One problem with a 5 star rating system is the baseline of what is an average rating. I'd say that most people just expect to get a 4 or a 5 unless they are a real jerk, a deadbeat or just do stupid things. However, the ratings say that a 3 is average. By that point of view most people should be getting a 3, and only those that go above and beyond should get 4s and 5s. I generally rate players higher than a 3 unless they do things that make me want to rate them lower.
I recently looked at some ratings I got, and was offended by how low the rating was. In this 2 player game I dominated the other player, winning in 5 rounds. I also had the benefit of first turn advantage and never let the other player recover. The ratings left by
manumanu after game
Game 4311952 were 3, 2, 3. Compared to other rating I have received, those looked really low and unfair. I did miss a turn over a weekend, but immediately apologized for it in the chat.
Then I looked at the ratings left by
manumanu and found mostly 2s and 3s, and a few random 4s. It seems to me that
manumanu and I are actually using different baselines for the rating system. So which one of us is using the rating system the correct way, or is there even a correct way?
And yes I know I should not care about my rating, and just put this player on my foe list, go on and forget about it, but I look at ratings and Attendance of other players before I join a game. I am sure other player do the same thing.
And it bugs me to get a low rating for a game when I outplayed the other player. So is it really that
manumanu is a sore loser, or just that this player simply rates players in a totally different way than most other players?
He gives 4-star ratings to the player in 
