Moderator: Community Team
Why in the world would it bring your average down? Because other idiots give out 5's? Just because some people skew the system doesn't make it negative. You need to associate 3 with average - just as the guidelines give. If you don't, you are WRONG. There's no negotiating the matter, it's official, guidelines have been given. If you want to view it as something else, that's fine, but you're still viewing it wrong and incorrectly. Fact is, people just fish for 5's back by giving 5's out.derivative133 wrote:I like the idea of new players not being able to give feedback until they complete 5 games. Same as getting rid of the ?.
I also think JR is right. 3 is not good. It is negative, because it brings your average down. With the old system, neutral feedback did not affect your positive, but with this system, nuetral feedback (Average) will bring your rating down.
If people who have not completed at least 5 games cannot leave feedback, I think it will eliminate a lot of un-necessary troubles.
What is the point of giving out 3s? If someone did well give positive, if they didn't give negative. Why give someone an average, seems like a waste of time.FabledIntegral wrote:Why in the world would it bring your average down? Because other idiots give out 5's? Just because some people skew the system doesn't make it negative. You need to associate 3 with average - just as the guidelines give. If you don't, you are WRONG. There's no negotiating the matter, it's official, guidelines have been given. If you want to view it as something else, that's fine, but you're still viewing it wrong and incorrectly. Fact is, people just fish for 5's back by giving 5's out.derivative133 wrote:I like the idea of new players not being able to give feedback until they complete 5 games. Same as getting rid of the ?.
I also think JR is right. 3 is not good. It is negative, because it brings your average down. With the old system, neutral feedback did not affect your positive, but with this system, nuetral feedback (Average) will bring your rating down.
If people who have not completed at least 5 games cannot leave feedback, I think it will eliminate a lot of un-necessary troubles.
zimmah wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:
NO, there IS NO standard. Some people think 3 is for average, some people think it should be a 5 unless you do something bad ...
Add to that issues of folks creating their own little rules ... like "you gotta play real time" and so forth. (basically a free speed game). That isn't even counting the whole group that thinks anyone who beats them (or anyone lower ranked, at least) ought to get a negative..... etc.
wrong, there is a standard, read the instructions page or the rating page itselfs, hover your mouse over the ratings, you'll see it yourself.
Well said.What is the point of giving out 3s? If someone did well give positive, if they didn't give negative. Why give someone an average, seems like a waste of time.
The hell are you talking about? You don't want to know if a player is average? Then you'd rather simply be in mystery about 90% of the players on this site? Have fun living in ignorance.Hrvat wrote:Well said.What is the point of giving out 3s? If someone did well give positive, if they didn't give negative. Why give someone an average, seems like a waste of time.
![]()
![]()
What is the point of the ratings that will "average out" over the time?
I want to see who deadbeats...
I want to see who is abusive...
I want to see who is a bighead...
I want to see who is simply a pain...
New ratings do not show any of this, and as time goes by, ratings are going to average out, which means..., we will not be able to tell who is not worth playing....
And what does 3=average means????
I do NOT wish to know if player is 3=average!
Hi wicked,wicked wrote:JR, in terms of performance reviews at work, 3 would be meets expectations, 4 exceeds, 5 goes above and beyond. So you met his expectations. Suck it up, one 3 isn't going to kill ya.

you just said it yourself...."A 3 is perfectly average" meaning not goodJOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:Sorry JR, but not everyone sees a 5 as good. A 3 is perfectly average.Night Strike wrote:[quote="JOHNNYROCKET24"the game lasted like 5 or 6 rounds and only a couple hours. I joined the game at work and finished it at home. It was set up for 24 hours per move...not a speed game which is why I joined. I cant play a speed game at work. I define a 5 as a good score. anything lower is bad.
so I guess this will be the new trend. Dont sit there for a full game and get nailed with low ratings because players dont understand the rules. is this example permitted to be processed through the e-ticket section ?
you are yourself abusing the system by leaving 78 full 5 star ratings (already 2 pages full of corrupted ratings, and the system sn't even online for 1 week!) so don't whine about others leaving you 'a bad rating' you have only yourself to blame for corrupting the systemzimmah wrote:you just said it yourself...."A 3 is perfectly average" meaning not goodJOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:Sorry JR, but not everyone sees a 5 as good. A 3 is perfectly average.Night Strike wrote:[quote="JOHNNYROCKET24"the game lasted like 5 or 6 rounds and only a couple hours. I joined the game at work and finished it at home. It was set up for 24 hours per move...not a speed game which is why I joined. I cant play a speed game at work. I define a 5 as a good score. anything lower is bad.
so I guess this will be the new trend. Dont sit there for a full game and get nailed with low ratings because players dont understand the rules. is this example permitted to be processed through the e-ticket section ?
every player that cant play speed games because they refuse to pay 25 bucks, will now leave false ratings because players will not sit there and play a full game for them in 1 sitting. perhaps non premium members should not be able to leave ratings? saying you have bad or average attendance for not playing a game real time when its set up for 24 hours is not right.
acyckowski wrote:The whole thing is a sham.
First, if you don't have the marbles to put your name on specific criticism, (like the old system), then you need to kindly shut the f@ck up. If you're a snot-nosed crybaby who can't handle losing, you can post a set of ones, put me on your "ignore" list, and never have to worry about being called out for it. That's just crap. Man up or shut up.
Second, all these numbers do is give the illusion of mathematical precision to data that is plucked from the air. We'd be better off pulling feedback from the dice generator.
Third, as mentioned above, if somebody is a cheating douchebag, an oxygen-thieving deadbeat, or some other type of human debris, I could read it right there in the negs. On the other hand, if a guy got piled on for jacking up his first assdoodle game, I could see that, also.
WOW I would have to agree with johnny on this I never thought I would say that.JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:I do like the new system, however, I discovered a flaw.
Players giving bad ratings for attendance because you dont play real time.
I just got the first one. A new recruit joins the site and doesnt understand the rules. He sets up a game with options of making a move once every 24 hours and than leaves a false rating because he wanted to play real time. How can we avoid this ?

hephestes wrote:what the hell is wrong with average?
a honda civic. average. it's still a great car.
a salary of $32,000. average. still would feed half of africa.
a death at age 70. average. but i hope like hell i live that long.
a 3 in conquer club. average. not great, not bad. just run of the mill.
live with average. most of the experiences we have in life are average. most of the people we meet are average. most everything is average - hence the term. stop expecting every meal to be fois gras. it's not going to be. it's spaghetti and meatballs tonight and next wednesday night, too.
If people had managed to use the old system in a even remotely fair and constructive way then it wouldn't have needed full time moderating and that would most likely mean that it still would have been used.acyckowski wrote: Third, as mentioned above, if somebody is a cheating douchebag, an oxygen-thieving deadbeat, or some other type of human debris, I could read it right there in the negs. On the other hand, if a guy got piled on for jacking up his first assdoodle game, I could see that, also.

I only leave less than a 5 if I actually have a problem with how the person played / acted or played his turns. I don't care if player X got a 5 for sitting at his computer all day playing every turn right when it was his turn I want to know if he played his turns inside the time allowed and that to me is excellent not average.MuEagles79 wrote:shouldn't everyone start out with 5 stars and only if they do something in game should the stars be lessened?
otherwise it is super subjective
for ex: doesn't everyone get a 5 for attendance unless they miss a turn?
ditto for fair play, etc.
That's pretty dumb. Under this logic, the forums are not remotely fair or constructive, either, because they require full time moderating.Thezzaruz wrote:If people had managed to use the old system in a even remotely fair and constructive way then it wouldn't have needed full time moderating and that would most likely mean that it still would have been used.acyckowski wrote: Third, as mentioned above, if somebody is a cheating douchebag, an oxygen-thieving deadbeat, or some other type of human debris, I could read it right there in the negs. On the other hand, if a guy got piled on for jacking up his first assdoodle game, I could see that, also.
You need to read up on your logic skills as "A → B" does not logically lead to or prove "B → A"...acyckowski wrote: That's pretty dumb. Under this logic, the forums are not remotely fair or constructive, either, because they require full time moderating.
I love it when somebody tries to act smarter than they are. I point out the circle you created, and you still don't see it.Thezzaruz wrote:You need to read up on your logic skills as "A → B" does not logically lead to or prove "B → A"...acyckowski wrote: That's pretty dumb. Under this logic, the forums are not remotely fair or constructive, either, because they require full time moderating.