RATINGS

[FabledIntegral]

They actually found a way out of retaliatory feedback with teh archiving. I like that. However I am annoyed that all of a sudden I got a negative rating from games that were already in teh feedback system. For example, someone who I gave a negative to on the feedback setting gave me a negative back... figured it was done, now the game is archived and I ALSO have a 1 star rating from the kid b/c he went back into the old games and left a poor rating as well. Now that's stupid imo.

actually, je's the only one that gave you an accurate rating, i took a look at the game and chat, and i'd give exactly the same rating in fact.

I never said it wasn't accurate - you obviously misinterpreted my post. I was referring to the fact that games that were already using hte feedback system was used. I'm not about to go back to every negative I've handed out and redo all the ratings. I figured what was done with was done with. Now, when that guy truly in my opinion deserved a negative just as much back, as my chat "retaliation" that you witnessed was when he continually attacked me down to 40 armies when pink had 150 armies on the map, and he CONTINUALLY did that turn by turn, did I speak up and criticize extensively. So yes, for fair play he would get a very low rating, most likely a 1 star by me, for suiciding aka throwing the game, which is explicitly against CC rules.

Concerning fair play - I did not miss turns, I did not suicide on anyone, nor did I do anything unsportsmanlike CONCERNING the game. Therefore you would be giving a retaliatory JUST as much as he did. You could dock me for attitude, which he did. Either way, I was only commenting on the fact that I could no longer give him a shit-piss poor rating for attitude AND fair play, which I would.

EDIT. And the only thing I actually said in gameplay, which everything was going fine UNTIL then, was

"2008-05-30 06:22:47 - FabledIntegral: You're both attacking me STILL, blue use your fucking head you dolt, you have 155 armies vs pink's 134 vs my 45 fucking armies, and I have LESS than half of EITHER of your deployments"

They were both using 100% of their armies vs me EVERY turn. For 3 turns in a row. We were equal at one point, and spontaneously, they all used 100% of their armies. How could I not suspect a secret alliance. I was deploying about 15 armies per turn, they were EACH getting 30, and they were both wiping at me. If you look at the logs I didn't complain like that until AFTER both attacked me - what "attitude" do you expect zimmah? Honestly. And he tried to even justify it - it wasn't until after I said I was going to give him a negative that he continued to just keep attacking me, willing to throw the game.

i ment the one for attitude basicly, fair play i can't really judge since i didn't play that game. either way in game chat i saw you swearing and cursing a lot, and yes, i understand you complain about such situations, but at the rate you complained i'd surely give you a 2 star rating. as for fair play, just a standrad 3 (i give everyone a 3 unless i suspect them of intentionally ruining the game) and as for attendance, i guess a 3 also (also just normal) so i'd basicly give you almost the same rating as he did.

however, if i was in your position, i;d also probably curse a bit (however maybe a bit less, still i'd curse and swear a little bit) and i would definitly give them a 2 or maybe even a 1 (if they are really that bad) for fair play, and for attitude a 1 or 2 also (depending on how bad they behave) attendence wouldn't get affected by it since that has nothing to do with personality, just the playing speed.

I wasn't saying his rating was even inaccurate by the way. I was just commenting on the fact that I thought it was annoying a game I thought was over with somehow appeared up in my rating. I figured I left him a neg, he left me a neg, both were accurate, situation was done. I would surely go back now and give him a poor rating if I could was my point, I just figured those games were all archived.

[PLAYER57832]

The ratings numbers haven't even popped up for the majority here. Give it some time to play out, k?

The real problem is that when big decisions are made ... like the change to the Risk map, the feedback, etc. only a few select people are consulted.

The ones with the most "credibility" in this regard, are the ones who make the maps, the mods, etc. Understandable in some ways, BUT (and this is a pretty big BUT!), those people are NOT necessarily representative of the community as a whole.

Only a few people bother to even enter the forums, UNLESS they have a serious complaint. Even the, many will just leave or complain in chat, maybe slow down in games ... and perhaps eventually leave, but in ways that make the real reason they left hard to track.

If you are talking about an addition -- more games, more options, medals, etc. The "limited few" is fine. BUT if you are going to make large scale CHANGES, you really need to do a better job of checking with the community as a whole, and not just a few people.

Oddly enough, at least 100 people, including Team CC and players who visit the forum made comments or were given access to the system prior to it's launch to give feedback, that is not a "limited few" in my opinion, especially when a large majority of those on that list (yes, I made the list) are from all ranks, memberships, and styles of play. I think those 100 people provide a fairly accurate representation of the average CC player if you ask me.

As for the change, I know that you personally do frequent the forums PLAYER57832, and yet... your name is nowhere to be found on the list of people who gave comments regarding the upcoming change. Why is that? I'm just curious because it seems that if you are going to cry "unfair" that it was not given enough feedback, you really should have taken the time to give feedback on it yourself. I took my list from the people who posted in the official request for feedback thread.

The opportunity was given for feedback to be provided on the upcoming change. It would be foolish to ask thousands of players to come and post their comments, when a slice (of which 100 is pretty decent) will provide the same overall opinion.

I did comment and offer suggestiong early on. There was more than one thread, I might have missed the latest.

But, that aside, there are thousands of extremely diverse individuals in CC. A hundred might be OK if it was a representative 100 -- either randomly selected or stratified random, etc. Asking for voluntary postings gets only those people who look in that portion of the forums when asked. This, in general, means you get a LOT more people who don't like something, particularly in Suggestions and Bugs, people who have a lot "invested" in the system ... (the mods, of course, but also some others). Each forum has its own groups of adherants. Many, such as I, might be active for a while, back off, then pop back in. Forums posters are not a representative sample of the playing community.

[FabledIntegral]

The ratings numbers haven't even popped up for the majority here. Give it some time to play out, k?

The real problem is that when big decisions are made ... like the change to the Risk map, the feedback, etc. only a few select people are consulted.

The ones with the most "credibility" in this regard, are the ones who make the maps, the mods, etc. Understandable in some ways, BUT (and this is a pretty big BUT!), those people are NOT necessarily representative of the community as a whole.

Only a few people bother to even enter the forums, UNLESS they have a serious complaint. Even the, many will just leave or complain in chat, maybe slow down in games ... and perhaps eventually leave, but in ways that make the real reason they left hard to track.

If you are talking about an addition -- more games, more options, medals, etc. The "limited few" is fine. BUT if you are going to make large scale CHANGES, you really need to do a better job of checking with the community as a whole, and not just a few people.

Oddly enough, at least 100 people, including Team CC and players who visit the forum made comments or were given access to the system prior to it's launch to give feedback, that is not a "limited few" in my opinion, especially when a large majority of those on that list (yes, I made the list) are from all ranks, memberships, and styles of play. I think those 100 people provide a fairly accurate representation of the average CC player if you ask me.

As for the change, I know that you personally do frequent the forums PLAYER57832, and yet... your name is nowhere to be found on the list of people who gave comments regarding the upcoming change. Why is that? I'm just curious because it seems that if you are going to cry "unfair" that it was not given enough feedback, you really should have taken the time to give feedback on it yourself. I took my list from the people who posted in the official request for feedback thread.

The opportunity was given for feedback to be provided on the upcoming change. It would be foolish to ask thousands of players to come and post their comments, when a slice (of which 100 is pretty decent) will provide the same overall opinion.

I did comment and offer suggestiong early on. There was more than one thread, I might have missed the latest.

But, that aside, there are thousands of extremely diverse individuals in CC. A hundred might be OK if it was a representative 100 -- either randomly selected or stratified random, etc. Asking for voluntary postings gets only those people who look in that portion of the forums when asked. This, in general, means you get a LOT more people who don't like something, particularly in Suggestions and Bugs, people who have a lot "invested" in the system ... (the mods, of course, but also some others). Each forum has its own groups of adherants. Many, such as I, might be active for a while, back off, then pop back in. Forums posters are not a representative sample of the playing community.

Although it might not be a proper representation - the staff has no other way of reaching out to the people. The forums are open to everyone - it basically shows if you're willing to post, you care where the site is headed.

Although I completely understand your point, I've taken statistics.

[jiminski]

The ratings numbers haven't even popped up for the majority here. Give it some time to play out, k?

The real problem is that when big decisions are made ... like the change to the Risk map, the feedback, etc. only a few select people are consulted.

The ones with the most "credibility" in this regard, are the ones who make the maps, the mods, etc. Understandable in some ways, BUT (and this is a pretty big BUT!), those people are NOT necessarily representative of the community as a whole.

Only a few people bother to even enter the forums, UNLESS they have a serious complaint. Even the, many will just leave or complain in chat, maybe slow down in games ... and perhaps eventually leave, but in ways that make the real reason they left hard to track.

If you are talking about an addition -- more games, more options, medals, etc. The "limited few" is fine. BUT if you are going to make large scale CHANGES, you really need to do a better job of checking with the community as a whole, and not just a few people.

Oddly enough, at least 100 people, including Team CC and players who visit the forum made comments or were given access to the system prior to it's launch to give feedback, that is not a "limited few" in my opinion, especially when a large majority of those on that list (yes, I made the list) are from all ranks, memberships, and styles of play. I think those 100 people provide a fairly accurate representation of the average CC player if you ask me.

As for the change, I know that you personally do frequent the forums PLAYER57832, and yet... your name is nowhere to be found on the list of people who gave comments regarding the upcoming change. Why is that? I'm just curious because it seems that if you are going to cry "unfair" that it was not given enough feedback, you really should have taken the time to give feedback on it yourself. I took my list from the people who posted in the official request for feedback thread.

The opportunity was given for feedback to be provided on the upcoming change. It would be foolish to ask thousands of players to come and post their comments, when a slice (of which 100 is pretty decent) will provide the same overall opinion.

I honestly do not fault you guys for listening you truly do!

But I commented everywhere i could Optimus... and my first detailed brief is not much different to my viewpoint now! As i have said before, perhaps I was not strong enough but Christ! we can't fight every bloody battle to the death.
You keep on bloody hitting us! Babysitting and Changing the World kind of exhausted my resolve! hehe i am sure it did you guys too ... but then it is your job yet i have another.. can you believe it!

the point is; CC had a brief to fulfil and a framework for a sustainable future, with amendment to the Feedback system at its heart!
This new system had to be automated and self maintained! Within that framework, I could not have achieved what i wanted.. no matter the length of time or passion i invested!

So keep ya ratings .. i have no need of them

[PLAYER57832]

i ment the one for attitude basicly, fair play i can't really judge since i didn't play that game. either way in game chat i saw you swearing and cursing a lot, and yes, i understand you complain about such situations, but at the rate you complained i'd surely give you a 2 star rating. as for fair play, just a standrad 3 (i give everyone a 3 unless i suspect them of intentionally ruining the game) and as for attendance, i guess a 3 also (also just normal) so i'd basicly give you almost the same rating as he did.

however, if i was in your position, i;d also probably curse a bit (however maybe a bit less, still i'd curse and swear a little bit) and i would definitly give them a 2 or maybe even a 1 (if they are really that bad) for fair play, and for attitude a 1 or 2 also (depending on how bad they behave) attendence wouldn't get affected by it since that has nothing to do with personality, just the playing speed.

And exactly where is it that this definition of "below standard" is written? Does everybody agree?

You see, that's the problem. With the old system, there was subjectivity and disagreement, but you could read the comments and figure it out. Now, you get nothing.

[FabledIntegral]

i ment the one for attitude basicly, fair play i can't really judge since i didn't play that game. either way in game chat i saw you swearing and cursing a lot, and yes, i understand you complain about such situations, but at the rate you complained i'd surely give you a 2 star rating. as for fair play, just a standrad 3 (i give everyone a 3 unless i suspect them of intentionally ruining the game) and as for attendance, i guess a 3 also (also just normal) so i'd basicly give you almost the same rating as he did.

however, if i was in your position, i;d also probably curse a bit (however maybe a bit less, still i'd curse and swear a little bit) and i would definitly give them a 2 or maybe even a 1 (if they are really that bad) for fair play, and for attitude a 1 or 2 also (depending on how bad they behave) attendence wouldn't get affected by it since that has nothing to do with personality, just the playing speed.

And exactly where is it that this definition of "below standard" is written? Does everybody agree?

You see, that's the problem. With the old system, there was subjectivity and disagreement, but you could read the comments and figure it out. Now, you get nothing.

Everyone has their own interpretations. It should be relatively similar - even wtih no guidelines, one would assume the general population has the capacity to differentiate between below average - average - excellent, etc.

[Hrvat]

And exactly where is it that this definition of "below standard" is written? Does everybody agree?

You see, that's the problem. With the old system, there was subjectivity and disagreement, but you could read the comments and figure it out. Now, you get nothing.

here is a perfect example of the current standard- please follow link below:
http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... =Astroheat


and I am playing him right now

[FabledIntegral]

Way to spam nearly every topic with the same thing. As the mods said out numerous times (and of which I don't even agree with), it will average out over time, just foe the kid then.

[*manimal]

And exactly where is it that this definition of "below standard" is written? Does everybody agree?

You see, that's the problem. With the old system, there was subjectivity and disagreement, but you could read the comments and figure it out. Now, you get nothing.

here is a perfect example of the current standard- please follow link below:
http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... =Astroheat


and I am playing him right now

Just wait for 1 star in all.