At least it's official now, 3 = average!

[zimmah]

I'm with you Zimmah, where do I sign up?.

maybe we can make a petition and mail it to them?

[zimmah]

Marking out of 10 is so much better!


with 10 it is easier to not give someone 10 without leading to offence!

1. Hitler Clone
2. Crikey you must have insulted my Mother
3. I want to insult you
4. Very poor
5. Poor
6. Not quite right
7. Average
8. Good
9. Very good
10. Outstanding.. you made me laugh so hard i pooped a little!


with a mark out of 5 it goes:

1. i hate you! i hate you! i hate you!
2. May as well give a '1'
3. i really want to offend you but i can't justify a '1'!
4. you bug me, so i will hold back the 5
5. Average to Sainthood

i'd rather say 1-5 is the same as 1-10, but more like:

5 star system - 10 points system

1 star = either 1 or 2 points (to use your words = either a 'hitler clone' or 'someone who must have insulted my mother'
2 stars = either 3 or 4 points (either someone you'd like to insult yourself, or someone who's otherwise 'very poor')
3 stars = either 5 points or 6 points (either a bit poor or just average)
4 stars = either 7 or 8 points (either a bit above average or good even)
5 stars = either 9 or 10 points (either very good, or poop in your pants when you see him)

[detlef]

The good news is that it doesn't really matter much at all. People have always gotten way more worked up than they needed to about their feedback. I think the only thing that anyone got out of feedback was the personal satisfaction of telling somebody who was rude or slow where to stick it.

Don't get me started on positive.

I mean, this isn't e-bay where your rating can cost you money. This is a game. Anyone with a ton of negs has also likely been outed as a cheater or a prick in the forums and is on a ton of ignore lists anyway.

The bad news is that this new system is basically useless for all the reasons people have given. For many of the same reasons that people handed out positive feedback for nothing more than not being an ass, they're going to give out 5s for the same reason so everyone's rating is going to trend towards that number. I mean, even the people with a dozen or more negs typically had twice as many positives. If you translate that to this system, they're going to end up with ratings of high 3s to 4s. Considering the fact that nobody knows if people are giving out 3s or 5s for basically being cool, that means, anyone with a rating over 3 has to be assumed to be a decent guy.

Nice effort but the result is completely useless. Sorry.

[Matroshka]

Wow, I thought that it was common knowledge that every rating system works the way Zimmah has explained, until I looked at the poll results.

Every rating system I've ever seen is set up with lowest number being the lowest rating, the highest being the highest, and the middle being the middle (average).

[detlef]

Marking out of 10 is so much better!


with 10 it is easier to not give someone 10 without leading to offence!

1. Hitler Clone
2. Crikey you must have insulted my Mother
3. I want to insult you
4. Very poor
5. Poor
6. Not quite right
7. Average
8. Good
9. Very good
10. Outstanding.. you made me laugh so hard i pooped a little!


with a mark out of 5 it goes:

1. i hate you! i hate you! i hate you!
2. May as well give a '1'
3. i really want to offend you but i can't justify a '1'!
4. you bug me, so i will hold back the 5
5. Average to Sainthood

i'd rather say 1-5 is the same as 1-10, but more like:

5 star system - 10 points system

1 star = either 1 or 2 points (to use your words = either a 'hitler clone' or 'someone who must have insulted my mother'
2 stars = either 3 or 4 points (either someone you'd like to insult yourself, or someone who's otherwise 'very poor')
3 stars = either 5 points or 6 points (either a bit poor or just average)
4 stars = either 7 or 8 points (either a bit above average or good even)
5 stars = either 9 or 10 points (either very good, or poop in your pants when you see him)

Well, I'd "rather" say a lot of things, but jim has completely nailed it. Whether or not that's what we want it to be, that's exactly how a 5 star rating will be interpreted.

If I get a 9 of 10, I assume that I did great but the person simply doesn't want to get carried away with praise. After all, you can be great but not perfect. If I get a 4 out of 5, I'm thinking, "What did I do wrong?"

It's just human nature.

[jiminski]

i'd rather say 1-5 is the same as 1-10, but more like:

5 star system - 10 points system

1 star = either 1 or 2 points (to use your words = either a 'hitler clone' or 'someone who must have insulted my mother'
2 stars = either 3 or 4 points (either someone you'd like to insult yourself, or someone who's otherwise 'very poor')
3 stars = either 5 points or 6 points (either a bit poor or just average)
4 stars = either 7 or 8 points (either a bit above average or good even)
5 stars = either 9 or 10 points (either very good, or poop in your pants when you see him)

Yes i know you would rather say it Zimm (and Lack would much rather we could change our instinctive behaviour to fit the system too) but sadly human nature is a little less than 'logical' or at least it is logical with lots of other vying influences... such as not wanting to offend anyone.

[jiminski]

touché Det!

[detlef]

touché Det!

I believe the expression here in the US of A is, "Jinx, by me a coke!"

[jiminski]

touché Det!

I believe the expression here in the US of A is, "Jinx, by me a coke!"

Make it "Jinx, buy me a 94 Rioja!" and we have a deal! ... that's not too pompous is it!? ....

[detlef]

touché Det!

I believe the expression here in the US of A is, "Jinx, by me a coke!"

Make it "Jinx, buy me a 94 Rioja!" and we have a deal! ... that's not too pompous is it!? ....

If you're asking me to choose between a free coke and a 14 year old Rioja? Well, as long as it's not Joven... Well, truth be told, I'd be leery of most Crianzas as well but I'm not going to turn down a chance to be pleasantly surprised.

In other words, bring it.

[zimmah]

Yes i know you would rather say it Zimm (and Lack would much rather we could change our instinctive behaviour to fit the system too) but sadly human nature is a little less than 'logical' or at least it is logical with lots of other vying influences... such as not wanting to offend anyone.

like i said a dozen of times before, leaving a 5 'not to offend someone' happens too much. and maybe you think you are nice by doing so, but in fact this undermines the system. because now noone has a clue about the ratings. it's now officially nothing more then a star with a number next to it. without ANY meaning at all, not even a comment or a link. nothing.

it's like they left the negatives and the positives in, you can still leave 'negative' feedback or 'positive' feedback, you only can't say why you left it, because the mods think it would take too much time to moderate those things. in fact it's the other way round. becuase now more people will be unsatisfied by getting 'negatives' and don't even know what they got the negatives for!

i think there should be an ability (an option) to post a comment along with your rating, however moderaters can in no way remove or chance them. instead, just like the rating, you can withdraw them if you both agree, or you could play another game and edit the comment AND the rating.

and besides, someone leaving 'flaming' in comments really only makes himself look stupid.

also leaving out the option to comment on another player will not chance the fact the player will still leave a negative/bad rating anyways! you will STILL get random negatives/bad ratings, only now they will be worse because 1) you don't know why you got them 2) other people don't know who's to blame. remember the old feedback system? more often then not the one leaving the negative was to blame, with this system you won't be able to tell who's to blame! so they should add comments.

[Bones2484]

1. You didn't ask me anything here... but I'll try to find a response.
2. Someone is pleasant to chat with. That's better than average. That means that person gives enjoyment to you. It's better than a typical "gl hf" and "gg" and "hey can you move from X to Y?". So if that person was indeed pleasant, then I would say, yeah give that person a 4 or 5.
3. Took their turns "reasonably." That's average. Average is 3. That's not BAD. You should NOT associate 3 with poor performance. You should associate it with adequate performance. You should see a 3 and think "that person is most likely like everyone else - he will probably take his turns reasonably." If that person takes his turns in a very fast and efficient manner, then he should be rewarded with higher than a 3. But you have no reason to give someone a 5 unless it met above normal circumstances. For example someone who never missed a turn in a game with 30+ rounds, and didn't make everyone wait 20+ hours to take his turn each time. Something like that, could be a 5. Otherwise, either just average or no rating (or some other rating, etc.).
4. If you've come to believe not cheating shows absolutely above and beyond sportsmanship - then you highly underestimate what you should come to expect out of players. Far from a 5. Once again, that's average, that's a 3, you should associate 3 with AVERAGE.

All you're doing is skewing the system from its actual intention. Therefore you are virtually breaking the system. That's how I view it, and that's how a lot of mods are going to start viewing it as it wasn't their intention, which once again is obvious. We'll see how it plays out, however.

So basically you agree with me and you've just been flaming me because you didn't read what I was saying. I never said I would hand out 5s to everyone. I said I use 5's as a starting point for what I expect out of a good player. To me, a good player is someone who chats a little more than "gl" and "gg", doesn't miss a turn (and takes them within a decent amount of time), and doesn't give the impression that they are cheating or throwing the game on purpose.

By reasonably I meant someone who didn't miss turns and didn't make us wait. I probably could have used a better choice of word than "reasonably" to make my point.

Although I have to disagree with your #4. I would like to know what you think constitutes "above and beyond sportsmanship". If someone doesn't cheat or ruin the game on purpose... they don't cheat or ruin the game on purpose. There's no "levels" of good fair play.

I guess I have just a tough view on the "average player". Maybe because I mainly play tournaments and there are a lot of great people to play against (not only in terms of skill) there. So an "average player" to me is someone who does the things that I mentioned above. I expect people to be very nice and take their turns. You, and some others, expect people to never talk and take 20 hours on their turns. That's fine. So it looks like we are using the same grading scale, I'm just using a different starting point and different starting expectation.

I guess the better question for this poll is, then: What do you think constitutes an "average player".

[zimmah]

Although I have to disagree with your #4. I would like to know what you think constitutes "above and beyond sportsmanship". If someone doesn't cheat or ruin the game on purpose... they don't cheat or ruin the game on purpose. There's no "levels" of good fair play.[/quote]

there is: this is one example of someone that should get 5 stars http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =6&t=53431

I guess I have just a tough view on the "average player". Maybe because I mainly play tournaments and there are a lot of great people to play against (not only in terms of skill) there. So an "average player" to me is someone who does the things that I mentioned above. I expect people to be very nice and take their turns. You, and some others, expect people to never talk and take 20 hours on their turns. That's fine. So it looks like we are using the same grading scale, I'm just using a different starting point and different starting expectation.

I guess the better question for this poll is, then: What do you think constitutes an "average player".

and this is exactly what we mean by undermining the system.

[detlef]

Yes i know you would rather say it Zimm (and Lack would much rather we could change our instinctive behaviour to fit the system too) but sadly human nature is a little less than 'logical' or at least it is logical with lots of other vying influences... such as not wanting to offend anyone.

like i said a dozen of times before, leaving a 5 'not to offend someone' happens too much. and maybe you think you are nice by doing so, but in fact this undermines the system. because now noone has a clue about the ratings. it's now officially nothing more then a star with a number next to it. without ANY meaning at all, not even a comment or a link. nothing.

it's like they left the negatives and the positives in, you can still leave 'negative' feedback or 'positive' feedback, you only can't say why you left it, because the mods think it would take too much time to moderate those things. in fact it's the other way round. becuase now more people will be unsatisfied by getting 'negatives' and don't even know what they got the negatives for!

i think there should be an ability (an option) to post a comment along with your rating, however moderaters can in no way remove or chance them. instead, just like the rating, you can withdraw them if you both agree, or you could play another game and edit the comment AND the rating.

and besides, someone leaving 'flaming' in comments really only makes himself look stupid.

also leaving out the option to comment on another player will not chance the fact the player will still leave a negative/bad rating anyways! you will STILL get random negatives/bad ratings, only now they will be worse because 1) you don't know why you got them 2) other people don't know who's to blame. remember the old feedback system? more often then not the one leaving the negative was to blame, with this system you won't be able to tell who's to blame! so they should add comments.

I believe that jim's point in going from 5 to 10 stars is that people will be more inclined to leave accurate ratings if it is broken down further. It might make perfect sense that getting a 4 is a fine score, but that doesn't change the perception that it's not.

[hephestes]

take this out of the context of ratings:

suppose I give you 5 numbers. 45, 56, 67, 78, 89. What's the average? 67.
suppose those numbers are now 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. What's the average? 3!

The problem here is grade inflation. Everyone thinks they deserve an A (or 5) unless they did something wrong. That's incorrect. Not every child is a genius, not every player is outstanding. The mean of all players ratings should be 3. Looks like it's going to be somewhere more like 4.7 -- we're all significantly above average, hooray!

Anyone else familiar with a Bell Curve?

[detlef]

take this out of the context of ratings:

suppose I give you 5 numbers. 45, 56, 67, 78, 89. What's the average? 67.
suppose those numbers are now 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. What's the average? 3!

The problem here is grade inflation. Everyone thinks they deserve an A (or 5) unless they did something wrong. That's incorrect. Not every child is a genius, not every player is outstanding. The mean of all players ratings should be 3. Looks like it's going to be somewhere more like 4.7 -- we're all significantly above average, hooray!

Anyone else familiar with a Bell Curve?

Great, well as soon as you get everyone to stop acting like everyone, let me know.

[hephestes]

Great, well as soon as you get everyone to stop acting like everyone, let me know.

exactly! that's why the new system isn't as good as the old. positive or negative is easy. 1-5 is subjective.

[jiminski]

take this out of the context of ratings:

suppose I give you 5 numbers. 45, 56, 67, 78, 89. What's the average? 67.
suppose those numbers are now 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. What's the average? 3!

The problem here is grade inflation. Everyone thinks they deserve an A (or 5) unless they did something wrong. That's incorrect. Not every child is a genius, not every player is outstanding. The mean of all players ratings should be 3. Looks like it's going to be somewhere more like 4.7 -- we're all significantly above average, hooray!

Anyone else familiar with a Bell Curve?

Great, well as soon as you get everyone to stop acting like everyone, let me know.

hehe

[suggs]

I just don't get it. I want to leave feedback saying the guy was good fun to play with, but tactically naive.
Which rating is that?
Bah to this new system.

[Bones2484]

Although I have to disagree with your #4. I would like to know what you think constitutes "above and beyond sportsmanship". If someone doesn't cheat or ruin the game on purpose... they don't cheat or ruin the game on purpose. There's no "levels" of good fair play.

there is: this is one example of someone that should get 5 stars http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =6&t=53431

I asked about Fair Play. You gave me an example for Attitude. Congrats to you for not answering the question at hand.

You have said:
3 stars = average, not unfair, didn't do anything 'wrong' nor did anything exceptionally good
4 stars = good, makes alliances in game chat, doesn't break them, might even remind you of ending the truce/alliance 1 or 2 turns before they end
5 stars = excellent, one of the fairest players you have seen

In my opinion, a 5 is to be expected on CC. Also, I don't see any difference between 4 and 5. How can you get more "fair" from someone who uses game chat, doesn't break alliances, reminds you about ending, doesn't purposely deadbeat, isn't a mulit, doesn't form secret alliances?

I guess I have just a tough view on the "average player". Maybe because I mainly play tournaments and there are a lot of great people to play against (not only in terms of skill) there. So an "average player" to me is someone who does the things that I mentioned above. I expect people to be very nice and take their turns. You, and some others, expect people to never talk and take 20 hours on their turns. That's fine. So it looks like we are using the same grading scale, I'm just using a different starting point and different starting expectation.

I guess the better question for this poll is, then: What do you think constitutes an "average player".

and this is exactly what we mean by undermining the system.

So, is it your intent to just spout off inane comments like this and make yourself look like more of an ass by the post? Or are you going to explain how I am "undermining the system".

FabledIntegral said that he views threes as the average. To him an average player is someone who doesn't miss a turn (although they may be slow in taking them), doesn't say much at all in game chat, and doesn't cheat.

I said I view fives as the average. To me an average player is someone who doesn't miss a turn (and takes them rather quickly), is pleasant to talk to in game chat (much more than a simple "gl" "gg"), and doesn't cheat or purposely ruin the game.

From what I can see, we have different expectations of what is "average" yet we would be giving the SAME scores to the SAME types of people. FabledIntegral even implied that my requirements for a five appear to be in line with his requirements for a five. The only difference is that I have a higher expectation for how people behave. Maybe this is because 95% of the games I play are tournaments and the quality of the person (although maybe not the skill) seems to be higher than a normal game.

[detlef]

Although I have to disagree with your #4. I would like to know what you think constitutes "above and beyond sportsmanship". If someone doesn't cheat or ruin the game on purpose... they don't cheat or ruin the game on purpose. There's no "levels" of good fair play.

there is: this is one example of someone that should get 5 stars http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =6&t=53431

I asked about Fair Play. You gave me an example for Attitude. Congrats to you for not answering the question at hand.

You have said:
3 stars = average, not unfair, didn't do anything 'wrong' nor did anything exceptionally good
4 stars = good, makes alliances in game chat, doesn't break them, might even remind you of ending the truce/alliance 1 or 2 turns before they end
5 stars = excellent, one of the fairest players you have seen

In my opinion, a 5 is to be expected on CC. Also, I don't see any difference between 4 and 5. How can you get more "fair" from someone who uses game chat, doesn't break alliances, reminds you about ending, doesn't purposely deadbeat, isn't a mulit, doesn't form secret alliances?

I guess I have just a tough view on the "average player". Maybe because I mainly play tournaments and there are a lot of great people to play against (not only in terms of skill) there. So an "average player" to me is someone who does the things that I mentioned above. I expect people to be very nice and take their turns. You, and some others, expect people to never talk and take 20 hours on their turns. That's fine. So it looks like we are using the same grading scale, I'm just using a different starting point and different starting expectation.

I guess the better question for this poll is, then: What do you think constitutes an "average player".

and this is exactly what we mean by undermining the system.

So, is it your intent to just spout off inane comments like this and make yourself look like more of an ass by the post? Or are you going to explain how I am "undermining the system".

FabledIntegral said that he views threes as the average. To him an average player is someone who doesn't miss a turn (although they may be slow in taking them), doesn't say much at all in game chat, and doesn't cheat.

I said I view fives as the average. To me an average player is someone who doesn't miss a turn (and takes them rather quickly), is pleasant to talk to in game chat (much more than a simple "gl" "gg"), and doesn't cheat or purposely ruin the game.

From what I can see, we have different expectations of what is "average" yet we would be giving the SAME scores to the SAME types of people. FabledIntegral even implied that my requirements for a five appear to be in line with his requirements for a five. The only difference is that I have a higher expectation for how people behave. Maybe this is because 95% of the games I play are tournaments and the quality of the person (although maybe not the skill) seems to be higher than a normal game.

So what score do you give somebody who's outstanding? Somebody who took each of his turns mere minutes after his turn came up. One who consistently added entertaining and topical posts to the game chat. One who some how showed extraordinary gamesmanship and conduct. A doubles partner who kept on pointing out great tactics, etc. I mean, "average" players are getting 5s right? Or are you implying that nearly everyone you play with fits this description.

[Bones2484]

So what score do you give somebody who's outstanding? Somebody who took each of his turns mere minutes after his turn came up. One who consistently added entertaining and topical posts to the game chat. One who some how showed extraordinary gamesmanship and conduct. A doubles partner who kept on pointing out great tactics, etc. I mean, "average" players are getting 5s right? Or are you implying that nearly everyone you play with fits this description.

Good points, but for the most part that is exactly what I'm implying.

I expect my doubles partners to always be pointing out great tactics, forting me, etc. Maybe this is why I only play doubles with people I know so that I very rarely have to run with someone who doesn't do these things. Someone who doesn't offer a word of advice, but listens to my suggestions would be a three. Obviously someone who does neither would be a 1.

By "more than 'gg' 'gl'" I mean someone who adds entertaining conversation to the game chat like you say. This is probably the rarest of the examples though, but I still tend to grade upwards in Attitude because there are lots of players out there who are flat-out jerks in games. These are the people I'd like to punish, not the nice (yet quiet) players. Staying silent or not talking very much will most likely be a 3 or 4 from me depending on my mood.

As for the "mere minutes" for Attendance... that is rather silly to expect for a perfect score. Yes it might happen every so often, but I don't play 24-hour games with the expectations that people will play immediately. If I wanted speed I would play speed. In fact, it sometimes can get annoying when players take their turns too quickly when you have a heavy game load. In my view, I'll reserve a 3 or 4 for someone who constantly takes 22-24 hours to make a turn. 2 or 3 if you have an announced missed turn, 1 if you purposely deadbeat or flat out leave a game w/o warning. To me, a 5 is someone who checks in at least 3-4 times a day since this is what I view as perfect for my desires.

As for the Fair Play, I still expect a 5 in any game that I'm in. I still have yet to hear an argument about what is the difference between a 3 and a 5 in the "average" rating score. In my opinion, you are either a 1 or a 5 in this category.

My expectations aren't "nearly everyone" by any stretch of the imagination. You have to remember that these ratings are subjective. What I find to be a "perfect player" would be different than what you think.

[Yvgni]

Detlef spawned these words in an explosion of spores:

The bad news is that this new system is basically useless for all the reasons people have given. For many of the same reasons that people handed out positive feedback for nothing more than not being an ass, they're going to give out 5s for the same reason so everyone's rating is going to trend towards that number. I mean, even the people with a dozen or more negs typically had twice as many positives. If you translate that to this system, they're going to end up with ratings of high 3s to 4s. Considering the fact that nobody knows if people are giving out 3s or 5s for basically being cool, that means, anyone with a rating over 3 has to be assumed to be a decent guy.

Nice effort but the result is completely useless. Sorry.
Image

What he said. No, really, he said what I was going to say, probably more coherently without obscure literary references thrown in...

[zimmah]

As for the Fair Play, I still expect a 5 in any game that I'm in. I still have yet to hear an argument about what is the difference between a 3 and a 5 in the "average" rating score. In my opinion, you are either a 1 or a 5 in this category.

like the example i gave you, some people are fairer than most of the others. now realy, would you deadbeat if you know you are losing and your enemy (in a 1 vs 1 game) has to leave the game for some important reason? i guess you wouldn't. even i might not do it to be honest. but i wouldn't give a 1 to someone for not doing it. i'd give them a 3 maybe a 2, but if they would do such things i'd really give them a 5 and they would desserve it.

i expect everyone to play fair as in, no secret alliances, not breaking alliances, not suiciding, etc. that's just normal everyday stuff, it shouldn't be awarded with a 5.

awarding a 5 is like awarding a gold medal to someone, it doesn't happen everyday! only the best (fairest) players deserve a score of 5.

and like i said, people like you do undermine the system, because now the whole rating system has become totaly useless. thanks for fucking up the system.

[Bones2484]

and like i said, people like you do undermine the system, because now the whole rating system has become totaly useless. thanks for fucking up the system.

Because I give 5's to people who keep me entertained in chat, don't cheat, and keep the games moving at a quick pace? While giving 3's to people who don't talk, make some shady play, and take 22 hours (or miss an occasional turn)?

Grow up, child.