Concise description:
Offer rough guidelines/descritions in ratings explanation
Specifics:
Example, Attendance:
1 star might mean someone repeatedly deadbeats, without giving any reason (or reason rejected); leaves consistantly when losing, etc.
2 stars deadbeats on occasion, misses turns consistantly
3 stars would be if someone misses an occasional turn, deadbeats repeatedly with reason , especially if no warning given.
4 stars no deadbeating or missed turns, unless notification given and agreed in advance of game (i.e. if someone cannot play Saturday, but tells you before starting the game);
5 stars takes turns quickly, doesn't miss turns except in emergency (up to rater to accept or reject)
OR, even just a rough: 1 is for those who consistantly deadbeat, particularly those who deadbeat when losing or who deadbeat team games without warning.
3 is for people who deadbeat occasionally without reason or who miss a LOT of turns, with reasons.
5 is for those who don't miss a turn or who don't miss unless they have what the rater accepts as an "emergency".
NOTE: The actual descriptions are definitely "up for debate" --
ALSO, it since the mods will NOT be involved, it should be noted up front that these are rough guidelines and that people may interpret them how they wish.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Right now, it is hard to really know how to rate someone or what the ratings others give really mean. I mean, I got a 4 from one person, a 3 from another ... but absolutely no clue as to why the difference.
In PARTICULAR, there is no way at all to sort out those issues that only matter to a few people.
For example, there was already a tendency, for some people (mostly non-premiums) to think 1v1 or freestyle are "supposed to" be "real time" and who would "neg" people who took the allotted time. Previously, it was easy enough to weed these things out of the negatives. Now, that is impossible.
Similarly, there is no room to distinguish things like bad language and such that some folks think just fine, but others do not. Again, in the old system you could look through and read the negs/nuetrals and get a decent idea if this person thinks f*** is a nice greeting. If it mattered, you could avoid that person. If it did not ... nothing really lost. note: I never thought you should give a neg simply for swearing, Nuetrals are more appropriate. I just think knowing the kind of person with which you are dealing is a decent idea.
