[PC] Update Explanatory Tags

[JoshyBoy]

What about an "other" tag with a short (20ish?) discription

No, because this is basically the old feedback system, and would take too much work to moderate.

[PLAYER57832]

This thread did merge a few different ideas.

What I would like:
eliminate a lot of the descriptive tags like "vindictive", "bully", etc. and replace them with "good sport" and "bad sport". For the most part, do we really care what someone specifically does to be a jerk? If they are a jerk, they are a jerk! Might add in " "truly nasty" or "intentionally deadbeats", perhaps even "reported for cheating" (might help to have a link to the cheating thread in that case, so people can read up on details if they wish)
Beyond that, we need a few tags that only apply to some situations, only some people are interested in. One might be "helpful to newbies", to highlight people who are good at playing new people. Another might be "does not understand Assassin", "needs to read rules before playing complicated maps" or "makes announced alliances".
Mostly, though I would like to see special tags for team play .. "communicates well", good team player, etc are good in that context and otherwise just don't matter. (shoot, a "team player" in a normal game might be called a "cheat" by some.. lol)

[PLAYER57832]

One PS. The biggest problem with the rating system goes beyond tags.

For the rater, it is hard to know what all the previous games were like. As a result, many people just give all 5's, (better to err on the side of benefit) and don't even bother with negatives. Those that do rate negatively are very inconsistant. Even when someone has a real comment, it can be hard to tie it to any game, unless its someone you have only played once.

The bottom line is that I think we need to fix the overall system first, then go back to editing the tags. Right now, most people have plain given up on the system. Right now, it is purely a waste of time.

(sorry, but that is my opinion). I have proposed, a couple of fixes. (mostly to average the counts across games for each person) A new one just came up to tie ratings to games. Maybe some combination of those two things could work? Then we might have more of a real system.

[Woodruff]

eliminate a lot of the descriptive tags like "vindictive", "bully", etc. and replace them with "good sport" and "bad sport". For the most part, do we really care what someone specifically does to be a jerk? If they are a jerk, they are a jerk!

I disagree...I definitely want to see the specifics. I may not care about whether someone is a bully or rude, but I damn sure care if they are vindictive, a sore loser or backstabber.

Beyond that, we need a few tags that only apply to some situations, only some people are interested in. One might be "helpful to newbies", to highlight people who are good at playing new people.

We already have "helpful". I thought you wanted to get rid of the specifics, not add them?

Another might be "does not understand Assassin", "needs to read rules before playing complicated maps" or "makes announced alliances".
Mostly, though I would like to see special tags for team play .. "communicates well", good team player, etc are good in that context and otherwise just don't matter. (shoot, a "team player" in a normal game might be called a "cheat" by some.. lol)

This one part makes sense.

[PLAYER57832]

eliminate a lot of the descriptive tags like "vindictive", "bully", etc. and replace them with "good sport" and "bad sport". For the most part, do we really care what someone specifically does to be a jerk? If they are a jerk, they are a jerk!

I disagree...I definitely want to see the specifics. I may not care about whether someone is a bully or rude, but I damn sure care if they are vindictive, a sore loser or backstabber.

Well, all of those would fall under "sore loser", particularly "vindictive". "Backstabber" -- I am not sure how that would apply unless you make treaties and such. Personally, I find "using treaties" itself to be not the best of characteristics. Rude... true. Among other issues, what does that even mean? At some point, that is what the individual comment section is for, for if you have a specific comment.

2 tags is probably a bit harsh. The biggest problem is you have 20 tags and only a few positive. It needs balance.

Beyond that, we need a few tags that only apply to some situations, only some people are interested in. One might be "helpful to newbies", to highlight people who are good at playing new people.

We already have "helpful". I thought you wanted to get rid of the specifics, not add them?

I am not sure that "helpful" applies in general. I mean, could easily be "secret diplomacy". However, to explain the game to someone who doesn't understand, that is a unique characteristic that I feel needs more attention.

Another might be "does not understand Assassin", "needs to read rules before playing complicated maps" or "makes announced alliances".
Mostly, though I would like to see special tags for team play .. "communicates well", good team player, etc are good in that context and otherwise just don't matter. (shoot, a "team player" in a normal game might be called a "cheat" by some.. lol)

This one part makes sense.[/quote]

[PLAYER57832]

Overall, I think we might need to bring this back to the discussion page and reopen some of the old ideas. OR, maybe create a new panel that consists primarily of more experienced players, particularly those who have not had a lot of "issues" with other players (then again, maybe some of them need to be in the group).

I see several of the same people posting here, people who have all been thinking about and discussing this for some time. yet, nothing happens. Maybe if we worked together?

[blakebowling]

To help this move on, I need a list of tags you wish to have removed (which I believe is complete already in the OP), and a list of tags you would like added. Having these in the OP would help us out a lot.

[PLAYER57832]

Maybe this should move back to discussion? I know Josh, several others (including myself) have been working on or thinking about this for some time, we have, amongst ourselves even come up with some solutions (way back, before the latest change and I believe since). However, nothing was ever done because we were told the system was "too new".

[blakebowling]

Maybe this should move back to discussion? I know Josh, several others (including myself) have been working on or thinking about this for some time, we have, amongst ourselves even come up with some solutions (way back, before the latest change and I believe since). However, nothing was ever done because we were told the system was "too new".

It still is under discussion, it has simply been stickied to draw more support to the idea. And as a signal that it is closer to being submitted. However if the OP would like it un-stickied, I can do that.

[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.

Not irrelevant at all. Good Teammate/Bad Teammate relate directly to TEAM GAMES ONLY. Whereas Cooperative/Uncooperative relate to NON TEAM GAMES. Removing these would be a big mistake.

[*]Irrational - Matter of opinion as to what is, or is not, rational surely?

Aren't these all just opinions?

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?

I agree with you that Irrational and Reckless are very similar, so one of them could be removed. I very much disagree though that Reckless necessarily means Suicider.

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

These are not necessarily similar at all. Being vindictive is far different from just being a sore loser. Both should be kept.

[*]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.[/list]

I agree.

[JoshyBoy]

Thank you for your input Woodruff. I think I need to update the first post taking into account all of the feedback I've received on this suggestion.

[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.

Not irrelevant at all. Good Teammate/Bad Teammate relate directly to TEAM GAMES ONLY. Whereas Cooperative/Uncooperative relate to NON TEAM GAMES. Removing these would be a big mistake.

Except what kind of cooperation do you need/want outside of team games?

Personally, I would replace them with "makes [legal] alliances and I would not necessarily consider that a positive thing.

[*]Irrational - Matter of opinion as to what is, or is not, rational surely?

Aren't these all just opinions?

The problem but also a reason to keep this, is that what some people consider "irrational" is a winning tactic by someone else. The reason to keep it is it might say as much about the rater as the one rated.

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?

I agree with you that Irrational and Reckless are very similar, so one of them could be removed. I very much disagree though that Reckless necessarily means Suicider.

I agree, but I would like to see those replaced with "poor sport". The reason is that there are times when suiciding is not necesarily a bad thing (the last few rounds of Hive, for example). However, the fact that this tag is here might encourage some newer players to use it in such situations.

I think part of what the rating system should do is "direct" (in a small way) behavior we want to encourage versus behavior we don't versus behavior that is just neutral.

"nuetral" might be swearing. For some, it matters a great deal. For others -- not at all. On the other hand, no one really enjoys playing iwth the person who shows up, throws a fit the first time they lose and deadbeats. I don't really need to know the full details, "poor sport" covers that and a myriad of other situations.

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

These are not necessarily similar at all. Being vindictive is far different from just being a sore loser. Both should be kept.

vindictive is a sub category of poor loser, one type of poor loser. But why is the distinction important? Does it alter how you would treat that person?

The only way I might is if they were vindictive to the point of giving me pms and such..b ut at that point, it would be warranting an official complaint, not just a tag. (similar to the cheating tag... its just not necessary as a tag).

[*]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.[/list]

I agree.

I agree also. I do think a simple "makes alliances" (perhaps we need to insert "legal" to clarify) becuase it is one of those behaviors some people like and others do not.

One thing, I already said, but will repeat for simplicity, I think we need a "good sport" tag. That, to me is more important than probably any other tag. I covers a lot and yes, people will vary in how they percieve it. Still, it is useful.

I would also like some tag that specifically deals with help to newbies. Not just the "helpful" tag. Maybe "good mentor" or some such would work.

If you keep a lot of negative tags (my vote is to eliminate them), then we need some more positive ones, maybe things like "patient", "good strategy", etc.

Perhaps the place to start is to consider what the tags represent, what the goal of the rating system is.

[mcs6300]

I also think it would make it easier if the 'Positive' tags were grouped separately from the 'Negative ones. It would make rating faster.

[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.

Not irrelevant at all. Good Teammate/Bad Teammate relate directly to TEAM GAMES ONLY. Whereas Cooperative/Uncooperative relate to NON TEAM GAMES. Removing these would be a big mistake.

Except what kind of cooperation do you need/want outside of team games?

Player, you (yes...you) asked me this exact same question THE FIRST TIME I posted these responses in this thread (ages ago, which showed no impact on the original post, so I posted it here again). I answered it then the same way I did then...when a player is taking a strong position in a game and is going to win it if folks don't work together to take that player down, THAT IS COOPERATION. If they do not do so, that is being UNCOOPERATIVE. It's really quite simple, really.

Personally, I would replace them with "makes [legal] alliances and I would not necessarily consider that a positive thing.

You would be wrong to do so.

"nuetral" might be swearing. For some, it matters a great deal. For others -- not at all. On the other hand, no one really enjoys playing iwth the person who shows up, throws a fit the first time they lose and deadbeats. I don't really need to know the full details, "poor sport" covers that and a myriad of other situations.

I definitely disagree in that I DO want to know the full details. As you said, for some swearing isn't important, but for others it is very important. For those for whom it is very important, the full details of the situation is...well, important.

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

These are not necessarily similar at all. Being vindictive is far different from just being a sore loser. Both should be kept.

vindictive is a sub category of poor loser, one type of poor loser. But why is the distinction important? Does it alter how you would treat that person?

Absolutely it does. It potentially impacts whether I will join their game or not. I don't really care about a sore loser, but I certainly care about a player that is vindictive.

If you keep a lot of negative tags (my vote is to eliminate them), then we need some more positive ones, maybe things like "patient", "good strategy", etc.

Sure, I have no problem with positive tags. I am of the opinion that more tags are good. I want specificity in knowing who I'm up against (or who I may be joining a game with).

[Woodruff]

I also think it would make it easier if the 'Positive' tags were grouped separately from the 'Negative ones. It would make rating faster.

Sure, that makes sense. Although that may be impacted by something as simple as "screen resolution", so may not be as do-able as it would seem to be.

[JoshyBoy]

Poll added at request, to guage interest on the subject.

[blakebowling]

I'd really like to see this suggestion complete. I believe most people agree that this needs to happen, however in order to make it happen easier and sooner, we need a list of closed-ended changes. (Like change A to B, not "Fix It")

[JoshyBoy]

In that case, I would like people to post what they would like to see changed.

I propose that not only do we change a few of them, but that we also group them into Positive, Neutral, and Negative.

[Woodruff]

In that case, I would like people to post what they would like to see changed.

Haven't we already done that? Several times?