake of having it easier to get rid of a low rating received. Quite sure that was the issue Skyward was getting at too, it could lead to the average rating given (site wide) becomes lower than it should be.

The hiding of feedback until it can no longer be changed is intended to stop this. As long as you don't run your mouth off and say "you're getting a neg for that!" then you don't have to worry so much

The number of games created in callouts is *tiny* in comparison to the number created by friends and clans.

To say that the 95% of people who create private games have to switch off their block (if they have it on) to play with their friends or clan mates/challenges so that the 5% who are creating a rank game (which they can just as easily make a rank/rating game) is a mistake in my opinion.

Did you forget about the friend list exemption?[/quote

Why yes, yes I did. However I still don't think it solves the problem:

If I want to invite a player to a game who is below me in ratings, I have to either remove my block or add them as a friend which just seems like a lot of work just to play against someone I intentionally invited...especially if everyone in the game has to add one person to their friend list just to play.

The only reason to add the block to private games is so that people who give out passwords to private games in public forums/chat can keep the block...primarily for people who create rank limited games.

What about someone like Wacicha who creates open private games specifically to train cooks...if they are low rated he'd have to add them to his friend's list as well.

At some point it's going to come down to either you add someone you don't want to play to your foes list (the current method, and if you leave private games unblocked) or you have to add them to your friends list to play a private game with them (which is what the password is intended for in the first place - so people you want to play with can play with you.)

The only problem is if a clan bans together to give someone ELSE a bad rating.

Which would most likely fall under "Gross Abuse" and would then be punishable.


--Andy

what you going to ban 30 plus clan members?

From feedback? yup. If you are systematically abusing a part of the site, expect to lose access to it. If you systematically abuse several parts of the site, or are particularly severe in your abuse, expect to be banned. Even if you are a whole clan

[edbeard]

I'd say some players will regularly give bad ratings knowing they are going to receive bad ratings themselves. Then, they will try to barter to mutually remove the ratings.


I'd also like to hear your thoughts on my previous comments about keeping all of the old feedbacks in a separate area (and not allowing people to rate until new games have been played with those people). Otherwise, as I said before, I think we're throwing away good information.

[wicked]

*cough* Stache *cough*

[Timminz]

I'd say some players will regularly give bad ratings knowing they are going to receive bad ratings themselves. Then, they will try to barter to mutually remove the ratings.

They'll only do it once to me.

[dnucci]

My only suggestion would be to change "attendance" to "timeliness" or something. There are people who only take turns once a day and people who are always logged on. So, for people who like to play quickly, it would be nice to know if opponents, in general take a long time to take their turns.

[lancehoch]

My only suggestion would be to change "attendance" to "timeliness" or something. There are people who only take turns once a day and people who are always logged on. So, for people who like to play quickly, it would be nice to know if opponents, in general take a long time to take their turns.

This has already been rejected in many forms. The reason you have 24 hours to take a turn is so that you only have to log on once a day. If you cannot deal with people taking a full 24 hours play real time games or play speed games.