Ratings question

[TreeRol]

I just finished my first game - and first of all thanks to everyone at Conquer Club for such a great site.

Four player game, classic shapes. I noted that one player was dominating the game and had myself and another player in a rough spot. The number of territories was (Leader): 15, (Other): 12, (Me) Plus (Potential Ally): 15.

Before taking a turn, I asked in game if (Potential Ally) would like to either have a detente or an alliance. Realizing that s/he probably doesn't check games until his/her turn comes up, I sent a PM, the text of which was as follows:

"Please see Game 4664737 - I asked you if you'd like an alliance or a detente.

Thanks,
Tree"

Despite the fact that (Potential Ally) signed on a number of times, I never got a response. No yes, no "no thanks," no nothing. I waited 12 hours to take my turn, but then took it because (Potential Ally) had probably gone to bed and wasn't likely to respond.

Note that I'm NOT bitter about being denied the alliance, and I'm NOT bitter about losing. But I'm darn well going to leave a 1-star feedback to (Potential Ally) for refusing to even respond or acknowledge my request. I'm just wondering in which category? I can justify putting it in any of the 3, but I want to get it right.

Any advice? Thanks in advance.

[Joodoo]

ratings are subjective according to the person who gives it out, but usually there should be a good reason of why you left a rating of less than 3 stars in any category

[ManBungalow]

The game seems to be #4664737 <CLICKY>.

It's not in the habits of most to leave a player a 1 star rating for not checking the chat, but nevertheless- it's annoying when people refuse to communicate. Some players seem to have a habit of never checking their PM's or emptying their inbox. Normally I leave a message on a player's wall (on their profile ) in this situation, just saying "Please check out the chat in game #XYZ".

Orlock seems to be in the United Kingdom, so I'm fairly sure he understands what you're typing.

Maybe he didn't want the alliance at all for strategic reasons, but couldn't be bothered explaining why in the chat/PM ( ) ? Was he the strongest player at the time ?

[TreeRol]

Edit: Responded to Joodoo's post, but the user edited out what I was responding to. D'oh!

The game seems to be #4664737 <CLICKY>.

It's not in the habits of most to leave a player a 1 star rating for not checking the chat, but nevertheless- it's annoying when people refuse to communicate. Some players seem to have a habit of never checking their PM's or emptying their inbox. Normally I leave a message on a player's wall (on their profile ) in this situation, just saying "Please check out the chat in game #XYZ".

Orlock seems to be in the United Kingdom, so I'm fairly sure he understands what you're typing.

Maybe he didn't want the alliance at all for strategic reasons, but couldn't be bothered explaining why in the chat/PM ( ) ? Was he the strongest player at the time ?

Orlock wasn't the strongest player. I forget who had what, but I know we were both in the 6 to 9 territory range (combined 15), which were the two lowest. The red player had S and O with the ability to blast either one of us fairly quickly. I thought an alliance would allow us to take red out of S and establish our footholds.

Anyway, I didn't need to know why - didn't care about an explanation. I wanted a yes or no. This is a game that can rely heavily on alliances and teamwork, and to have a player simply ignore a request - when I went out of my way to send a PM asking the player to check game chat - detracts from my enjoyment of the game, as well as detracting from the strategic element.

I absolutely think this justifies a 1-star rating.

[ManBungalow]

I'm aware of the rules, which is why I asked in game. The PM was sent only to ask the person to check the game chat before I took my turn, which is why it didn't provide any details about the alliance.

I did nothing in secret. I even announced in-game that I was sending a PM to the player.

Yes, you did everythign right

I think you just happened to play a more...how shall we say...uptight player.

[TreeRol]

I appreciate the suggestion to put something on the wall. Do people tend to check their wall more often than their PMs?

I think I'm leaning toward Gameplay, under the "enjoyable game" clause, as well as "diplomacy." But if I do it in Gameplay I can't just leave 1 star, because the player's strategy was fine.

Of course I'll be one of 500+ ratings, so it doesn't really matter..

[squishyg]

I appreciate the suggestion to put something on the wall. Do people tend to check their wall more often than their PMs?

I think I'm leaning toward Gameplay, under the "enjoyable game" clause, as well as "diplomacy." But if I do it in Gameplay I can't just leave 1 star, because the player's strategy was fine.

Of course I'll be one of 500+ ratings, so it doesn't really matter..

Gameplay or attitude seems like the best place, but 1 star seems harsh. Maybe 3 stars with an "uncooperative", "rude", or "silent" would be more descriptive.

[Night Strike]

If I were you, I wouldn't touch the issue of PMing a person telling them to check the game chat for an alliance. It delves into some gray area because ALL forms of diplomacy must take place in the game chat.

[TreeRol]

Gameplay or attitude seems like the best place, but 1 star seems harsh. Maybe 3 stars with an "uncooperative", "rude", or "silent" would be more descriptive.

3 stars? Is this the "average" gameplay I can expect from people here?

If I were you, I wouldn't touch the issue of PMing a person telling them to check the game chat for an alliance. It delves into some gray area because ALL forms of diplomacy must take place in the game chat.

The diplomacy DID take place in the game chat. The PM was a reminder to check the game chat; it contained no diplomacy.

[TreeRol]

I get the sense that if I were to give the average player an "average" rating, I'd quickly become very unpopular.

I should probably stay away from ratings.

[ManBungalow]

I get the sense that if I were to give the average player an "average" rating, I'd quickly become very unpopular.

I should probably stay away from ratings.

Not at all, ratings tell you a lot about who you're playing; so if you think someone deserves three stars you should give them that

[Rustin27]

hi, if they din reply there is the chance they dont read english. plus u should rate people so u can tell if you played them before, if your trying to get your medals then you dont need to play/beat someone twice.