Scott-Land wrote:Ohh sorry Riskmaster2000- I mean Soloman
Throw in flames, then complain that WIcked jacks the thread to FW.... any rate, I was just briefly going through the original post. It's not a big issue. No where do I condemn or yada yada ( didn't read the rest of your post) Apparently we agree-- why get hostile ?
Your ignorance, fallacies and all make for a compelling argument of your overall lack of validity and further decry your lacking observation of correct context and your completely uninformed opinion...
Scott-Land wrote:Ohh sorry Riskmaster2000- I mean Soloman
Throw in flames, then complain that WIcked jacks the thread to FW.... any rate, I was just briefly going through the original post. It's not a big issue. No where do I condemn or yada yada ( didn't read the rest of your post) Apparently we agree-- why get hostile ?
Your ignorance, fallacies and all make for a compelling argument of your overall lack of validity and further decry your lacking observation of correct context and your completely uninformed opinion...
Does that mean I'm wrong that you cheat with Riskmaster2000 ? That post is way over my head.... simple yes or no will do
Scott-Land wrote:Ohh sorry Riskmaster2000- I mean Soloman
Throw in flames, then complain that WIcked jacks the thread to FW.... any rate, I was just briefly going through the original post. It's not a big issue. No where do I condemn or yada yada ( didn't read the rest of your post) Apparently we agree-- why get hostile ?
Your ignorance, fallacies and all make for a compelling argument of your overall lack of validity and further decry your lacking observation of correct context and your completely uninformed opinion...
Does that mean I'm wrong that you cheat with Riskmaster2000 ? That post is way over my head.... simple yes or no will do
Learn to read then get a dictionary. As far as the other travesty the site bowed to vocal few that have no ability to read or understand a log and or just had a chip on their shoulder. The game logs and rest of my games showed the truth, but its use(the truth) is subjective and whimsical here at CC and in a lot of cases does not matter as mob rules and all. The sad thing in your attempts to derail this thread is that if you had read the posts based on your own post you would have agreed with the post you take an antagonist stance at. The criteria I discuss in this thread is my opinion and my interpretation of the system its meaning and justification. Your post though is representative of a majority here who do not care what the facts are nor do they read any guidelines, they just spout off and and attempt to rewrite the reality to fit with a limited and childish scope. Learn the criteria by reading about them in instructions then use the system as it was intended and we can all get a better view on our future opposition...
Last edited by Soloman on Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
One issue no one seems to be mentioning is consistancy over many games. I am likely to give someone pleasant a 4 for attitude, but if I play several games with them and find they are consistantly pleasant, both winning and losing ... I will bump to a 5 even if each individual game is not absolutely a 5
PLAYER57832 wrote:One issue no one seems to be mentioning is consistancy over many games. I am likely to give someone pleasant a 4 for attitude, but if I play several games with them and find they are consistantly pleasant, both winning and losing ... I will bump to a 5 even if each individual game is not absolutely a 5
I agree with that. I think the reason we can adjust ratings at least on the positive side is for that scenerio
Fairplay: 5 Stars is someone who goes out of there way to bring me a drink while I'm waiting for my turn and who is also a really hot chick. 4 Stars would be someone who sends me some nice porn or has good your mom jokes. 3 Stars for someone who decided to play the game instead of talking about Batman. 2 Stars go to people who seem to think winning is important or are convicted criminals. 1 Star would be JR.
Attendance: 5 Stars when you play whenever it is your turn and like want to play your turn. 4 Stars for those that miss 3 turns in a row letting me grab the win. (They will also get 5 stars in fair play.) 3 Stars go to players that I think have poopy-faces. 2 Stars are for the people who play every goddamn turn they have within 2 hours and whine about other people taking their turns not fast enough. 1 Star if you are Owen.
Attitude: 5 Stars is a chatty player who engages in cybering and isn't afraid to send pics. 4 Stars for courteous players who give good advice on how to supersoak that ho. 3 Stars to those that Chocolate rain, some stay dry and others feel the pain, chocolate rain, a baby born will die before the sin. 2 Stars whiny players who complain I posted naked pics of them on the internets. 1 Star Poor Sports like Warsteiner or Dancing Mustard.
Teamwork: 5 Stars Great teammate always in sync with whatever wacky plan our team of evil overlords has decided upon. 4 Stars Did your mom. 3 Stars Thinks unicorns are the greatests invention of mankind and has a room full of posters and stuffed unicorns for it. 2 Stars Did not do your mom. 1 Star Saboteur plays as if I am a buddhist.
These are just what I am using as a base criteria on my ratings all games are judged by that game but I find that this framework helps me distribute ratings totally randomly. What do the rest of you use when deciding how you rate some one? Do you have any random, subjective criteria based on how awesome the rating system is?
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Snorri1234 wrote:Fairplay: 5 Stars is someone who goes out of there way to bring me a drink while I'm waiting for my turn and who is also a really hot chick. 4 Stars would be someone who sends me some nice porn or has good your mom jokes. 3 Stars for someone who decided to play the game instead of talking about Batman. 2 Stars go to people who seem to think winning is important or are convicted criminals. 1 Star would be JR.
Attendance: 5 Stars when you play whenever it is your turn and like want to play your turn. 4 Stars for those that miss 3 turns in a row letting me grab the win. (They will also get 5 stars in fair play.) 3 Stars go to players that I think have poopy-faces. 2 Stars are for the people who play every goddamn turn they have within 2 hours and whine about other people taking their turns not fast enough. 1 Star if you are Owen.
Attitude: 5 Stars is a chatty player who engages in cybering and isn't afraid to send pics. 4 Stars for courteous players who give good advice on how to supersoak that ho. 3 Stars to those that Chocolate rain, some stay dry and others feel the pain, chocolate rain, a baby born will die before the sin. 2 Stars whiny players who complain I posted naked pics of them on the internets. 1 Star Poor Sports like Warsteiner or Dancing Mustard.
Teamwork: 5 Stars Great teammate always in sync with whatever wacky plan our team of evil overlords has decided upon. 4 Stars Did your mom. 3 Stars Thinks unicorns are the greatests invention of mankind and has a room full of posters and stuffed unicorns for it. 2 Stars Did not do your mom. 1 Star Saboteur plays as if I am a buddhist.
These are just what I am using as a base criteria on my ratings all games are judged by that game but I find that this framework helps me distribute ratings totally randomly. What do the rest of you use when deciding how you rate some one? Do you have any random, subjective criteria based on how awesome the rating system is?
Funny but part of the problem, noone takes it(the new System) seriously they completely disregard what was put in place and how it was designed and like you said randomly distribute a subjective system.
All ratings will eventually true, but only if people use them as they were intended. I have also been the victim of illogical and senseless ratings both positive and negative. But I know that over time both will level out and while there will always be some jerkoff who decides to abuse the system that will happen no matter what system is used...
The attendance part of the ratings should be automated. If you take your go in under 2 hours 5 stars under 6 hours 4 stars under 12 hours 3 stars under 23 hours 2 stars miss a go - 1 star.
these are just loose suggestions - a poll would be a good idea for the first 4 categories
the attendance ratings should be worked out as mean average over the amount of goes each person takes per game. Attendance can be based on pure math times and shouldn't be another way to be abused by disgruntled players trying to reduce someones overall rating or making a deadbeat look good because you beat him and always gave 5 stars regardless of attendance.
This should happen to every single game you play to create a really good mean figure for each player.
Speed games should be amended by dividing what ever agreed time limits per star rating by 360 (360 x 4 = 1440, which is the day in minutes)
People who take their goes quickly should be rewarded with accurate rankings. Personal opinions of what constitutes fast play are bollox.
i agree the attendance rating should be automated, but play your turn every 2 hrs, really? In order to get 5 stars, you'd never get more than 2 hours of sleep at a time, which would cause problems in the real world.
shadowsteel9 wrote:i agree the attendance rating should be automated, but play your turn every 2 hrs, really? In order to get 5 stars, you'd never get more than 2 hours of sleep at a time, which would cause problems in the real world.
It was just a thought. It's all open to discussion (see my thread in suggestions) and if some sort of time could be agreed upon - we have a system. I came up with 2 hours for those people who are log on and are around for 4 hours and take their goes within 10-15 minutes when a turn presents itself
shadowsteel9 wrote:i agree the attendance rating should be automated, but play your turn every 2 hrs, really? In order to get 5 stars, you'd never get more than 2 hours of sleep at a time, which would cause problems in the real world.
It was just a thought. It's all open to discussion (see my thread in suggestions) and if some sort of time could be agreed upon - we have a system. I came up with 2 hours for those people who are log on and are around for 4 hours and take their goes within 10-15 minutes when a turn presents itself
I agree with both of your posts good starting point a little more stringent then I but hey that is the way life goes. Also I would say to average the turns over the length of the game in the automation I mean I would never mark some one down because 1 turn they took 22 hours while all the rest were done with in 2 -3 hours of availability...
I usually don't give ratings to people who don't say anything in chat, not because I want to punish them, but because I really feel I am in no position to judge them (particularly their attitude) if they are not talking. The exception to this is deadbeats. Otherwise, if you are friendly and miss no turns I give fives. I regard anything less as an indication that you did something wrong.
Keebs2674 wrote:The problem with your ratings is that you consider "Fair Play" to be how well someone played a game. That's not what fair play is. That's whether they had good strategy or not. Fair play is about whether someone follows the rules or cheats. I'd include suiciding and intentionally missing turns and breaking alliances in that catagory.
per the site description Fair Play: covers suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking or respecting alliances, chivalry, etc...
Now correct me if I am wrong but all of those things involve how someone plays the game, Missing turns is covered in attendance so should not be a factor, If you read closely and in between the lines while strategy is mentioned Goes out of way to balance & works well with others(chivalry), Lets fort out(respecting alliance) normal strategy not helping nor hindering again average fairplay, Seems biased (possible secret alliance) and I did mention suicider, so i think you should reread then comment as it appears your skimming mislead you or you did not look at site guidelines/description before posting.
The description of Fair Play in the "site description" is exactly what I'm talking about. But what you're talking about is different. You're talking about whether or not players try to balance the game, or attack leaders, or to keep to themselves - these are all different strategies used to try to win the game.
For example, in a three player game, Player 1 is leading, Player 2 is the second strongest, and Player 3 is the weakest. If Player 3 sits quietly and lets the other two battle it out, in your mind this action should be measured by fairness. But this strategy has nothing to do with fairness. Player 3 is simply trying to win the game by letting Players 1 and 2 weaken themselves. It may or may not work, but it's not fair or unfair. It has nothing to do with chivalry either.
I also want to know who these people are that would get Five Stars in attendance? Who has time in their life to ensure that no more than three hours elapse between the start of the 24 hours for them to take their turn and when they actually take it, particularly when they're playing multiple games at the same time?
Also, who has the free time to read back through the game log to catalogue how long it took each player to take their turn after the clock started?
In my opinion, someone should get five stars if they don't miss a turn. If they start missing turns then their rating goes down from there. If they deadbeat, without apologizing or giving a good excuse, I'd give them one star. I'm getting irritated by people who give me three or two stars because I don't sit around all day waiting for the 24 hours clock to start ticking. Get a life people.
Keebs2674 wrote:I also want to know who these people are that would get Five Stars in attendance? Who has time in their life to ensure that no more than three hours elapse between the start of the 24 hours for them to take their turn and when they actually take it, particularly when they're playing multiple games at the same time?
Also, who has the free time to read back through the game log to catalogue how long it took each player to take their turn after the clock started?
In my opinion, someone should get five stars if they don't miss a turn. If they start missing turns then their rating goes down from there. If they deadbeat, without apologizing or giving a good excuse, I'd give them one star. I'm getting irritated by people who give me three or two stars because I don't sit around all day waiting for the 24 hours clock to start ticking. Get a life people.
i HAVE GIVEN PLENTY OF 5 FOR EXACTLY WHAT i SAID IN ATTENDANCE...
shadowsteel9 wrote:i agree the attendance rating should be automated, but play your turn every 2 hrs, really? In order to get 5 stars, you'd never get more than 2 hours of sleep at a time, which would cause problems in the real world.
It was just a thought. It's all open to discussion (see my thread in suggestions) and if some sort of time could be agreed upon - we have a system. I came up with 2 hours for those people who are log on and are around for 4 hours and take their goes within 10-15 minutes when a turn presents itself
Yeah, but the problem with this automated thing is that it screws over those who have a social life or internet problems. I usually try to take my turn whenever I can, but when I have to be at university from 9:30 to 17:00 some days it's hard to get my turn within a small amount of time. Or what about those times my internet didn't work and I couldn't get to playing till the next day?
The other problem with the automated star-system is that I deal with different play-groups. If I miss a turn or play after 18 hours I usually don't get a big deal about it as the rest of the group can understand it. A guy in my last game had his house flood so he missed two turns, which I really don't want to see negatively influence his rating.
I think the problem with this new system is that it is too much for the fanatical players anyway. The lack of written responses means a person can't tell whether a person is a solid player with just some bad luck in the past or a notorious deadbeater. This is especially the case with "attendance" as that can be interpreted in so many different ways. The site advertises you can take your turns in 24 hours, but lots of people think that that is stretching the limit considerably.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
shadowsteel9 wrote:i agree the attendance rating should be automated, but play your turn every 2 hrs, really? In order to get 5 stars, you'd never get more than 2 hours of sleep at a time, which would cause problems in the real world.
It was just a thought. It's all open to discussion (see my thread in suggestions) and if some sort of time could be agreed upon - we have a system. I came up with 2 hours for those people who are log on and are around for 4 hours and take their goes within 10-15 minutes when a turn presents itself
Yeah, but the problem with this automated thing is that it screws over those who have a social life or internet problems. I usually try to take my turn whenever I can, but when I have to be at university from 9:30 to 17:00 some days it's hard to get my turn within a small amount of time. Or what about those times my internet didn't work and I couldn't get to playing till the next day?
What's wrong with having an average attendance rating just like most other people on CC? I certainly don't watch my turns like a hawk. But it is nice to know if there is a person who does, and recognize them for that.
What's wrong with average? Because most people are just a bit egocentric and would really like to believe they are better than average.
Also, people come here for fun. Most want a positive experience. The old saying "you catch more bees with honey than salt" is true. AND the idea that you can create positive behavior by being positive ... is also true.
How do I rate?
Attendance gets a 5 unless you miss a turn ... if you apologize/give a reason, etc 3 or 2 no reason probably 2. If you "stomp off" when losing or deadbeat - 2, though if you pm'd me with an apology and decent reason, I would probably change it to a blank. Similarly, if you miss more than one turn and one was definitely due to a CC issue and the other I don't know about ... 3
Fair Play -- mostly 4 or 5. ELSE: If they try to take the whole board ... a 2 or 3 If I think they made a secret alliance -1 If they attack out of vengeance and not tactics - 2 If they try to lie to me -- 1 or 2;
If they go out of their way to help me, suggest tactics, etc. (usually at the end or when it is down to 1v1) ... definitely a 5 If I play several nice games ... definitely a 5
If I have previously rated them lower and play again, I may up the score a "notch". But, someone to whom I gave all 1's is probably on my ignore list.
Attitude: This is is the biggest for me. Folks getting a 1 or 2 are likely to end up on my ignore list. If you say nothing ... either a 3 or leave blank the first time I play If you say gl/hello probably a 4, If I have played several games with you, especially if you have both won and lost ... a 5 If you had an unusually bad drop/bad luck and still kept an "upbeat" attitude -- 5
If you whine and complain (not joking, not tempered) -- 3 if not too bad, down to a 1 If you belittle and badger --1 If you use foul language -- 3 or 2 if quite bad If you quit, suicide or "stomp off" when you think you are losing 2 or 1. (if you have to go, say so and the game really is over, that is one thing ... but giving up when things turn slightly bad ... 1)
If you try to tell everyone else how to play or complain about other players ... 1,2 or 3
In most cases, there will be a combination of above factors (poor sports often swear for some reason, etc.) bringing the score down.
Overall ... nice manners across several games = 5 for attitude
Well, it's been a month now and I'm about ready to join the crowd of 5 star raters. I thought if some of us rated according to how the new system was designed (or as close as possible), others would gradually join and eventually Lack would reset the system with clearer instructions for rating. But so far nothing has happened. Those who rate with 3 as average seem to be fewer than ever, and I don't see any mod support or encouragement for rating the way it was intended. I'm sure a revamp of the rating system is on it's way, but I now have no idea how it will be changed (other than the automated turn time average or whatever it's called).
What's the point of rating based on 3 as average (the way it was intended) if 99% of others don't and it doesn't look like they ever will? The only result is pms from people wondering why I rated them bad. Rating with 3 as average doesn't help anyone else recognize the ability of a player because it's drowned out in 5s from other people.
If I rate with 5 as average, at least I won't constantly have to explain myself. You might ask why I would rate at all if I find it so pointless. Well at least I'll be able to help weed out the .1% of players who are truly not worth playing with, plus I'll eventually get a medal for ratings
Okay, I just went and checked the Ratings Reloaded and it looks like Lack will be fixing the problem so that using the rating system correctly will be worthwhile, so I guess I'll go back to the 3-as-average system.
will do 
