Better upgrade than some of the abusive ranting that I've seen in the past - Though, some of it is just plain hilarious...
One suggestion: You might want to consider adding an "Aptitude" or "Strategy" ranking for overall ranking - It's too easy to skew rankings high unless there's obvious Positive or Negative feedback.
"Aptitude" might be likened to a movie rating - It's more subjective, but gives more information and will illustrate a larger difference b/t good v. okay v. bad v. great players. And, that's what we want, correct?
***Since I'm in the psychology field and have created "Likert-type" scales similar to these, it would be helpful to give "benchmarks" for the range of stars given (e.g., Fairness - Very hard to judge, so maybe a range from 1 star "Not fair at all", 2 stars "questionable", 3 stars "Hard to tell" or "N/A", 4 stars "fair", 5 stars "fair to a fault" or "very fair")
If the above were known, then people could more accurately & appropriately rank people accordingly. Obviously, the verbiage and applicability of each needs to follow suit and be appropriate for each scale. It would be really easy to do an "Incompetent", "not very competent", "No Way to know" or "N/A", "competent", and "Very competent" to a 5-star Likert scale; and, I think this would be easier for people to rate.
I'm skewing everyone high right now (4-5 stars), except for the 1-2 people that DB'ed, suicided or were completely rude; then they get no or 1 star - And, what's the difference b/t "no star" v. "1 star"? That could be rated completely different among people who have a different perspective on the meaning of the rating "variable" or "construct".
Hope this may help everyone make this system clearer...
Cheers,
Nigelus.
I am ever sad that they are gone now....
Do these medals make me look fat?
