[PC] Update Explanatory Tags

[squishyg]

deceit is part of the strategy of the game. i strongly oppose adding that tag.

Yes, I know that it is, for part of the players. However, there are ones that can win without using it, and maybe not everyone likes it (some may even honour it with an appropriate negative tag ).

i get what you're saying, but can't we just tag that player with cheap tactics then?

We could, but then it could refer to multies and secret diplomacy as well (and maybe more). There could be very different reasons why a player is using this tag. Why should we use general terms that do not reveal what the rater thought to be important? E.g. if you are OK with deceit used, then you probably would not mind joining a game with someone who received a lot of deceit tags. On the other hand, you may not want to join a game with someone who e.g. received a lot of secret diplomacy tags.
I think we should distinguish a couple of key cases that incorporate cheap tactics, and use those specific terms instead.

but that's cheating. that's a separate issue about labeling/branding people as filty dirty cheaters.

[squishyg]

I know I check other peoples ratings every day for a wide variety of reasons.

you do not

[Woodruff]

Cooperative or Uncooperative - I don't think we need these two tags as you could use Good Teammate or Bad Teammate. If you are talking about non-team games I think that these tags are irrelevant. We could quite easily find other tags to replace these two tags.

I disagree strongly. In fact, I find them HIGHLY relevant in non-team games. It is important to know if another player is typically cooperative or not.

Vindictive, Sore Loser - These two are also kind of similar. Vindictive could be changed to "Bad Sport" or "Poor Sportsmanship".

No, they are very different. Someone can absolutely be vindictive without being a vocal "sore loser" (how else would one be considered a sore loser online?). Someone can absolutely be a sore loser without being vindictive.

Secret Diplomacy - For me, the most controversial tag. If you rate a player and use this tag you should be filing a C&A report and the player should be banned. If you don't then you are just throwing accusations about. Therefore this tag is unneccesary and, in my opinion, should be removed.

Agreed.

[Jatekos]

deceit is part of the strategy of the game. i strongly oppose adding that tag.

Yes, I know that it is, for part of the players. However, there are ones that can win without using it, and maybe not everyone likes it (some may even honour it with an appropriate negative tag ).

i get what you're saying, but can't we just tag that player with cheap tactics then?

We could, but then it could refer to multies and secret diplomacy as well (and maybe more). There could be very different reasons why a player is using this tag. Why should we use general terms that do not reveal what the rater thought to be important? E.g. if you are OK with deceit used, then you probably would not mind joining a game with someone who received a lot of deceit tags. On the other hand, you may not want to join a game with someone who e.g. received a lot of secret diplomacy tags.
I think we should distinguish a couple of key cases that incorporate cheap tactics, and use those specific terms instead.

but that's cheating. that's a separate issue about labeling/branding people as filty dirty cheaters.

Exactly! We need separate tags for separate issues. We also need separate tags for different positive attributes.

[PLAYER57832]

Cooperative or Uncooperative - I don't think we need these two tags as you could use Good Teammate or Bad Teammate. If you are talking about non-team games I think that these tags are irrelevant. We could quite easily find other tags to replace these two tags.

I disagree strongly. In fact, I find them HIGHLY relevant in non-team games. It is important to know if another player is typically cooperative or not.

I think I see your point, but how can one be "cooperative" or "uncooperative" outside of a team game. That is, aside from an alliance (which I personally think deserves a separate classification entirely), I would say that just about everyone is and should be "uncooperative. The idea is it win.

If you are referrring to "manners" -- things like signing up for an (announced, in call outs or pm invite) real time game and booking without an excuse, being a jerk verbally, etc... then I think other tags do well

Vindictive, Sore Loser - These two are also kind of similar. Vindictive could be changed to "Bad Sport" or "Poor Sportsmanship".

No, they are very different. Someone can absolutely be vindictive without being a vocal "sore loser" (how else would one be considered a sore loser online?). Someone can absolutely be a sore loser without being vindictive.

I think we could do without vindictive, because anyone vindictive is, by definition a "sore loser".

But someone can be a sore loser a lot of ways. When someone plays, then quits as soon as they are losing, there might be a legitimate reason, but....

Similarly, while suiciding in Hive or such to cut the game by a few turns when there is absolutely no question of who wins is one thing. Going ape becuase the "game is over" on the first turn, the first bad roll... is something else. (it might be just poor playing, but if its a moderately ranked person, etc...)

Secret Diplomacy - For me, the most controversial tag. If you rate a player and use this tag you should be filing a C&A report and the player should be banned. If you don't then you are just throwing accusations about. Therefore this tag is unneccesary and, in my opinion, should be removed.

I agree.

I would, however, like to see mention of alliances. Making alliances (like swearing, etc.) are all things that some people consider part of the game, enjoy, but others just dislike.
Those sort of tags might even be best "self-given".

[Jatekos]

Cooperative or Uncooperative - I don't think we need these two tags as you could use Good Teammate or Bad Teammate. If you are talking about non-team games I think that these tags are irrelevant. We could quite easily find other tags to replace these two tags.

I disagree strongly. In fact, I find them HIGHLY relevant in non-team games. It is important to know if another player is typically cooperative or not.

I think I see your point, but how can one be "cooperative" or "uncooperative" outside of a team game. That is, aside from an alliance (which I personally think deserves a separate classification entirely), I would say that just about everyone is and should be "uncooperative. The idea is it win.

If you are referrring to "manners" -- things like signing up for an (announced, in call outs or pm invite) real time game and booking without an excuse, being a jerk verbally, etc... then I think other tags do well

Cooperative or Uncooperative - I don't think we need these two tags as you could use Good Teammate or Bad Teammate. If you are talking about non-team games I think that these tags are irrelevant. We could quite easily find other tags to replace these two tags.

I use these tags regularly, although I do not play team games. There is a stage in each game when one of the players starts to dominate the map, but can be stopped from winning if the others work together. This is a very important feature (i.e. if someone is able to realize the danger and put feud aside for a common short term goal or not), and I would like to continue using these tags. What other tags would you like them to be replaced with? Would they apply more to the situation I described above?

It is not manners, it is strategy.

[JoshyBoy]

Great feedback from everyone loads of ideas being flung around, and it seems like there is definately some agreement that we need more positive tags!

[Woodruff]

Cooperative or Uncooperative - I don't think we need these two tags as you could use Good Teammate or Bad Teammate. If you are talking about non-team games I think that these tags are irrelevant. We could quite easily find other tags to replace these two tags.

I disagree strongly. In fact, I find them HIGHLY relevant in non-team games. It is important to know if another player is typically cooperative or not.

I think I see your point, but how can one be "cooperative" or "uncooperative" outside of a team game. That is, aside from an alliance (which I personally think deserves a separate classification entirely), I would say that just about everyone is and should be "uncooperative. The idea is it win.

I am honestly stunned to hear this come from someone of your rank and playing experience. There are two situations that come to mind:

1) As a general rule, when one player becomes significantly strong enough over the other players, those other players would logically move against that strongest player, in the interests of not allowing them to get into a position to win (the whole "idea is to win" thing you mentioned). I have found that some players either don't understand that concept or they simply refuse to follow it. That's the obvious one.

2)But aside from even that, there are times within a game when you may negotiate with a neighbor (let me have <territory2> and I will back off and let you have <territory2>. Some folks are cooperative in such a negotiation and some are not.

Vindictive, Sore Loser - These two are also kind of similar. Vindictive could be changed to "Bad Sport" or "Poor Sportsmanship".

No, they are very different. Someone can absolutely be vindictive without being a vocal "sore loser" (how else would one be considered a sore loser online?). Someone can absolutely be a sore loser without being vindictive.

I think we could do without vindictive, because anyone vindictive is, by definition a "sore loser".

Not necessarily. I believe there are instances when being vindictive WITHIN THE GAME WHEN YOU WERE THUMPED can be a strategic move. Folks remember things like that, and it might make someone think twice later down the road if in a similar situation. I DON'T believe in being vindictive OUTSIDE OF THE GAME WHEN YOU WERE THUMPED (basically, other later games) as that is, as you say, just being a sore loser.

Secret Diplomacy - For me, the most controversial tag. If you rate a player and use this tag you should be filing a C&A report and the player should be banned. If you don't then you are just throwing accusations about. Therefore this tag is unneccesary and, in my opinion, should be removed.

I agree.

I would, however, like to see mention of alliances. Making alliances (like swearing, etc.) are all things that some people consider part of the game, enjoy, but others just dislike.

I'm confused...are you saying there should be a tag for "alliance maker" or something like that?

[PLAYER57832]

Cooperative or Uncooperative - I don't think we need these two tags as you could use Good Teammate or Bad Teammate. If you are talking about non-team games I think that these tags are irrelevant. We could quite easily find other tags to replace these two tags.

I disagree strongly. In fact, I find them HIGHLY relevant in non-team games. It is important to know if another player is typically cooperative or not.

I think I see your point, but how can one be "cooperative" or "uncooperative" outside of a team game. That is, aside from an alliance (which I personally think deserves a separate classification entirely), I would say that just about everyone is and should be "uncooperative. The idea is it win.

If you are referrring to "manners" -- things like signing up for an (announced, in call outs or pm invite) real time game and booking without an excuse, being a jerk verbally, etc... then I think other tags do well

It is not manners, it is strategy.

No, being nasty to people in chat, agreeing to something (be it playing real time, or whatever) and then backing out with no reason, is being a jerk, not "strategy".

Similarly, stomping off the game, deadbeating or just making the other player wait for you to play simply because you are losing (plenty of other reasons are legitimate) is being a jerk or a poor sport. It deserves that tag. Being "cooperative" only really matters in teams.

[PLAYER57832]

Cooperative or Uncooperative - I don't think we need these two tags as you could use Good Teammate or Bad Teammate. If you are talking about non-team games I think that these tags are irrelevant. We could quite easily find other tags to replace these two tags.

I disagree strongly. In fact, I find them HIGHLY relevant in non-team games. It is important to know if another player is typically cooperative or not.

I think I see your point, but how can one be "cooperative" or "uncooperative" outside of a team game. That is, aside from an alliance (which I personally think deserves a separate classification entirely), I would say that just about everyone is and should be "uncooperative. The idea is it win.

I am honestly stunned to hear this come from someone of your rank and playing experience. There are two situations that come to mind:

1) As a general rule, when one player becomes significantly strong enough over the other players, those other players would logically move against that strongest player, in the interests of not allowing them to get into a position to win (the whole "idea is to win" thing you mentioned). I have found that some players either don't understand that concept or they simply refuse to follow it. That's the obvious one.

Well, I play almost all 1 vs 1, so maybe I don't understand multiple-player play so well
Seriously, I just don't see where "cooperative" deserves a tag of its own. There are a LOT of variations in play, even reasons to violate your "rule" (which largely is true, of course!)
Most importantly, if you are playing terminator, sometimes just taking someone else and getting thier points out IS more important than "winning" -- i.e. getting the points from the second-to-last person to remain. As for the rest, there are so many variations in strategy, even, yes, that. Among other reasons sometimes getting a bonus or getting into a position where you are "hidden" behind someone else... etc, etc, etc. can all make a difference. Also, sometimes people decide that they are not going to win, so they push to get the lowest rank person winning. Not saying that last is something I like (doesn't really seem like good sportsmanship).

2)But aside from even that, there are times within a game when you may negotiate with a neighbor (let me have <territory2> and I will back off and let you have <territory2>. Some folks are cooperative in such a negotiation and some are not.

This would fall under "alliances". The whole idea of whether that is or is not OK is controversial. That is, it is definitely legal. However, a lot of people just don't like alliances, on principal, because it basically menas you are playing an unintended team game for a time.

Vindictive, Sore Loser - These two are also kind of similar. Vindictive could be changed to "Bad Sport" or "Poor Sportsmanship".

No, they are very different. Someone can absolutely be vindictive without being a vocal "sore loser" (how else would one be considered a sore loser online?). Someone can absolutely be a sore loser without being vindictive.

I think we could do without vindictive, because anyone vindictive is, by definition a "sore loser".

Not necessarily. I believe there are instances when being vindictive WITHIN THE GAME WHEN YOU WERE THUMPED can be a strategic move. Folks remember things like that, and it might make someone think twice later down the road if in a similar situation. I DON'T believe in being vindictive OUTSIDE OF THE GAME WHEN YOU WERE THUMPED (basically, other later games) as that is, as you say, just being a sore loser.

Exactly why we do not need this tag! Really, it just gets down to variations in strategy. I would never see "vindictive" as a good or reasonable tag to have. The times when being "vindictive" are truly justified are rare. Most people would see that tag and think "this person is a jerk", not "this person is practicing good strategy". There are times when I have done things like you describe. Most particularly, I have let a couple of games almost run out of time when someone was moaning and groaning in extreme excess about my "taking too long", etc. Was that "vindictive"? Sure, and given I have done that maybe twice in over 8,000 games, I just was not concerned. Even so, I don't really think those types of situations are why the term is generally used. A person can just as readily say "poor sport"... and given all the other tags, that one bad rating would be lost. In the few cases where "vindictive" might be given by others as a neutral or even positive tag, other tags are just better.

Secret Diplomacy - For me, the most controversial tag. If you rate a player and use this tag you should be filing a C&A report and the player should be banned. If you don't then you are just throwing accusations about. Therefore this tag is unneccesary and, in my opinion, should be removed.

I agree.

I would, however, like to see mention of alliances. Making alliances (like swearing, etc.) are all things that some people consider part of the game, enjoy, but others just dislike.

I'm confused...are you saying there should be a tag for "alliance maker" or something like that?

Yes.
Just like "swearing" or even "uses abusive chat as strategy", these are things some people don't mind or even enjoy. Others do. Tags are one way to help people decide if the person they are playing is the kind they wish to engage in a game.

[Jatekos]

Cooperative or Uncooperative - I don't think we need these two tags as you could use Good Teammate or Bad Teammate. If you are talking about non-team games I think that these tags are irrelevant. We could quite easily find other tags to replace these two tags.

I disagree strongly. In fact, I find them HIGHLY relevant in non-team games. It is important to know if another player is typically cooperative or not.

I think I see your point, but how can one be "cooperative" or "uncooperative" outside of a team game. That is, aside from an alliance (which I personally think deserves a separate classification entirely), I would say that just about everyone is and should be "uncooperative. The idea is it win.

If you are referrring to "manners" -- things like signing up for an (announced, in call outs or pm invite) real time game and booking without an excuse, being a jerk verbally, etc... then I think other tags do well

It is not manners, it is strategy.

No, being nasty to people in chat, agreeing to something (be it playing real time, or whatever) and then backing out with no reason, is being a jerk, not "strategy".

Similarly, stomping off the game, deadbeating or just making the other player wait for you to play simply because you are losing (plenty of other reasons are legitimate) is being a jerk or a poor sport. It deserves that tag. Being "cooperative" only really matters in teams.

We already have 'rude' and 'deadbeat' tags for what you described above. I agree, that 'uncooperative' is not the right tag in these the cases.

Well, I play almost all 1 vs 1, so maybe I don't understand multiple-player play so well
Seriously, I just don't see where "cooperative" deserves a tag of its own. There are a LOT of variations in play, even reasons to violate your "rule" (which largely is true, of course!)
Most importantly, if you are playing terminator, sometimes just taking someone else and getting thier points out IS more important than "winning" -- i.e. getting the points from the second-to-last person to remain. As for the rest, there are so many variations in strategy, even, yes, that. Among other reasons sometimes getting a bonus or getting into a position where you are "hidden" behind someone else... etc, etc, etc. can all make a difference. Also, sometimes people decide that they are not going to win, so they push to get the lowest rank person winning. Not saying that last is something I like (doesn't really seem like good sportsmanship).

I mostly play 8-player non-team games and I have a very different opinion about alliances (I am not talking about secret diplomacy here).

There are situations in multiplayer games when someone gets to the lead and you have 2 options:
a) not working together with the others and get eliminated in a couple of rounds, while the strongest player gets even stronger and wins the game.
b) co-operate temporarily with others to bring down the leader, then continue playing normally.

I consider the ability to cooperate as a one of the most important features of a good player. It takes situation awareness to realize that sometimes a temporary cooperation is the only way to keep the game going. I think that being flexible, including the ability of forming temp alliances at times is essential for a good strategy.

[Woodruff]

2)But aside from even that, there are times within a game when you may negotiate with a neighbor (let me have <territory2> and I will back off and let you have <territory2>. Some folks are cooperative in such a negotiation and some are not.

This would fall under "alliances".

No, not even remotely, in my opinion. An agreement of that nature is in no way an alliance. An alliance is a long-term strategy agreement between two players, usually "to leave each other alone". What I described above is in no way that sort of a thing.

The whole idea of whether that is or is not OK is controversial. That is, it is definitely legal. However, a lot of people just don't like alliances, on principal, because it basically menas you are playing an unintended team game for a time.

I know of...well...really, nobody I can think of off-hand that would have a problem with what I described above.

[L M S]

Accused:

Chaos711



The accused are suspected of:

Well, it could be described as ratings abuse I suppose, but after reading through a few of the ratings he has left I actually wondering if this player even understands what the choices are and how they apply. How does one get a "good strategy" AND "secret diplomacy" rating for the same game? Perhaps Chaos711 thinks that is good strategy? Either way I could care less about the ratings left for me (I left my response and am satisfied to leave it at that, it was fun to let off some steam anyway) it just seems odd and slightly ridiculous; given the fact we are supposed to take the ratings system seriously and this type of abuse is possible.

Maybe Chaos711 just thinks its funny to ruin other peoples ratings scores for fun.

Game number(s):

Game 7236382
Game 7256274
Game 7248607
Game 5153997

A few examples of ridiculous/inappropriate/nonsensical ratings left.

Comments:
I wonder if the ratings system could be fixed by changing the set up rather than the entire system? What if you could either choose to leave positive ratings and tags or negative ratings and tags, instead of lumping all the tags together...hmmm, maybe.

This started in the abuse forum but it was suggested I move it here for review and discussion.

[Woodruff]

I wonder if the ratings system could be fixed by changing the set up rather than the entire system? What if you could either choose to leave positive ratings and tags or negative ratings and tags, instead of lumping all the tags together...hmmm, maybe.

That makes some sense. However, I don't think it can be broken out just into two sections. For instance, I may consider a player to have great "gameplay" but shitty "attitude".

So to pull off what you're suggesting (which I like, by the way), you would actually have to break out each of the three ratings sections into good/bad and assign the various rating tags to them. Without looking at the ratings while I'm writing this, I could see that this might mean that a particular tag be assigned to more than one of the rating good/bad areas.

[jefjef]

I wonder if the ratings system could be fixed by changing the set up rather than the entire system? What if you could either choose to leave positive ratings and tags or negative ratings and tags, instead of lumping all the tags together...hmmm, maybe.

That makes some sense. However, I don't think it can be broken out just into two sections. For instance, I may consider a player to have great "gameplay" but shitty "attitude".

So to pull off what you're suggesting (which I like, by the way), you would actually have to break out each of the three ratings sections into good/bad and assign the various rating tags to them. Without looking at the ratings while I'm writing this, I could see that this might mean that a particular tag be assigned to more than one of the rating good/bad areas.

Well if the good tags and bad tags weren't randomly arrayed it would be easier.

[TheForgivenOne]

How about set them into 3 area's?



Good|Neutral/Either-Or|Bad

[Queen_Herpes]

Concise description: A review and update of the current explanatory tags which can be used when leaving ratings.


Specifics/Details: Ok so I've seen a few threads recently around suggesting changes to some of the ratings explanatory tags so I am proposing a review and update of the tags.

We currently have 35 tags available when leaving ratings for our opponents. These tags are Quick or Slow, Deadbeat, Friendly, Funny, Helpful, Talkative or Silent, Rude, Complainer, Paranoid, Bully, Trustworthy or Backstabber, Good Teammate or Bad Teammate, Teammate Killer, Cooperative or Uncooperative, Brave or Coward, Irrational, Reckless, Suicider, Vindictive, Sore Loser, Quitter, Clueless, Balanced Play, Secret Diplomacy, Cheap Tactics, Leader or Follower, Good Strategy or Poor Strategy.

I believe that some of these are irrelevant, unneccessary, pointless, and we could use some new ones, as well as removing some of the current ones. It would be beneficial if there was some way to collect data and log how many times each tag has been used since the ratings system came out.

Explanatory tags I have scrutinised (with notes), there are eight in total.

• Cooperative or Uncooperative - I don't think we need these two tags as you could use Good Teammate or Bad Teammate. If you are talking about non-team games I think that these tags are irrelevant. We could quite easily find other tags to replace these two tags.
• Irrational - Matter of opinion as to what is, or is not, rational surely? This could also be thrown in with Reckless below. Make way for a new tag?
• Reckless, Suicider - These two are kind of similar or could at least be misconstrued as the same sort of thing. Could we not remove one?
• Vindictive, Sore Loser - These two are also kind of similar. Vindictive could be changed to "Bad Sport" or "Poor Sportsmanship".
• Secret Diplomacy - For me, the most controversial tag. If you rate a player and use this tag you should be filing a C&A report and the player should be banned. If you don't then you are just throwing accusations about. Therefore this tag is unneccesary and, in my opinion, should be removed.

Proposed changes to the explanatory tags.

• Remove six of the eight explanatory tags above and/or replace them with new ones.
• As of now, I am not going to list any, but new tags such as "magnaminous", "noble", or "honourable" are some that I have been thinking about.
• It would be great to have lots of input and ideas from the community.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments: A much more relevant and "user friendly" ratings system. Besides, it's always good to be updated.

That's my thoughts, all input and feedback is welcome!

Reckless and suicider are not the same thing. A reckless player might do something stupid like suicide, but suiciding is its own beast that belongs with its own tag methinks.

[jefjef]

How about set them into 3 area's?



Good|Neutral/Either-Or|Bad

That would work well.

We do need to have MISSED TURN tag too. Nothing currently really applies.

[Woodruff]

I wonder if the ratings system could be fixed by changing the set up rather than the entire system? What if you could either choose to leave positive ratings and tags or negative ratings and tags, instead of lumping all the tags together...hmmm, maybe.

That makes some sense. However, I don't think it can be broken out just into two sections. For instance, I may consider a player to have great "gameplay" but shitty "attitude".

So to pull off what you're suggesting (which I like, by the way), you would actually have to break out each of the three ratings sections into good/bad and assign the various rating tags to them. Without looking at the ratings while I'm writing this, I could see that this might mean that a particular tag be assigned to more than one of the rating good/bad areas.

Well if the good tags and bad tags weren't randomly arrayed it would be easier.

I definitely agree with this.

[JoshyBoy]

How about set them into 3 area's?



Good|Neutral/Either-Or|Bad

That would work well.

We do need to have MISSED TURN tag too. Nothing currently really applies.

I agree.

I also agree. Unless you are going to use deadbeat.

[Queen_Herpes]

How about set them into 3 area's?



Good|Neutral/Either-Or|Bad

That would work well.

We do need to have MISSED TURN tag too. Nothing currently really applies.

Yes...I figured in all these comments someone suggested that. Something better than "Missed Turn" though...better descrptive to say this: "missed turns intentionally" but in fewer charcters/words

[Darwins_Bane]

perhaps tags that talk about what people are like in chat? i know it seems redundant at a glance, but i dont really want to go through an opponents game history to know that they always ask for truces, or like to feed misinformation, or call out armies in fog.

[Queen_Herpes]

perhaps tags that talk about what people are like in chat? i know it seems redundant at a glance, but i dont really want to go through an opponents game history to know:

that they always ask for truces,

"Diplomat"

or like to feed misinformation,

"Ministry of Disinformation" or "Bullshitter" or "BS Artist" or "Untrustworthy."

or call out armies in fog.

"Breaks Fog"

[Woodruff]

perhaps tags that talk about what people are like in chat? i know it seems redundant at a glance, but i dont really want to go through an opponents game history to know that they always ask for truces, or like to feed misinformation, or call out armies in fog.

But how likely are you to find out if someone is either feeding misinformation or calling out armies? Most of the time, you're just going to be assuming one or the other, with no real hope for accuracy. That doesn't seem right.

[Woodruff]

or like to feed misinformation,

"Ministry of Disinformation" or "Bullshitter" or "BS Artist" or "Untrustworthy."

I don't think "Untrustworthy" fits. Someone can be VERY trustworthy with an in-game agreement and still give out "general misinformation".