TheForgivenOne wrote:The thing is, i don't get why we are Punishing people for NOT rating people.
Exactly how is an average rating a punishment?
If someone plays against you and doesn't bother rating you, this would mean that you failed to impress that player enough that he would bother rating you, ergo he has no opinion either way of you, which amounts to the same as "average". This is by no means a punishment, it's simply a statement that the player does not see you as exceptionally good or exceptionally bad.
How is it a punishment in any way? If the system is the same for everyone, just who is getting punished?
People will rate/not rate the same as ever, but the scale will be different, because this proposed system auto-corrects for expected rating behaviour and thus extends the scale so that really good and really bad players are easier to tell apart.
You gave someone a 3 star. What the TS is asking for, is if somebody does NOT rate anyone, their rating goes down. This new system is basically asking you to always rate people, or else it is basically like giving everyone average ratings. Suddenly people will be PMing you asking Why you didn't rate them. This rating system was brought in a long time ago.
People will get used to it. It may take a small while but eventually people will get used to the fact that only exceptional performance receives a rating. The rating system will regain it's meaning.
And why not just change it so that if someone doesn't rate, they just get the 3 stars? Because you are just moving the numbers from 1-5, to -2 - 2. Which i find really pointless
It's not pointless. It has to do with perception. In a 1-5 system, 3 is perceived as bad, because it's only 3 out of 5. But with a +/- system, 0 is more easily perceived as average, since there's a more obvious division to negative and positive ratings.