Conquer Club

Fruitcake wrote:

codeblue1018 wrote:Get rid of it! IF you play someone and determine that you do not wish to play again for whatever reason, wah lah, IGNORE LIST! You will not have to deal with a particular player again. Easy fix!

But if they are an absolute tosser, as some are, why not do everyone a favour and ensure they all know?

Because in codeblue's case, CC doesn't offer 1 player games.

I have no issues with the current system, except the occasional neg that gets deleted for poor reasons.

Clearly those who have large negative fb would love to see it removed, but its a useful tool for players to decide who they deem to be a desirable opponent.

Specific ratings like the 5 star system would help fine tune this.

But lets not have to fill in a 3 page form to complete a feedback.

Fireside Poet wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:

codeblue1018 wrote:Get rid of it! IF you play someone and determine that you do not wish to play again for whatever reason, wah lah, IGNORE LIST! You will not have to deal with a particular player again. Easy fix!

But if they are an absolute tosser, as some are, why not do everyone a favour and ensure they all know?

Because in codeblue's case, CC doesn't offer 1 player games.

And there's me thinking I'm good with the one liners....

Fireside Poet wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:

codeblue1018 wrote:Get rid of it! IF you play someone and determine that you do not wish to play again for whatever reason, wah lah, IGNORE LIST! You will not have to deal with a particular player again. Easy fix!

But if they are an absolute tosser, as some are, why not do everyone a favour and ensure they all know?

Because in codeblue's case, CC doesn't offer 1 player games.

LOL. Nice FP. I actually had an outburst of laughter.

a simple check list would do the job and eliminate complaints

check the boxes that apply
deadbeat
missed turn
abusive language
made the game fun
on a scale from 1 to 10 (one being poor) this person played a _____

then a total could be added for each box to a persons profile

total feedbacks=15
6-deadbeat
12-missed turn
3-abusive language
1-made game fun to play
on a scale....4

I can tell at a glance I don't want to play this person, no need to skim endless feedbacks

the biggest complaint i have noticed and had myself is 'the feedback is considered retaliatory'

all because the other player posted it before you did yours. this has a greater chance of happening whenever someone is eliminated before you, more so if you win.

my suggestion is to accept the feedback but not post it on the other players account until 'x' days since game ended have passed. at this point no other feedback can be left. only responses to feedback can be made, or it can be removed.

An in-game summary of what you've posted so far. If I missed something, feel free to post it again.

What you want to know
Gameplay (overall quality, strategy, teamwork, make/break agreements, suicide, create chaotic game)
How often they miss turns and/or deadbeat
In-game behavior (conversation, attitude, made game fun, abusive)
Suspected cheater


How you want to know it
Ranking system
Individual scores for specific criteria
Comments on specific criteria
YES or NO option on 'would you play them again'
Check list of specific criteria
Tell at a glance I don't want to play this person


How you want to be able to leave it
Ease of use (no long forms)
Free speech, Ability to leave jokes
Write the way we talk in real life
Don't allow stupid feedback
Focus feedback for critiques of players who deserve exceptional praise or shame.
Time delay on making feedback viewable


How you want to dispute it
Clear, published guidelines that are the same for every player
Fast response
Analyse both negs and the game and see what applies what doesn’t
No moderation of comments

Great comments so far. Keep them coming. Remember this isn't how would you fix the current system, more what would you want out of a new system (granted they're very close, but try to steer away from dwelling on past issues).

wicked wrote:An in-game summary of what you've posted so far. If I missed something, feel free to post it again.

What you want to know
Gameplay (overall quality, strategy, teamwork, make/break agreements, suicide, create chaotic game)
How often they miss turns and/or deadbeat
In-game behavior (conversation, attitude, made game fun, abusive)
Suspected cheater


How you want to know it
Ranking system
Individual scores for specific criteria
Comments on specific criteria
YES or NO option on 'would you play them again'
Check list of specific criteria
Tell at a glance I don't want to play this person


How you want to be able to leave it
Ease of use (no long forms)
Free speech, Ability to leave jokes
Write the way we talk in real life
Don't allow stupid feedback
Focus feedback for critiques of players who deserve exceptional praise or shame.
Time delay on making feedback viewable


How you want to dispute it
Clear, published guidelines that are the same for every player
Fast response
Analyse both negs and the game and see what applies what doesn’t
No moderation of comments

Great comments so far. Keep them coming. Remember this isn't how would you fix the current system, more what would you want out of a new system (granted they're very close, but try to steer away from dwelling on past issues).

You got it wicked!!!

Dr_Demento wrote:a simple check list would do the job and eliminate complaints

check the boxes that apply
deadbeat
missed turn
abusive language
made the game fun
on a scale from 1 to 10 (one being poor) this person played a _____

then a total could be added for each box to a persons profile

total feedbacks=15
6-deadbeat
12-missed turn
3-abusive language
1-made game fun to play
on a scale....4

I can tell at a glance I don't want to play this person, no need to skim endless feedbacks

i do like this idea. amazon has a similar feedback system, and actually ebay does this in addition to what you choose to say. it simplifies things, and these are all good things to know. this is what i am looking for.

What if you are the 2nd person to join an 8 person game? Do most of you guys wait for the other spots to fill before playing?

mightyleemoon wrote:What if you are the 2nd person to join an 8 person game? Do most of you guys wait for the other spots to fill before playing?

isn't this off topic?

wicked wrote:An in-game summary of what you've posted so far. If I missed something, feel free to post it again.

What you want to know
Gameplay (overall quality, strategy, teamwork, make/break agreements, suicide, create chaotic game)
How often they miss turns and/or deadbeat
In-game behavior (conversation, attitude, made game fun, abusive)
Suspected cheater


How you want to know it
Ranking system
Individual scores for specific criteria
Comments on specific criteria
YES or NO option on 'would you play them again'
Check list of specific criteria
Tell at a glance I don't want to play this person


How you want to be able to leave it
Ease of use (no long forms)
Free speech, Ability to leave jokes
Write the way we talk in real life
Don't allow stupid feedback
Focus feedback for critiques of players who deserve exceptional praise or shame.
Time delay on making feedback viewable


How you want to dispute it
Clear, published guidelines that are the same for every player
Fast response
Analyse both negs and the game and see what applies what doesn’t
No moderation of comments

Great comments so far. Keep them coming. Remember this isn't how would you fix the current system, more what would you want out of a new system (granted they're very close, but try to steer away from dwelling on past issues).

When I start to read long speeches that take up the whole page, my eyes gloss over and I skim.-0

p.s.-i think the feedback system is fine. the problem is the people that abuse it.

Fireside Poet wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:

codeblue1018 wrote:Get rid of it! IF you play someone and determine that you do not wish to play again for whatever reason, wah lah, IGNORE LIST! You will not have to deal with a particular player again. Easy fix!

But if they are an absolute tosser, as some are, why not do everyone a favour and ensure they all know?

Because in codeblue's case, CC doesn't offer 1 player games.

The feedback system works like a heads up!

hairingtons wrote:a) get rid of it altogether

b) a simple YES or NO option on 'would you play them again' something like that

or

c) just dont moderate it. everyone gets to say their piece. simple.

Yes B and can you display next to someones name how people have him on ignore

Fruitcake wrote:

mightyleemoon wrote:What if you are the 2nd person to join an 8 person game? Do most of you guys wait for the other spots to fill before playing?

isn't this off topic?

Jeez. This crowd tends to be a little snobbish...

Here...follow along...

One person says...

fwblb wrote:it simplifies things, and these are all good things to know. this is what i am looking for.

So this person is looking for something before a game. I am wondering...

mightyleemoon wrote:What if you are the 2nd person to join an 8 person game? Do most of you guys wait for the other spots to fill before playing?

If they are looking for something particular before a game begins...do they wait for the game to fill up? Maybe they check back and if someone joins with too many Negs they drop the game before it begins.

Was it not a legitimate question to the topic at hand?

KoE_Sirius wrote:

hairingtons wrote:a) get rid of it altogether

b) a simple YES or NO option on 'would you play them again' something like that

or

c) just dont moderate it. everyone gets to say their piece. simple.

Yes B and can you display next to someones name how people have him on ignore

If you mean, how many have someone on ignore, that has to be one of the better ideas to come out of this thread.

Whatever the new feedback system is, I want to be able to leave jokes that people will be able to read for millenia to come.

If we're thinking 'outside the box' for new systems etc though, perhaps the 'pos/neu/neg' system is a bit too crude a method (hence all the complaints). Perhaps a better system would be to allow players to leave a comment and rate their playing experience with that player out of 10. Then each player's feedback would come out as an average out of ten.

This system would be much better than the present one, as it would mean an individual neg wouldn't be such a mammoth blip, and would simply cause a .1 reduction in your overall average (hardly cause for concern). Also, joke feedbacks wouldn't matter so much either, as 'serious business' risk sharks would be busy concentrating on your average, rather than your comments...

What does everybody reckon? f*ck pos/neg, the age of the overall average has arrived... or am I just a bit drunk?

Agreed about the ignore list. Very interesting idea.


mightylemon, the topic at hand is what people would like to get out of a new feedback system, not how they use the current system to join games. yes, they're both tangentially related, but not really the the purpose of this thread.

Dancing Mustard wrote:a better system would be to allow players to leave a comment and rate their playing experience with that player out of 10. Then each player's feedback would come out as an average out of ten.

Is that not a ranking/rating system DM?

That's what you get for writing long paragraphs.

Edited the first post with all the current suggestions.

if you have been here a while things people did not like about you may have been corrected, so an option for them to remove a negative would be great.

or it could be that bad habits have been acquired so they now want to remove their positive feedback.

or maybe only the feedback received in the last 12 months is on display. everything else drops off or is archived.

or maybe not the first two, just the third one.

I want a feedback system that gives me a nice hood-job after every win. And a lubed hand job after every loss....oh, and a cigarette to top it all off.

oh, and maybe a towel.

As longs as my feedback remains in the 'I can't believe just how awesome this guy is' bracket - I can't see any reason to change things.

ps. I'm back

Pedronicus wrote:As longs as my feedback remains in the 'I can't believe just how awesome this guy is' bracket - I can't see any reason to change things.

ps. I'm back

this is coming from a player that leaves feedback because I fell short in eliminating him so he leaves a BS feedback for his loss. Funny how after 8,000 games your the only one to ever state this about me.

am i still on your games ignore list?

I want old feedback (6 months, maybe even less than that) removed. So only the most recent feedback is shown. That would be more accurate to the player.

It would make it less of a "dude that guy has 400 feedbacks he must be awesome" and more of a system where you look at what the feedback says to determine how good someone is.