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

[hulmey]

im not even gonna both rating people that i dont think played well, acted well and such! if they done the opposite well i'll rate them that way as well

oh, you mean kind of like how you used to leave feedback? yeah, me too... good game, FIVES across the board!!! nothing spectacular and a bit of a bad player, NO COMMENT... total jackass? a 2... that is how i feel... that is how i am going to openly abuse the system. you know, by rating people according to my interpretation of the new system...-0

p.s.-if they kick ass, a comment on their wall!!!

thats to true owen. thing is dont forget the new system isnt about gameplay, but your behaviour lol

[detlef]

Oh, also, what exactly is your point. You seem to hate the new system and, again, I completely understand why. So, why have you made your self the official ratings police? Why are you policing a system that you think is useless?

the system wasn't useless by defealt, it's the (ab)users that make it useless.

You must be German. Never fault the system, always the user. Well, guess what, if your system requires everyone to defy their own nature, it's not a very good system. The road to failure is paved with "great systems" that "people were too stupid to understand".

Just so there's no mistake. I was scolded on calling out an ethnicity (which is not exactly the right word but, none the less). I do not mean to insult the German people and was simply making a literary reference. I believe it was Tolstoy in War and Peace who was describing the manner in which certain countries conducted battle. The Germans, he felt were all about the system and if a plan failed were quick to point out that the plan was solid but the failure was the result of human error in carrying out that plan.

Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sorry if my comment was taken in any other way as it was not my intention to offend anyone. I hope this explains it.

[JimRocky]

Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sorry if my comment was taken in any other way as it was not my intention to offend anyone. I hope this explains it.

I dunno. My experience with you has been that you enter threads just to nitpick, obfuscate the actual point, and be rude to people. I may be wrong, but that's been my experience.

[zimmah]

i still hear people complaining when they got a 3 or even a 4 from me. people. don't complain, i give fair ratings and a 3 is perfectly fine. if you want better, then impress me first!

complaining might only rate you down on attitude the next time i rate you!

i rate just like wicked does basicly:

everyone starts with a 3, if you do nothing to impress me you'll stay at 3.

if you do something good that impresses me you'll get a 4, if you do a lot of good, then you'll get a 5 even.

if you do something bad you'll get a 2, if you do something really bad you'll get a 1.

simple.

[oVo]

You'll have to define the "average player" and how that definition is determined in relationship to the occassional missed turn and usage of the 24 hour clock over the course of a casual game. If I'm in a game that lasts more than a month or goes 100+ rounds and a player misses a turn or two, is that less than average? Does a player have to consistantly take their turn within the first five hours of the 24 hour clock to remain average?

zimmah... starting at 3 is probably a good idea, but determining what constitutes lowering that rating is where the logic grows fuzzy and inconsistant.

You may be mistaken about detlef JimRocky, he is certainly capable of muddying the waters but I just haven't seen the rude thing.

[PLAYER57832]

Except ... there is an old saying, "You catch more bees with honey than salt"

This is not a job, it is not even school. It is a friendly, GAME playing venue.

We are here to have fun, not be scolded.

Under the old system, Ieft only 2 negatives that I can remember ... each very RICHLY deserved. One guy announced after the second turn that he was losing and was going to leave.. THEN had the nerve to come back and actually complain about it being the "boring". Yes, I gave him a negative.

Mostly, I gave neutrals for bad language, because I don't like it, but some people don't care ... and I said as much. Basically (hey, this person swears, if it matters to you...).

More often than not, if I met a new person who, say deadbeat or some such, I would PM them, say something like "hey, I hope nothing is wrong" .. sometimes, depending on the response, I might follow up with "I won't neg you, but you should know that many people will"

I would do the same for some other "borderline" behaviors (pm a person just saying, "hey, you're new ... take my advice or leave it ..., but some folks will neg you ..."

The way I saw it a neg was an absolute warning to others that this person shows behavior 98% of the community would prefer to avoid.

A nuetral was a warning .. either to the person or to other "pickier" players that this person might not be liked by some, but is probably quite OK to the largest numbers.

Positives, were to REINFORCE the good behavior without worrying so much about minor bad stuff.

FURTHERMORE Many times, because you could ony leave pos feedback once, I would not leave anything until I had played several games, losing and winning to make sure they really were a good sport across the board or to give them time to "learn CC etiquette" (no deadbeating, etc.).

Translation... if you want to be a "no 5's Nazis" go for it, but why? What, exactly is to be gained by giving people lower ratings? Is it REALLY going to improve the site? or will it just make folks unhappy.

[Diamonds14]

i still hear people complaining when they got a 3 or even a 4 from me. people. don't complain, i give fair ratings and a 3 is perfectly fine. if you want better, then impress me first!

complaining might only rate you down on attitude the next time i rate you!

i rate just like wicked does basicly:

everyone starts with a 3, if you do nothing to impress me you'll stay at 3.

if you do something good that impresses me you'll get a 4, if you do a lot of good, then you'll get a 5 even.

if you do something bad you'll get a 2, if you do something really bad you'll get a 1.

simple.

Not everyone has to participate in game chat, why should they? They joined this site to play a risk variant not to get rated on how much they impressed someone with their ability to chat it up.

They have a life why should they get a less than 5 for not playing their turn at the first second it is their turn? The time limit is 24 hours if they meet it than they did an excellent job because he made his turn in the time limit that is denoted by casual. Why should he get less than a 5 for playing all his turns perfectly in the time limit? That is not playing "average" that is playing excellent because he had no faults and did not miss his turn.

Also, if you don't cuss then why shouldn't you get a 5? These dice are so random and can not be predicted and at times it is frustrating to take things into account and have them backfire because of unexpectantly bad dice. It is understandable to say something negative about that and expressing it is not a problem. Their attitude will get a 5 from me.

These players are not "average" they are excellent considering how much worse they can be, considering they did everything perfectly as it has been defined in game settings. They were excellent not average for meeting to such guidelines.

[Robinette]

Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sorry if my comment was taken in any other way as it was not my intention to offend anyone. I hope this explains it.

I dunno. My experience with you has been that you enter threads just to nitpick, obfuscate the actual point, and be rude to people. I may be wrong, but that's been my experience.

mnnn... to deserve such a thumping condemnation one can only assume you see him as a Gallic love-struck sulker... but perhaps his romantic 'moodiness' is simply misunderstood... maybe someone could pass on the message to him and his Gallic friends in the BPB to be a bit more cheerful in the future.

[Visaoni]

i still hear people complaining when they got a 3 or even a 4 from me. people. don't complain, i give fair ratings and a 3 is perfectly fine. if you want better, then impress me first!

complaining might only rate you down on attitude the next time i rate you!

i rate just like wicked does basicly:

everyone starts with a 3, if you do nothing to impress me you'll stay at 3.

if you do something good that impresses me you'll get a 4, if you do a lot of good, then you'll get a 5 even.

if you do something bad you'll get a 2, if you do something really bad you'll get a 1.

simple.

Not everyone has to participate in game chat, why should they? They joined this site to play a risk variant not to get rated on how much they impressed someone with their ability to chat it up.

They have a life why should they get a less than 5 for not playing their turn at the first second it is their turn? The time limit is 24 hours if they meet it than they did an excellent job because he made his turn in the time limit that is denoted by casual. Why should he get less than a 5 for playing all his turns perfectly in the time limit? That is not playing "average" that is playing excellent because he had no faults and did not miss his turn.

Also, if you don't cuss then why shouldn't you get a 5? These dice are so random and can not be predicted and at times it is frustrating to take things into account and have them backfire because of unexpectantly bad dice. It is understandable to say something negative about that and expressing it is not a problem. Their attitude will get a 5 from me.

These players are not "average" they are excellent considering how much worse they can be, considering they did everything perfectly as it has been defined in game settings. They were excellent not average for meeting to such guidelines.

Exactly my feeling on this. I have, more or less, come to a sort of compromise. For Attendance if they miss no turns it's a 5. Attitude and Fair Play are 4's for the normal no asshat or questionable play game. My reasoning is that I don't care if somebody takes 24 hours to play, isn't here to chat, or doesn't have the opportunity to prove "Fair Play". Those are the rules of the game and as long as they don't take 23 hours and 50 minutes to move on purpose (and considering I play seq, why would they unless they just want to be annoying?) then I'm fine with giving them a 5 for Attendance. For Attitude and Fair Play however, there are those people who just make a game really fun to play with, and those who are really fair beyond the point of reason, so I save 5's for them.

While I suppose most people I have rated on the scale above are "average" none of them did anything to make me not want to play them again. If I don't have a problem playing them, why would I give them a rating that may eventually block them from playing with the people who maintain a high 4 overall? They did nothing wrong, and even if I were one of those high 4 people, I wouldn't mind playing them. So why block them from those games?

And even if I did feel like Zimmah, how do you regulate what somebody feels is average?

[mightyredarmy]

According to the votes in Zimmah's poll, the average rating people are expecting to dish out is 3.8, while the median is 4.

Nothing wrong with Zimmah giving out 3s if she wants, but those who expect (on average 3.,in reality 4 or 5 will continue to complain to her about it. I'm personally starting at 5s and marking downwards from there for any aspects of negative play, deadbeating etc and I've put her on my foes list to avoid playing her as I wouldn't be pleased at receving 3s for a perfectly good "normal but unexceptional" game in which I did nothing wrong.

[AndrewB]

It would be nice to avoid 1 more confusion:

0 stars. One would think that this is a lowest given mark but in fact in means that player wasn't rated on that skill.

I would suggest instead of displaying 5 grayed out stars just write N/A...

[detlef]

Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sorry if my comment was taken in any other way as it was not my intention to offend anyone. I hope this explains it.

I dunno. My experience with you has been that you enter threads just to nitpick, obfuscate the actual point, and be rude to people. I may be wrong, but that's been my experience.

Well, then you certainly "dunno", 'cause I'm only rude to half-wits who fail to see the core issue. The irony is that I have specifically challenged people on numerous occasions not to purposefully take arguments to intentionally exaggerated lengths to try and prove a point.

Perhaps you've been one of those ill-prepared sorts who waded in beyond his means and was caught in the tide? Could this be the source of your angst?

So, do you want to actually back up your assertion or did we already plumb the shallows of your debate skills with that half baked attack you just lobbed.

Oh, and a point of clarification. Don't take my initial explanation of the Germans comment to say that it is never my intention to offend, rather that it wasn't in that case. Well, not offend Germans as whole, at least.

[Yvgni]

For detlef, with humor:

In Heaven:
The cooks are French,
The policemen are English,
The mechanics are German,
The lovers are Italian,
The bankers are Swiss.

In Hell:
The cooks are English,
The policemen are German,
The mechanics are French,
The lovers are Swiss,
The bankers are Italian.

****
One of the big dichotomies here is the difference between people who want you to prove something positive to them to get the rating, and the people who will only downgrade you if you negatively attract their attention in some way. Ultimately you can't win, it will probably all average out over time.

I'd be annoyed at someone who downgraded me for being quiet in chat. Talking in chat can attract unwanted attention on the board when you are playing with strangers. If/when I'm playing with people I expect to get to know, I'll be a lot different in chat, but who wants to expose themselves to some J-Random zealot who reacts strongly to some little comment you make in the game?

I've been playing 24 hour. I expect to be graded on if I move in 24 hours. I'd be annoyed at some Schmoe who downgraded me for not moving in less than 12 hour segments.

Fairplay: Totally arbitarary depending on who you're playing with. If you're playing with a bunch of mathematically oblivious people and you try to wipe someone out on a 70%+chance, and they call you "suiciding" and give you a low rating, what do you do? Frankly if I can't win, I don't much care who does 99% of the time. If you're playing with gung-ho 13-year olds who only know the "scream and leap" strategy and you employ blocking to save that elimination for yourself, and you get low-balled, well that's pretty subjective again.

Ultimately, written comments give me more information to make a judgment. Stars end up being more noise and less information. Do written comments require much more overhead, maybe too much overhead for volunteers to monitor? Well yeah, probably, given that the changes appear to be made based on the mods not having the resources.

[Robinette]

Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sorry if my comment was taken in any other way as it was not my intention to offend anyone. I hope this explains it.

I dunno. My experience with you has been that you enter threads just to nitpick, obfuscate the actual point, and be rude to people. I may be wrong, but that's been my experience.

mnnn... to deserve such a thumping condemnation one can only assume you see him as a Gallic love-struck sulker... but perhaps his romantic 'moodiness' is simply misunderstood... maybe someone could pass on the message to him and his Gallic friends in the BPB to be a bit more cheerful in the future.

Was i too cryptic?
Are the Bullet Proof Bandits not aware of their own Acronym?
Or do they simply have better things to do? (HA!)

[detlef]

Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sorry if my comment was taken in any other way as it was not my intention to offend anyone. I hope this explains it.

I dunno. My experience with you has been that you enter threads just to nitpick, obfuscate the actual point, and be rude to people. I may be wrong, but that's been my experience.

mnnn... to deserve such a thumping condemnation one can only assume you see him as a Gallic love-struck sulker... but perhaps his romantic 'moodiness' is simply misunderstood... maybe someone could pass on the message to him and his Gallic friends in the BPB to be a bit more cheerful in the future.

Was i too cryptic?
Are the Bullet Proof Bandits not aware of their own Acronym?
Or do they simply have better things to do? (HA!)

I'm going to go with option #1...

From a website that defines acronyms...

Acronym Definition
BPB Baldwin Pops Band
BPB Bank, Province, Branch (Canadian banking branch descriptor)
BPB Banka Private e Biznesit (Kosova)
BPB Bettendorf Park Band (Bettendorf, IA)
BPB BIOS Parameter Block
BPB British Plaster Board
BPB Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung (Federal Agency for Civic Education, Bonn, Germany)
BPB Backbone Provider Bridge
BPB Bits per Baud
BPB Branch Prediction Buffer
BPB Business Process Base

I'll have to admit, at first I felt a twang of concern. Had I joined a crew that unintentionally named themselves after some f'ed up fetish?

Well, perhaps we did, but I'm not certain that any of those listed are all that damning.

[owenshooter]

Was i too cryptic?
Are the Bullet Proof Bandits not aware of their own Acronym?
Or do they simply have better things to do? (HA!)

first of all, it would be BB's... however, the BpB is an inside joke between a few of the founders...
Bulletproof is the proper spelling, not Bullet Proof or Bullet-Proof... you have to be a bandit to speak bandit. otherwise, you are just an outsider looking through the bathroom window at the cool kids smoking cigarettes and giving the other kids swirlies.. and let me tell you, katy is in her panties in the scenario i see when i close my eyes, and it is HOT!-0

p.s.-you still can't get in... now stop spamming up my box and the forum with your obsession..-0

[Soloman]

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.

Well for me this is how I judge and rate on fair play: Given that this is based on opinion, my opinion on fair Play would be someone who goes out of there way to keep game balanced or leader in check would earn a 5, a 3 for me would be someone who plays a normal strategy and covers there butt while not shitting on anyone else, a 2 would be someone who seems biased toward either attacking or not attacking a certain player a 4 would be someone who works well with other in situations like letting fort out of a area, and a 1 would be a suicider or some other BS player with no sense in attacks. But again that is my opinion, we all are open to interrupt however we feel but I believe based on the simple words of the system my criteria hold true to the spirit.


...P.s. I used my necromantic powers to resurrect this for my own purposes lol