zimmah wrote:Bones2484 wrote: 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
No, you cannot. Some people think it is just fine to "talk crap" in the games, insult each other, etc. They won't rate each other poorly. But, a lot of folks would just as soon avoid that stuff.
Also, a lot of people always used to give negatives for insane or childish reasons. With comments, between the comment and the response, you could usually tell when you had a complete jerk .. and more often than not the jerk was the one LEAVING the negative. Now, there is nothing. PLUS, it is hard to even pick out who left a negative.
Then you have the whole "real time" issue. Some (primarily freemium) folks think that every 1v1 or freestyle game is just "supposed to" be a "real time" game... and would neg or give a nuetral to folks who didn't.
It is absolutely possible to have a rating system that is meaningful without requiring the mods to "nanny". I would actually be fine with a return to the old system, but NO mod review (except maybe ... and only maybe... for seriously nasty language and serious type threats)
I don't think most people really and truly care if they get a "gold star", other than the person who gets it. What folks really want to know is the negative stuff. The kudos are fine for a wall or PM, but feedback is to give other people an idea of how someone plays and whether you think they will make a sportsmanlike opponent or not. The current system doesn't do that.