Moderator: Community Team
Gilligan wrote:I'M SO GOOD AT THIS GAME
My stepmom locked the bathroom door
So I opened the lock with my shoelace
... you're still considered "well above average, borderline excellent" which seems fine to meThe number of stars given should be based on this scale: 1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.
even cheaters and liars such as KLOBBER, have mastered the art of hiding their true nature!!! Im sure you can as wellcicero wrote:I understand how you feel Sir G, but one of the benefits of benefits of ratings as I see it is that random/spiteful/inaccurate ratings like this are accounted for over time.
Right now this 1,1,1 has maybe brought you down from a 4.9 to a 4.5. But no-one is going to avoid playing you because of it.
And it only made even that much difference because right now you only have 10 contributory ratings. Once you have more - 20, 50, 100 ... the odd random random/spiteful/inaccurate one isn't going to make any difference. No one is going to scan through all your ratings to see if you ever got a 1,1,1.
They'll see 4.8 overall. Maybe take a peek and see your individual Fair Play, Attendance, Attitude and Teamwork ratings, but they won't go any further than that.
Given that the Ratings guidance in Instructions says ...... you're still considered "well above average, borderline excellent" which seems fine to meThe number of stars given should be based on this scale: 1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.
Yet again we used to have a feedback system that met these requirements.Sir Gordalot wrote:Just suggesting (not sure if it has been already brought up) that we should be able to leave responses to people's ratings that have been left for us. (like a text box under each rating to fill in)

theres nothing good at all about the new ratings. better off we had nothing at all.cicero wrote:Guys, have you seen lack's recent post Descriptive tags on ratings ?
I think it may well be the beginnings of something that combines the benefits of ratings with the expression of feedback ...
I'd like to assume that if we were to allow written responses to ratings/tags, we wouldn't moderate them...as they would be you typing on your own page...thus representative entirely of yourself. If you make yourself to be a loud mouthed ass that whines and complains, it's all on your page and not anyone elses. If you make yourself to be a courteous responder, again, it would be representative of yourself, on your own page.gloryordeath wrote:I think it would be a good idea it you could commit on bad feed back. At the same time this will cause at least some more load on the mods. If people can type anything they want there will be some abuse.
EDITAndyDufresne wrote:
One of the problems with the old feedback, was that OTHER people could write on "your page..." putting things you disagree with/don't like. The only thing other people can do is leave you perhaps a bad rating, but you have a way to explain yourself...however you'd like to so do it.
--Andy
AndyDufresne wrote:I'd like to assume that if we were to allow written responses to ratings/tags, we wouldn't moderate them...as they would be you typing on your own page...thus representative entirely of yourself. If you make yourself to be a loud mouthed ass that whines and complains, it's all on your page and not anyone elses. If you make yourself to be a courteous responder, again, it would be representative of yourself, on your own page.gloryordeath wrote:I think it would be a good idea it you could commit on bad feed back. At the same time this will cause at least some more load on the mods. If people can type anything they want there will be some abuse.
One of the problems with the old feedback, was that OTHER people could write on "your page..." putting things you disagree with/don't like. The only thing other people can do is leave you perhaps a bad rating, but you have a way to explain yourself...however you'd like to so do it.
--Andy

I think this is the key point that the response may solve. It not only provides a way to write out feedback (which people want), but it also provides a method for people to review what a user has said in response to their ratings. I do recall a large number of people mentioning that they only read how a user responded to their feedback, and I think this takes the best of that...while leaving out some previous problems.gloryordeath wrote: Good point Andy I guess you would be the only one doing the wrighting so it might work out in the end. You can gain a lot of in site on a person just on how they respond to such things.

so do i have this right? we'd have two opportunities for commentary - one related to the ratings and the other on the Wall. If the issue was the logistics of having to moderate negative and unpleasant comments wouldn't the simple answer have been to give each player the capability to delete unwanted comments and block their authors from further utterances?AndyDufresne wrote:I'd like to assume that if we were to allow written responses to ratings/tags, we wouldn't moderate them...as they would be you typing on your own page...thus representative entirely of yourself. If you make yourself to be a loud mouthed ass that whines and complains, it's all on your page and not anyone elses. If you make yourself to be a courteous responder, again, it would be representative of yourself, on your own page.gloryordeath wrote:I think it would be a good idea it you could commit on bad feed back. At the same time this will cause at least some more load on the mods. If people can type anything they want there will be some abuse.
One of the problems with the old feedback, was that OTHER people could write on "your page..." putting things you disagree with/don't like. The only thing other people can do is leave you perhaps a bad rating, but you have a way to explain yourself...however you'd like to so do it.
--Andy
No - cos then no-one would have any negative comments... thus the feedback would be utterly useless.lexie3000 wrote:so do i have this right? we'd have two opportunities for commentary - one related to the ratings and the other on the Wall. If the issue was the logistics of having to moderate negative and unpleasant comments wouldn't the simple answer have been to give each player the capability to delete unwanted comments and block their authors from further utterances?

I think you'll agree, this is un justified and goes to prove that this system in its current state... just doesn't work.Quase wrote:i give tha rating just to give the rating lets do one more game to correct that thenUpandRising wrote:please explain your ratings,fairplay 3 attendance 3 attitude 3 i won the game it was a 1v1 so no bad play, attendance played all my turns so how can you do any better, attitude did chat more then you but then again some players dont chat at all does not mean attitude is poor.how i rated you fair play 5 attendance 5 attitude 5 why again 1v1 no bad moves impossible because we are the only two players,you played all your turns how can you give less then 5 cant be average was i only there sometimes then,well i did chat more then you yet score less maybe i should have given you a 1 for the only sentence you put in the game.please reply as i will have know choice but to withdraw yours thanks mate upandrising
that begs the question. just how useful are negative comments anyway? i for one wouldn't bother removing negative comments and i'm sure there's quite a few others who aren't that precious about the negative comments they get either. but either way what's the big deal? allowing people the ability to delete negative comments would have solved the problem the moderators had with the system.yeti_c wrote:No - cos then no-one would have any negative comments... thus the feedback would be utterly useless.lexie3000 wrote:so do i have this right? we'd have two opportunities for commentary - one related to the ratings and the other on the Wall. If the issue was the logistics of having to moderate negative and unpleasant comments wouldn't the simple answer have been to give each player the capability to delete unwanted comments and block their authors from further utterances?
C.
yes, yes, but we want to be able to leave details in ratings that we give people, too!Sir Gordalot wrote:Just suggesting (not sure if it has been already brought up) that we should be able to leave responses to people's ratings that have been left for us. (like a text box under each rating to fill in)
For example recently in a game i was holding S.A. and australia in a game, with a clear advantage i would have won the game within 2 or 3 rounds... yellow cashed a set and took me out of australia and saved the game for everybody else. i said in chat "nice play yellow" another very observant player took that to mean I was in a secret alliance and left me all 1's as ratings... (even if i was in an alliance the 1 under attendence was completely unfounded since i never missed a turn and it was the incompetent player leaving the rating that was slowing down the game)
I know a lot of people have their complaints and complements about the new system and I think just simply being able to say "this person has no clue what they are talking about" under the bad ratings would fix a lot of the problems
