JOHNNYROCKET24 wrote:Optimus Prime wrote:oziris wrote:I have same issue with that. Attendance should be automatically given by the site programming. Guy that missed 3 turns and got kicked out for it gave me attendance of 3 stars and I didn't miss any turns. Plain retarded. In fact he seems to give almost everyone 3 stars in all categories.
That would be because 3 stars is the norm, whether or not all of you want to accept it, that is what was set forth by CC as the norm. Unless you did something impressive, you don't deserve more than 3 stars in any category.
how do you do something impressive with attendance ? either you moved within 24 hours or you dint. All the freemiums that play only 2 player games because they wont fork out the 25 bucks will leave BS ratings for attendance because they want you to sit there and play until the game is over. That is what speed games are for. So now we are getting nailed for BS that is the same thing compared to negative feedbacks that they were leaving. Only now we cant get them removed.
Well, not that I agree at all with the arbitrary nature of these ratings, attendance and attitude are two things that I can understand average vs. superior grades in. Again, assuming that 3s were not instinctively thought of as basically negative. Whether or not you have some unfair expectation that people will be playing RT or not, it certainly doesn't suck for it to be your turn more often than not. Thus, any player who's always very quick to make his move, helps in this regard. So, again, provided the prevailing mindset was not "what did this person do wrong?" with 3s, I could understand saving 4s and 5s for those who really help move the game along.
Same with attitude. If basically say nothing but good luck and gg at the end, that is not as cool as somebody who's entertaining in chat without spamming. Once again, provided we could move past the mindset that anything short of 5 is bad, I can see where one earns you a 3 and the other earns you a 5.
You have to understand, that if the only way you can drop below a 5 is to do something wrong, then we have 3 more levels of ratings than we even need. Either that or we have 4 different levels of being bad and only one level of being good which does seem odd. That is the fundamental problem with starting at 5. At the same time, I also understand that this is an inevitable expression of human nature.
These two are both different than fair play because there's really no way of really being particularly fair. Either you're fair, or you're not. So, starting at 3 there seems silly.
