Ratings Reloaded - Community Consultation - UPDATED

[DukeToshiro]

Asking us to help "tweak" this system is like asking us to help arrange flowers on a sinking ship. This system needs a huge overhaul, not "tweaks".

[tzor]

Take it to flame wars.
So being critical of a poor system is whining now, is it?
The new system is in only one sense better, and much worse in every other respect. Thats not a whinge, just a statement of the facts. I'm sorry if you don't like the facts.

It appears that you have taken flame wars here, because your posts here tend to be nothing but flames. There have been less than a handful of posters who have said, "the system is bad, give us the old one back." There have been a number of posters who have complained about certain aspects of the new system. I haven't really complained about the new system but that doesn't mean I don't agree with a number of complaints that have been brought forward. Simply put, I don't want to fall back, I want to fall forward and see if we can fix the things that don't work and keep the things that do.

Let us consider, for a moment, the problem of idiots. In the old system an idiot would make a moronic remark and there would be constant complaints to remove said remarks. Now we have low grades. The solution, which I think has already been suggested would be to use only a subset of the total votes, eliminating the low end where the idiots are and the high end where your clan mates were inflating your ego. This type of elimination system works well for a number of rating systems and could equally work well here.

In the spirit of being constructive, I'll restate that and add a few more positive ideas.

• Eliminate the high and low scores from the averages.
• Deadbeating should disqualify you from rating others.
• You should only be able to vote on the team criteria if you actually were a member of their team.
• Add a "play again" stat ... and better yet be able to link the play again stat with the game finder.

[Snorri1234]

Sorry, but don't think that'll work. People took feedback WAY too seriously and got really offended if it wasn't deleted. Sure, you may have been OK with people trashing you on feedback whether it was true or not, but not everyone was. We said we weren't going to moderate ratings, and yet still get complaints about someone leaving 3's and requests for removal. We're trying to be responsive here, not say "suck it up cupcake, deal with whatever anyone said about you no matter how offensive you find it or how untrue it is". So yeah, we're sticking with ratings and trying to make that work. We could certainly use all the input we can get about how it should work.

You're completely missing the point. So, before people would complain about somebody using foul language or saying they did bad things that they didn't. Now, you're going to have people not only complaining about people giving them undeserved low ratings, but also because they have a different opinion of what a 3 should mean. Doesn't sound like you're making any headway in that department. Basically, you're trading in the fact that you don't need to worry about foul language for the fact that there's no consensus on what these scores should be.

Which brings up another point, the only way you're ever going to get to a consensus on what the numbers mean, you're going to have to give up the 3 is default stance. Believe me, I both understand and agree with you that it should be but I'm also far too aware that puts me in a tiny minority. Not only here, but anywhere else such ratings systems are used. To deny this is just being needlessly stubborn. Check my e-bay story I posted in Solomon's crusade known as the Ratings thread. Jiminski laid it out perfectly right off the bat. Try as we might to train everyone otherwise, this is what they will always mean to the majority of people:
5-good
4-not so bad that I'm going to trash you but I don't like you
3-I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but think you're a douche
2-You're a douche
1-You're f'ing douche

That's what it means now, that's what it will mean 6 mos from now, and that's what it will mean 3 years from now. That's not being defeatist, that's just being realistic.

Now, back to your stance that you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. See, like Jiminski, I'm not part of the problem. I'm simply not using this useless system. And by not using it at all, I'm providing exactly as much useful info on my fellow CC players as those that are, because there's no way at all to glean a shred of insight into what kind of player we all are using this system.

So, forgive me if I'm not interested in helping you with "tweaks" to something that seems, by all accounts, completely doomed. Kind of like the way that I'm probably not the guy you want to ask about the best way to succeed in Iraq. It's a horrible idea that is about exactly as screwed up as I expected it to be the minute it started.

Word. I can honestly say that anyone with a 3.0 star average is not someone I'd want to play, simply because I know that less than 5 stars is pretty bad already.

I awarded all 5 stars to everyone in my game, even though there were a bunch of turns missed or taken late (one guys' house flooded), a few guys who didn't play super-awesome-great but average and basically the only thing really 5-stars worth was that they all talked rather pleasantly.

I gave them 5 stars because I knew anything less than that meant they were guys I would either not play again or total dicks. This is how humans function.

Then again, I never used the original feedback-system correctly either, but at least that was fun. And if I enjoyed the playing-experience, which is the only actual qualifier for me, I left them positive. (Except for when I got a negative from heavycola!!!1!!)

[detlef]

Sorry, but don't think that'll work. People took feedback WAY too seriously and got really offended if it wasn't deleted. Sure, you may have been OK with people trashing you on feedback whether it was true or not, but not everyone was. We said we weren't going to moderate ratings, and yet still get complaints about someone leaving 3's and requests for removal. We're trying to be responsive here, not say "suck it up cupcake, deal with whatever anyone said about you no matter how offensive you find it or how untrue it is". So yeah, we're sticking with ratings and trying to make that work. We could certainly use all the input we can get about how it should work.

You're completely missing the point. So, before people would complain about somebody using foul language or saying they did bad things that they didn't. Now, you're going to have people not only complaining about people giving them undeserved low ratings, but also because they have a different opinion of what a 3 should mean. Doesn't sound like you're making any headway in that department. Basically, you're trading in the fact that you don't need to worry about foul language for the fact that there's no consensus on what these scores should be.

Which brings up another point, the only way you're ever going to get to a consensus on what the numbers mean, you're going to have to give up the 3 is default stance. Believe me, I both understand and agree with you that it should be but I'm also far too aware that puts me in a tiny minority. Not only here, but anywhere else such ratings systems are used. To deny this is just being needlessly stubborn. Check my e-bay story I posted in Solomon's crusade known as the Ratings thread. Jiminski laid it out perfectly right off the bat. Try as we might to train everyone otherwise, this is what they will always mean to the majority of people:
5-good
4-not so bad that I'm going to trash you but I don't like you
3-I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but think you're a douche
2-You're a douche
1-You're f'ing douche

That's what it means now, that's what it will mean 6 mos from now, and that's what it will mean 3 years from now. That's not being defeatist, that's just being realistic.

Now, back to your stance that you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. See, like Jiminski, I'm not part of the problem. I'm simply not using this useless system. And by not using it at all, I'm providing exactly as much useful info on my fellow CC players as those that are, because there's no way at all to glean a shred of insight into what kind of player we all are using this system.

So, forgive me if I'm not interested in helping you with "tweaks" to something that seems, by all accounts, completely doomed. Kind of like the way that I'm probably not the guy you want to ask about the best way to succeed in Iraq. It's a horrible idea that is about exactly as screwed up as I expected it to be the minute it started.

Word. I can honestly say that anyone with a 3.0 star average is not someone I'd want to play, simply because I know that less than 5 stars is pretty bad already.

I awarded all 5 stars to everyone in my game, even though there were a bunch of turns missed or taken late (one guys' house flooded), a few guys who didn't play super-awesome-great but average and basically the only thing really 5-stars worth was that they all talked rather pleasantly.

I gave them 5 stars because I knew anything less than that meant they were guys I would either not play again or total dicks. This is how humans function.

Then again, I never used the original feedback-system correctly either, but at least that was fun. And if I enjoyed the playing-experience, which is the only actual qualifier for me, I left them positive. (Except for when I got a negative from heavycola!!!1!!)

Welcome to the "whiny minority". Please fill out a name tag. We have refreshments in the next room.

[mandyb]

Take it to flame wars.
So being critical of a poor system is whining now, is it?
The new system is in only one sense better, and much worse in every other respect. Thats not a whinge, just a statement of the facts. I'm sorry if you don't like the facts.

It appears that you have taken flame wars here, because your posts here tend to be nothing but flames. There have been less than a handful of posters who have said, "the system is bad, give us the old one back." There have been a number of posters who have complained about certain aspects of the new system. I haven't really complained about the new system but that doesn't mean I don't agree with a number of complaints that have been brought forward. Simply put, I don't want to fall back, I want to fall forward and see if we can fix the things that don't work and keep the things that do.

Let us consider, for a moment, the problem of idiots. In the old system an idiot would make a moronic remark and there would be constant complaints to remove said remarks. Now we have low grades. The solution, which I think has already been suggested would be to use only a subset of the total votes, eliminating the low end where the idiots are and the high end where your clan mates were inflating your ego. This type of elimination system works well for a number of rating systems and could equally work well here.

In the spirit of being constructive, I'll restate that and add a few more positive ideas.

• Eliminate the high and low scores from the averages.
• Deadbeating should disqualify you from rating others.
• You should only be able to vote on the team criteria if you actually were a member of their team.
• Add a "play again" stat ... and better yet be able to link the play again stat with the game finder.

"the system is bad, give us the old one back."

signed, another whiny minority (they do seem to be piling up don't they?)

[LSU Tiger Josh]

I do agree that the old system was better and would much prefer it although I have given some suggestions if they insist on using this flawed attempt.

[eye84free]

Word. I can honestly say that anyone with a 3.0 star average is not someone I'd want to play, simply because I know that less than 5 stars is pretty bad already.

u say this.. but some people on here are abuseing it already ..if they lose a game there giving low stars.. so if someone who plays the game well and is always a pleasant person to play with has 3 stars all because some players cant take a lose. then u wont play em..

this is my point from earlier. the system is flawed. with the feed back it is montered. but with this.. it is not. so i say either have it or dont. or make it an option for a player to have if they have it then they will give and recieve rates, if not then they will not recieve nor give and rates.

and for lack.. ill never ? something thats is done on this site. im not questioning why it was done just a concern. i think all you and the mods do is great and you put alot of effort and skill in ur craft and i respect that. but sometimes some things are done more then is needed. i enjoy this site very much and have been here for a long time and have seen almost all the changes u have made to the site but this i feel wasnt a needed addition. i have listed a major con to the new system. and i feel it might need to be changed to suit the needs of o the 1 player. let them make the choice them self. it will give the player a more of a impact on there own profile.

[Appalachian]

There are a few big discussions over in the GD Forum. I happen to agree that handing out five stars to everyone defeats the purpose of the rating system. If everyone hands out five stars then it over inflates the system.

Until a consensus is reached-- I go with this-

Three stars for the first game; if everything is cool and it is an average game.

Next time I play the same person and everything is cool. I raise to four stars and five stars for the next game.

If it's a cool "RT" game, pretty much quick turns then I start with four stars.

I have only played a few Doubles-- most with Luvr. If your a team player and we have good communication and work as a team- then five stars in that catagory.

Thing I hated about the old system- If we played our first game and I left a positive. That was it. With three stars as the baseline, well your ratings goes up-- somewhat like a promotion- you see it and it kind of means something.

[DirtyDishSoap]

I say just bring back the old rateing system.

Easier to identify who plays well and who doesnt.

[JoshyBoy]

Whinign minority my arse! Its a majority!

[wicked]

u say this.. but some people on here are abuseing it already ..if they lose a game there giving low stars.. so if someone who plays the game well and is always a pleasant person to play with has 3 stars all because some players cant take a lose. then u wont play em..

How is that different than people who used to leave negative feedbacks just for losing?

[eye84free]

u say this.. but some people on here are abuseing it already ..if they lose a game there giving low stars.. so if someone who plays the game well and is always a pleasant person to play with has 3 stars all because some players cant take a lose. then u wont play em..

How is that different than people who used to leave negative feedbacks just for losing?

they were monitard..if it was a just feedback it stayed...if it was unjust then it was removed.

[mandyb]

u say this.. but some people on here are abuseing it already ..if they lose a game there giving low stars.. so if someone who plays the game well and is always a pleasant person to play with has 3 stars all because some players cant take a lose. then u wont play em..

How is that different than people who used to leave negative feedbacks just for losing?

Beacause at least with written feedback, you can see the reasoning behind the negative and also the given response.

[eye84free]

u say this.. but some people on here are abuseing it already ..if they lose a game there giving low stars.. so if someone who plays the game well and is always a pleasant person to play with has 3 stars all because some players cant take a lose. then u wont play em..

How is that different than people who used to leave negative feedbacks just for losing?

Beacause at least with written feedback, you can see the reasoning behind the negative and also the given response.

very well worded...

[DukeToshiro]

There have been less than a handful of posters who have said, "the system is bad, give us the old one back."

That's a load of bull and you know it.

[DukeToshiro]

u say this.. but some people on here are abuseing it already ..if they lose a game there giving low stars.. so if someone who plays the game well and is always a pleasant person to play with has 3 stars all because some players cant take a lose. then u wont play em..

How is that different than people who used to leave negative feedbacks just for losing?

I have never once had a person leave a negative written feedback simply for losing. However, this new system has only been in place a few weeks and I've already had at least one person give all ones because they lost.

You actually had to make an effort to give written feedback, this new stars thing allows you to leave flippant ratings without giving them a single thought. Very annoying. The feedback worked, this junk does not.

[ilarry]

u say this.. but some people on here are abuseing it already ..if they lose a game there giving low stars.. so if someone who plays the game well and is always a pleasant person to play with has 3 stars all because some players cant take a lose. then u wont play em..

How is that different than people who used to leave negative feedbacks just for losing?

I have never once had a person leave a negative written feedback simply for losing. However, this new system has only been in place a few weeks and I've already had at least one person give all ones because they lost.

You actually had to make an effort to give written feedback, this new stars thing allows you to leave flippant ratings without giving them a single thought. Very annoying. The feedback worked, this junk does not.

Your sure right Duke!

[03euroSVT]

u say this.. but some people on here are abuseing it already ..if they lose a game there giving low stars.. so if someone who plays the game well and is always a pleasant person to play with has 3 stars all because some players cant take a lose. then u wont play em..

How is that different than people who used to leave negative feedbacks just for losing?

I have never once had a person leave a negative written feedback simply for losing. However, this new system has only been in place a few weeks and I've already had at least one person give all ones because they lost.

You actually had to make an effort to give written feedback, this new stars thing allows you to leave flippant ratings without giving them a single thought. Very annoying. The feedback worked, this junk does not.

I also had someone leave me ones just because I called them out on missing two turns and then playing right before they were going to get booted. I pm'd them and told them thanks in a not so nice way for the Ratings. We actually came to an agreement and the rating was withdrawn.

At least automate some (like attendance) and also let us respond to the ratings.

[PLAYER57832]

u say this.. but some people on here are abuseing it already ..if they lose a game there giving low stars.. so if someone who plays the game well and is always a pleasant person to play with has 3 stars all because some players cant take a lose. then u wont play em..

How is that different than people who used to leave negative feedbacks just for losing?

Beacause at least with written feedback, you can see the reasoning behind the negative and also the given response.

Also, as was noted above, just punching numbers is too easy, to ready to abuse.

[bspride]

i dont know if this has already been suggested or not...but i think that the ratings system needs some place to rate skill...maybe just bring back the old feedback and have it labeled skill...post there would be about players skill...and players skill only

[eye84free]

i dont know if this has already been suggested or not...but i think that the ratings system needs some place to rate skill...maybe just bring back the old feedback and have it labeled skill...post there would be about players skill...and players skill only

thats sounds like a acceptable idea...

[n00blet]

i dont know if this has already been suggested or not...but i think that the ratings system needs some place to rate skill...maybe just bring back the old feedback and have it labeled skill...post there would be about players skill...and players skill only

thats sounds like a acceptable idea...

As many people have said (and usually the low ranks disagree) there is already a skill rating: the nice icon next to your name

[bspride]

i dont know if this has already been suggested or not...but i think that the ratings system needs some place to rate skill...maybe just bring back the old feedback and have it labeled skill...post there would be about players skill...and players skill only

thats sounds like a acceptable idea...

As many people have said (and usually the low ranks disagree) there is already a skill rating: the nice icon next to your name

true...yet sometimes even this can be misleading...i think i was saying skill as an all encompassing trait...like a summary of all the feedback...but not used to trash the player...maybe even a place to explain your ratings would work

[trk1994]

Yes that is the one thing really missing. We need to be able to say something about skill. The other attributes are fine and good but skill is the main thing most of us look for after attendance.

[sirfrogger]

feedback was probly a lil better but stars are good too(not attendance, automate it)

only prob is i recieved "bad stars" because PRISMSABER (well maybe no names, ill use P.S. to protect the innocent) accused me of having a bad strat/attitude that made HIM lose, i was unaware that i played to let other ppl win

also it was a tourny game , so i went for the person that had more points in the tourny, made sense to me but the sore losers will nvr see it that way




so ....automate the attendance AND bring back the FEEDBACK as well