What do YOU want out of a feedback system?

[laci_mae]

What we really need is a system that lets us comment on and make fun of the feedback people leave for each other. That would really liven up the joint.

LMR

[Dancing Mustard]

What do I want out of a feedback system? Well it's simple:

1. Naked Ladies
2. With gigantic breasts

Simple stuff. See to it.

[CoffeeCream]

I would like the ability to rank a player on a scale from 1 - 5 or 1 - 10 in addition to being able to write comments about how the game went. Some people just write negative feedback as a joke and I guess that's ok, but it's not truly negative. Sometimes you look at that negative side and think "oh crap is this guy going to ruin the game" but then when you actually read the comments some of them are just for fun. It's sort of deceptive.

[KoE_Sirius]

I want to have the option to opt out of the feedback program.

[Zlorfik]

I want feedback that isn't just plain stupid like one a friend left me, and I quote:

"If i had bacon... if only i had bacon... I would of WON! NEVER PLAYING WITH YOU AGAIN, he ruined my chance of baconing! This guy has not only more waffles than a house of pankakes, but hides by making to much pork, depleting all chances of bacon. Meanwhile, the other player would use beef and kill us all! Insanity tm sucks at protean, so we had to bread his bonuses. Of course this feedback meets the guidlines!"

[Bruceswar]

a) get rid of it altogether

b) a simple YES or NO option on 'would you play them again' something like that

or

c) just dont moderate it. everyone gets to say their piece. simple.

Yes B and can you display next to someones name how people have him on ignore

If you mean, how many have someone on ignore, that has to be one of the better ideas to come out of this thread.

I totally agree here. Would be helpfull

[nukie]

Many of you are complaining on how people put stupid feedback or do it as payback for losing or something.

If you use a checkbox or selection system, whats stoping someone on going 0,0,0 or giving you fake responses anyway?

[Bruceswar]

Many of you are complaining on how people put stupid feedback or do it as payback for losing or something.

If you use a checkbox or selection system, whats stoping someone on going 0,0,0 or giving you fake responses anyway?

This will be averaged in. No matter what kind of system they put in someone will find a way to abuse it.

[Bruceswar]

Here is a very very good idea if you ask me.

For those people who abuse the feedback system. IE... Leaving a ton of Negs, just because they can that are not factual. like "What a douche bag" or anything like that should be suspended for a period of time from leaving feedback. Say first offense is a week long suspension. 2nd time is a month long and 3rd time is forever. Now this is not for someone who leaves a neg and it gets deleted on technicalities, but people who grossly abuse the system causing extra work for the mods.

[KoE_Sirius]

Here is a very very good idea if you ask me.

For those people who abuse the feedback system. IE... Leaving a ton of Negs, just because they can that are not factual. like "What a douche bag" or anything like that should be suspended for a period of time from leaving feedback. Say first offense is a week long suspension. 2nd time is a month long and 3rd time is forever. Now this is not for someone who leaves a neg and it gets deleted on technicalities, but people who grossly abuse the system causing extra work for the mods.

Non bias feedback mods and this could work.Currently this could never work though.

[wicked]

stickying this to ask for commuity input.

[billy07]

i want people to stop giving me negatives for pulling them up on their idiocy, in my light-hearted manner. wankers.

[Aesop Jones]

Here's a couple of ideas: (they may have been brought up, and if they have, feel free to tell me I'm a jackass for not reading the whole thread)

All those individual traits of players - aggression, suiciding, deadbeating, friendliness, diplomacy, overall tactics - can be given a +1, 0, or -1. You could even make it a bit like an RPG where there's levels. It would be lovely if you could rank it by individual games, but that leaves it open to a million private games being formed for stat building. =/

As an alternative, those same traits could require the votes of 12 individual players agreeing on the same deal, so someone could only gain a level if the Twelve Angry Players are agreed. That way, you eliminate the problem of the bitter player voting negative on every trait, because it still would take eleven other bitter people to agree with him/her...and if you really ARE that person, you only take a small hit.

[wicked]

BUMP!

[GabonX]

I would like there to be specific policies in writing somewhere on the site so that people know exactly what is and is not appropriate to say in feedback. I would also like it if the system worked in a more timely fashion.

[PLAYER57832]

Maybe more clarity on just what is and isn't acceptable feedback ... and a greater ability to either remove negs or change them to nuetral when is it obvious the person LEAVING the feedback is the one who should be ignored.

Examples:

One example, given above -- change to neutral. Let's the person have their fun, without damaging anyone else's "reputation".

Failure to play "real time" ... some folks, mostly NOT premium, think they have the right to decide that all 1v1 or all freestyle or ... whatever games they wish ... should be "real time". I may even make this a separate suggestion because it almost always falls along the premium/non-premium lines. Its mostly non-premiums wanting free speed games ... not something I think Lack would wish to encourage. I have nothing against real time ... often end up playing that way myself (though I generally tell folks I cannot gaurantee I will stay). NOR do I have an issue with folks going to the callout section in the forum and asking for folks interested in real time. But, too often folks join and then decide they can just dictate that a game should be real time without getting advance agreement from all the players.

The one I REALLY "love" ... often by middle rankers who have decided they are suddenly "experts"... the old "this guy suicided/attacked the "wrong" player/"otherwise played in a way I consider stupid .. he won, but still " Now, I know this is a bit controversial. So, let me be clear. I am not suggesting there is no grounds for remarking on skill or style of play. Just that there should be some limits. I have seen too, too many negatives from folks who more or less seemed angry that someone else's tactics won ... tactics they didn't like or just did not think to use. A nuetral will allow folks to state these things without further nullifying the feedback system.

If changes are made along this line, they should be clearly spelled out ... like the "no foul language" bit. Add in "negs for failure to play real time will be removed/changed to neutral. Complaints about strategy when the person won .. will be removed /changed to neutrals... and completely irrelevant remarks will be turned nuetral.

This will cause some extra work initially, but in the long run, folks will adapt and learn the new system.

[KoE_Sirius]

Maybe more clarity on just what is and isn't acceptable feedback ... and a greater ability to either remove negs or change them to nuetral when is it obvious the person LEAVING the feedback is the one who should be ignored.

Examples:

One example, given above -- change to neutral. Let's the person have their fun, without damaging anyone else's "reputation".

Failure to play "real time" ... some folks, mostly NOT premium, think they have the right to decide that all 1v1 or all freestyle or ... whatever games they wish ... should be "real time". I may even make this a separate suggestion because it almost always falls along the premium/non-premium lines. Its mostly non-premiums wanting free speed games ... not something I think Lack would wish to encourage. I have nothing against real time ... often end up playing that way myself (though I generally tell folks I cannot gaurantee I will stay). NOR do I have an issue with folks going to the callout section in the forum and asking for folks interested in real time. But, too often folks join and then decide they can just dictate that a game should be real time without getting advance agreement from all the players.

The one I REALLY "love" ... often by middle rankers who have decided they are suddenly "experts"... the old "this guy suicided/attacked the "wrong" player/"otherwise played in a way I consider stupid .. he won, but still " Now, I know this is a bit controversial. So, let me be clear. I am not suggesting there is no grounds for remarking on skill or style of play. Just that there should be some limits. I have seen too, too many negatives from folks who more or less seemed angry that someone else's tactics won ... tactics they didn't like or just did not think to use. A nuetral will allow folks to state these things without further nullifying the feedback system.

If changes are made along this line, they should be clearly spelled out ... like the "no foul language" bit. Add in "negs for failure to play real time will be removed/changed to neutral. Complaints about strategy when the person won .. will be removed /changed to neutrals... and completely irrelevant remarks will be turned nuetral.

This will cause some extra work initially, but in the long run, folks will adapt and learn the new system.

Whats this got to do with how you would like Feedback to be?

[KoE_Sirius]

I for one am sick of the malicious falsehood of most of the feedbacks left for me and equally how my time is consumed when leaving a wholesome negative with exact truth in my eyes being deleted.

I feel so strongly about it I will not be renewing my premium membership or recommending this site to anyone else.I have recommended over 100 people to date.

[firth4eva]

I don't know if this has already been suggested but;
How about catagorising negative feedback. Eg for deadbeating, attacking team mates, revealing in FoW etc.

[Ditocoaf]

Catagorizing? you mean like this?

If we're going to do a 1-10 or 1-5 ranking system, I'd like to see it ranked on three separate criteria:
Skill
Reliability
Behavior
Usually feedback will be based on one of these three things, but there is no way to differentiate at a glance whether someone's 4 negs refer to their skill, or the fact that they don't play well with others.

The (#-#) after someone's name could be replaced with (#/#/#), with their average score for each of the criteria.

However, there should be a "null vote" option for each, in case you only want to comment on one or two of the criteria.

I like this.

I like Ditocoaf's suggestion.

([/shameless plug] )

wait... one more thing-- [shameless plug]

Vote for the (Skill/Reliability/Behavior) suggestion today!

[hairingtons]

I for one am sick of the malicious falsehood of most of the feedbacks left for me and equally how my time is consumed when leaving a wholesome negative with exact truth in my eyes being deleted.

I feel so strongly about it I will not be renewing my premium membership or recommending this site to anyone else.I have recommended over 100 people to date.

ditto.

in the two years i've been here i must have recommended the sit to dozens & dozens of people. some are still here. but its not something i do now. unless there's some real change. i also won't renew premium next time.