''Out of date'' feedbacks or "refreshing" feedback

[alex_white101]

* Why should feedback last forever? It should either go out of date or refresh (optionally) say every time you purchase premium. (or yearly or example)


* I have alot of negative feedbacks, for deadbeating around 400 games all at one time. I have previously explained it wasn't my fault but for obvious reasons i cannot verify this and therefore why should the mods believe me? It was a one-off ocassion and i had not previously or since deadbeated a single game. This happens to alot of people, something occurs in their life and they may easily deadbeat a few games and even though it has not happened before and is unlikely to happen again for many hundred games they have a permanent slur on their record. I have written to most people that left me negs and several have been removed, however I am left with several feedbacks from players who are inactive....

this means that as the feedback is factual (yet does not describe my usual play) I can never have it removed. This also applies to many people who may join the site and deadbeat one or two games before they realise how much they like CC, and having this initial bad feedback on their record can be very off-putting.

This is obviously not overly important but I feel would make the feedback system more meaningful......

alex

[SirSebstar]

I agree, if only to get rid of certain bad (and good) feedback that does no longer reflect that particular player

[Fruitcake]

alex_white101 wrote:

I have alot of negative feedbacks, for deadbeating around 400 games all at one time. I have previously explained it wasn't my fault but for obvious reasons i cannot verify this and therefore why should the mods believe me? It was a one-off ocassion and i had not previously or since deadbeated a single game. This happens to alot of people, something occurs in their life and they may easily deadbeat a few games and even though it has not happened before and is unlikely to happen again for many hundred games they have a permanent slur on their record. I have written to most people that left me negs and several have been removed, however I am left with several feedbacks from players who are inactive....

this means that as the feedback is factual (yet does not describe my usual play) I can never have it removed. This also applies to many people who may join the site and deadbeat one or two games before they realise how much they like CC, and having this initial bad feedback on their record can be very off-putting.

The essence of your argument is sound. I, from a subjective view, like feedbacks. I fight my corner of I disagree with one, and have advised others on how to. If a player is inactive, then I agree, surely the mods can see the reasoning behind having it withdrawn. It is a case of selling the idea of a withdrawal to them.

Feedbacks are anarchic by the very nature of them, but hey...that's life. My advice would be to review your negs, put together a sound reasoned structured arguement, then FIGHT YOUR CORNER!!! Don't quit, keep up the pressure. If you are in the right, they will surely remove.

Illegitimi vescat freno non carborundum (to coin a misphrase for this club)

[alex_white101]

alex_white101 wrote:

I have alot of negative feedbacks, for deadbeating around 400 games all at one time. I have previously explained it wasn't my fault but for obvious reasons i cannot verify this and therefore why should the mods believe me? It was a one-off ocassion and i had not previously or since deadbeated a single game. This happens to alot of people, something occurs in their life and they may easily deadbeat a few games and even though it has not happened before and is unlikely to happen again for many hundred games they have a permanent slur on their record. I have written to most people that left me negs and several have been removed, however I am left with several feedbacks from players who are inactive....

this means that as the feedback is factual (yet does not describe my usual play) I can never have it removed. This also applies to many people who may join the site and deadbeat one or two games before they realise how much they like CC, and having this initial bad feedback on their record can be very off-putting.

The essence of your argument is sound. I, from a subjective view, like feedbacks. I fight my corner of I disagree with one, and have advised others on how to. If a player is inactive, then I agree, surely the mods can see the reasoning behind having it withdrawn. It is a case of selling the idea of a withdrawal to them.

Feedbacks are anarchic by the very nature of them, but hey...that's life. My advice would be to review your negs, put together a sound reasoned structured arguement, then FIGHT YOUR CORNER!!! Don't quit, keep up the pressure. If you are in the right, they will surely remove.

Illegitimi vescat freno non carborundum (to coin a misphrase for this club)

im not too worried about my feedbacks, i sent round a pm to everyone who left me one and every person who has any active games has so far removed them. also im down to fewer negs than before so im good it just makes sense that feedbacks which may be a misrepresentation of a player should eventually be removed.

[alex_white101]

I agree, if only to get rid of certain bad (and good) feedback that does no longer reflect that particular player

[Twill]

But surely the date itself is enough to tell people that you have changed.

If you have 3 negs early on and 100 positives now, then people will see you have changed.

I'd be completely against deleting feedback automatically, just like I'm against deleting posts. you MIGHT convince me that only the most recent 100 feedbacks should be shown on the [100-3] record, but you'd have to make a pretty good argument

[AAFitz]

I disagree. I believe the first positives I got almost half a year, and 2500 games ago define me perfectly


Good challenge. AAFitz authority was evident from his first move. I look forward to the next time with meet.

played a good game will play with fitz anytime

devestating in his moves left us with no chance , play at your peril

the "insurmountable odds" of the game

hell of a player. Still fighting even when he knew he lost. I hope ot play wiht you soon.

I've played a few with him, and its always a challenge- he's a great player who keeps the game interesting and keeps you on your toes. A pleasure to play

Played a great and fast game.Would definetly play again

very good strategist, also very nice. beware of him in 3 player games though, hes good.

AAFitz is a great opponent, very competitive, as i am, which is very entertaining. I definitely enjoy playing with or against AAFitz

Nice Player. Kept Things Moving.

played a real game

Good player. Loyal to the team, excellent ally.

Very good player, took me out quick til next time lol No complaints, made moves quickly.

[alex_white101]

But surely the date itself is enough to tell people that you have changed.

If you have 3 negs early on and 100 positives now, then people will see you have changed.

no, how often if you see someone with dodgy feedback do you check the dates when they were left? i suspect very rarely if ever......

[PLAYER57832]

I see two big problems right now, not just one.

1. as you noted, folks change AND CC changes. For example, are complaints about someone missing turns to build armies still AS valid as when written?


2. Becuase feedback is a "one time" deal (at least for positives), newer folks have MORE say than older folks. This seems somewhat skewed.


I propose:

1. Eliminate negative feedback (only) if the person has no additional negatives after 6 month (a year?)

2. IF a bunch of feedback is specific (e.g. missed turns) and not repeated, those particular feedback may be removed after 6 months or a year (but other negs will be left)

3. COMPLETE removeal of all feedback -- neg and positive -- after 1, 2 or 3 years. This will also allow older folks to add new feedback, when appropriate. The kind of feedback I used to leave was pretty general and not necessarily all that helpful. Sometimes, I even regretted what I said becuase I found a completely different experience in later games. Now I tend to wait until I have played a few games, both wins and losses, before I post unless there is something truly noteworthy. (such as someone reacted very well to another player who was abusive, etc.)

[alex_white101]

I see two big problems right now, not just one.

1. as you noted, folks change AND CC changes. For example, are complaints about someone missing turns to build armies still AS valid as when written?


2. Becuase feedback is a "one time" deal (at least for positives), newer folks have MORE say than older folks. This seems somewhat skewed.


I propose:

1. Eliminate negative feedback (only) if the person has no additional negatives after 6 month (a year?)

2. IF a bunch of feedback is specific (e.g. missed turns) and not repeated, those particular feedback may be removed after 6 months or a year (but other negs will be left)

3. COMPLETE removeal of all feedback -- neg and positive -- after 1, 2 or 3 years. This will also allow older folks to add new feedback, when appropriate. The kind of feedback I used to leave was pretty general and not necessarily all that helpful. Sometimes, I even regretted what I said becuase I found a completely different experience in later games. Now I tend to wait until I have played a few games, both wins and losses, before I post unless there is something truly noteworthy. (such as someone reacted very well to another player who was abusive, etc.)

I think this is good and dont want this thread to die before we have an official word on it if possible....

[soka]

i think it would be better to have a rating system, where you get 5 main stars. then people vote with 1 for bad 5 for great and it would gather up all those in to a % of the 5 main stars i think having all this feedback is wasted server space we do not need

for instance
player 1 ***
player 2 **
player 3 ****
my main 5 star rating would be like 4 stars out of 5

i dont think we need to have a neg or pos feedback
it feeds paranoia and some have bad days if its so bad there is always flame wars or cheating and abuse

[PLAYER57832]

I have been thinking of a different rating system myself, but that deserves its own thread.

[alex_white101]

anyone important have any views?

[lozzini]

i think we should have the star rating - with comments only optional with the rating

[wicked]

Sorry, don't like it. There's no incentive for people to change long term.

[Twill]

anyone important have any views?

Aww...

So when I said

I'd be completely against deleting feedback automatically, just like I'm against deleting posts. you MIGHT convince me that only the most recent 100 feedbacks should be shown on the [100-3] record, but you'd have to make a pretty good argument

that wasn't a view and I wasn't important.

How sad

I still think the record of all feedback ever left is important and there is no way that will go away.

The star idea might be something to think about, but I don't like Player's idea:
1) Why would we do that? Why would we skew your feedback? It's not our feedback to mess with. And why not delete positive feedback after 6 months if someone gets more negative than positive?

2) How on earth would you propose we do this? We would have to hire an army of people.

3) People have the choice of deleting their old feedback and leaving new feedback if they wish to. Why should we delete it for them if they don't want to do it themselves?

[Anarkistsdream]

Sorry, don't like it. There's no incentive for people to change long term.

100% agree.

[alex_white101]

Sorry, don't like it. There's no incentive for people to change long term.

yes there is. In fact there is all incentive to change in the long run, as we have discussed (not on the first post) that if you recieve no negatives for say 6 months, then they should be deleted, hence encouraging you 100% to improve on whatever aspect in order to get rid of the negs.........

at the moment there is no incentive to change, as once you have a negative it is effectively there forever so no matter how much you may change or stop doing it your record can never change.

[SirSebstar]

Sorry, don't like it. There's no incentive for people to change long term.

There is no incentive for people to change the feedback they have given out. So even if you had changed, your feedback would not reflect that. Also in my view, 6 months for feedback is more then enough, but really does it in any way or shape still make a lot of sense to let it stand?