Conquer Club

im a strong believer in this system you are advocating. I do believe it shouldnt be moderated by a closed group though. It should be moderated by all as you have defined.

The advantages are obvious and it also brings the community closer together. I hope Twill comments on this coz i think it would be a great step forward for CC kind.

hulmey wrote:im a strong believer in this system you are advocating. I do believe it shouldnt be moderated by a closed group though. It should be moderated by all as you have defined.

The advantages are obvious and it also brings the community closer together. I hope Twill comments on this coz i think it would be a great step forward for CC kind.

Cheers Hulmey! *places arm around Hulmeys shoulder, breathes an intoxicating mix of whiskey vapour and pickled eggs in his compadres face* Me and you against the world pal!

If lack is smart he will ask jim to be a moderator.
Last couple of months he is 1 of few that comes up with great ideas.

Kudos to you jim. A very good idea it seems.

I would be happy to share some of the burden of either of the ideas you have put forward. However, I do think for expeditious purposes, a community elected body should deal with the final say in some areas. I only say this because experience has taught me that too many inputs would slow the whole thing down to a crawl, and if, as I believe you have said, time could be of the essence, then this becomes something of a necessity.

Fruitcake wrote:Kudos to you jim. A very good idea it seems.

I would be happy to share some of the burden of either of the ideas you have put forward. However, I do think for expeditious purposes, a community elected body should deal with the final say in some areas. I only say this because experience has taught me that too many inputs would slow the whole thing down to a crawl, and if, as I believe you have said, time could be of the essence, then this becomes something of a necessity.

thanks and Agreed Fruitcake!.. but what we propose .. (there is a lot of info there, so understand the detail can be missed) is that there be a ceiling of votes needed to constitute an authoritative decision!

Say it is open to the whole site, we could set the limit at 100 votes with 95% approval to make it a live comment.

jiminski wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:Kudos to you jim. A very good idea it seems.

I would be happy to share some of the burden of either of the ideas you have put forward. However, I do think for expeditious purposes, a community elected body should deal with the final say in some areas. I only say this because experience has taught me that too many inputs would slow the whole thing down to a crawl, and if, as I believe you have said, time could be of the essence, then this becomes something of a necessity.

thanks and Agreed Fruitcake!.. but what we propose .. (there is a lot of info there, so understand the detail can be missed) is that there be a ceiling of votes needed to constitute an authoritative decision!

Say it is open to the whole site, we could set the limit at 100 votes with 95% approval to make it a live comment.

OK...I hear what you are saying. One concern...does this not open another can of worms...that of politicking and general abuse on that very thread? or am I missing something old chap.

I truly do think you may have something here.

Fruitcake wrote:

jiminski wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:Kudos to you jim. A very good idea it seems.

I would be happy to share some of the burden of either of the ideas you have put forward. However, I do think for expeditious purposes, a community elected body should deal with the final say in some areas. I only say this because experience has taught me that too many inputs would slow the whole thing down to a crawl, and if, as I believe you have said, time could be of the essence, then this becomes something of a necessity.

thanks and Agreed Fruitcake!.. but what we propose .. (there is a lot of info there, so understand the detail can be missed) is that there be a ceiling of votes needed to constitute an authoritative decision!

Say it is open to the whole site, we could set the limit at 100 votes with 95% approval to make it a live comment.

OK...I hear what you are saying. One concern...does this not open another can of worms...that of politicking and general abuse on that very thread? or am I missing something old chap.

I truly do think you may have something here.

Well the way i see it, is that this is participatory Forum but with anonymous perusal and voting only.
The comment Forum is not 'ironically' a place for discussion by the voters.
So there will be no canvassing for support or bitching, it is simply a place to read and click 'yes' or 'no'.

Setting the Parameters of judgement is key.

Some people will vote to cock up the system but only a tiny minority.

Some Clans may organise block voting but due to the high requirement of acceptance* this will be irrelevant.


* the level is also important to negate partisanship but make the system fast enough to get rid of the back-log.

Well so far so proper.

Sounds very good to me, and with fear of being accused of politicking myself, I would suggest strongly that the community vote hard for this. It resolves so many issues.

Fruitcake wrote:Well so far so proper.

Sounds very good to me, and with fear of being accused of politicking myself, I would suggest strongly that the community vote hard for this. It resolves so many issues.

yeah im in love with the idea and it really does resolve all the problems we are curently experiencing. anyways , im feeling dizzy and im gonig to lie down, im also smelling pickled onions

heheh not sure about that one partner, I am too susceptable to the odd bout of ire and lapses into argument for its own sake.... but cheers for the sentiment

Stupid idea...The old system was bad enough...Lets move on with the new.

KoE_Sirius wrote:...Lets move on with the new.

thanks mate, i agree .. with that part at least!

We need to take the new idea and improve it.

The new rating system is much, much better than the old, decrepit feedback system. That was so incredibly lame, especially with "king achilles'" biased so-called moderation.

The new system is perfect as it is, and doesn't need improvement or adjustment of any kind, especially not the INCREDIBLY STUPID idea in this thread.

Love the new system! My usual habit is to hand out all 5's to everyone, and this takes so little time; click, click, click, and Bob's yer uncle. Ratings are so convenient!

Thanks, Conquer Club!

I voted no because one of the huge reasons feedback was removed was so that moderation could do other things rather than field feedback complaints. If we let people add comments it just recreates the old problem, and I don't see the increased community moderation being something lack would agree with, it's hard enough keeping the 'real' moderators in line sometimes.

Maybe eventually comments could come back, but right now it would use up the man power in ways that lack doesn't want. He wants to be able to spend more time adding features, and I want him to do that as well.

What I wouldn't mind is where you could add comments to remind yourself why you rated the player the way you did, that only you (or maybe you and your friends) can see. But it isn't that important to me.

Coleman wrote:I voted no because one of the huge reasons feedback was removed was so that moderation could do other things rather than field feedback complaints. If we let people add comments it just recreates the old problem, and I don't see the increased community moderation being something lack would agree with, it's hard enough keeping the 'real' moderators in line sometimes.

Maybe eventually comments could come back, but right now it would use up the man power in ways that lack doesn't want. He wants to be able to spend more time adding features, and I want him to do that as well.

What I wouldn't mind is where you could add comments to remind yourself why you rated the player the way you did, that only you (or maybe you and your friends) can see. But it isn't that important to me.

thanks Coleman, did you read the more intelligible and detailed brief in the GD?

I think it at least begins to answer your reservations.

KLOBBER wrote:The new rating system ...needs ...improvement or adjustment.. especially... the idea in this thread.

Love it! .... How convenient!

Thanks, ....

you are most welcome Klobby!

Coleman wrote:...it's hard enough keeping the 'real' moderators in line sometimes.

You can say that again! Just what exactly are the qualifications for being a mod on this site, anyway? Not that they're all bad, but one or two of them make it seem like the qualifications for acceptance are pretty frikkin' low!

jiminski wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:The new rating system ...needs ...improvement or adjustment.. especially... the idea in this thread.

Love it! .... How convenient!

Thanks, ....

you are most welcome Klobby!

That was, without question, the MOST RETARDED post I have ever seen on this site.

It was also an intentional misquote. In most cases, you had the intelligence to put ellipses where you deleted the most important words (although you accomplished that with the literary finesse of a chimpanzee), but you forgot the ellipse when you misquoted the following phrase:

"...the INCREDIBLY STUPID idea in this thread."

Get a life; your idea rots.

KLOBBER wrote:

jiminski wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:The new rating system ...needs ...improvement or adjustment.. especially... the idea in this thread.

Love it! .... How convenient!

Thanks, ....

you are most welcome Klobby!

That was, without question, the MOST RETARDED post I have ever seen on this site.

hehe, well that makes a lot of sense Klobby; all your posts look like you did not read them before sending.

jiminski wrote:well that makes a lot of sense Klobby; all your posts look like you did not read them before sending.

To a person who has trouble reading, they may look like that.

KLOBBER wrote:

jiminski wrote:well that makes a lot of sense Klobby; all your posts look like you did not read them before sending.

To a person who has trouble reading, they may look like that.

heheh, I am having fun with you, but it would be better if you could say something useful. (or even a joke of your own perhaps!? )

I am very happy to try to explain or change an aspect of the idea if you can give me good grounds to do so.
In fact most of the reason that this may be 'quite' a good idea, is that many people have come up with weaknesses in the draft proposal.

So please fire away... but "it moronic!, Klooby good" or "new System perfect, Jim idot" do you a disservice.

Cheers, jim

Don't mind the circus maximus noob jim.

firstholliday wrote:Don't mind the circus maximus noob jim.

heheh i knew i recognised the name

KLOBBER wrote:

jiminski wrote:

KLOBBER wrote:The new rating system ...needs ...improvement or adjustment.. especially... the idea in this thread.

Love it! .... How convenient!

Thanks, ....

you are most welcome Klobby!

That was, without question, the MOST RETARDED post I have ever seen on this site.

It was also an intentional misquote. In most cases, you had the intelligence to put ellipses where you deleted the most important words (although you accomplished that with the literary finesse of a chimpanzee), but you forgot the ellipse when you misquoted the following phrase:

"...the INCREDIBLY STUPID idea in this thread."

Get a life; your idea rots.

why you making this personal...if you dont like the idea move on. We know you think it rots, so im expecting no more idiotic posts from you please

Coleman wrote:I voted no because one of the huge reasons feedback was removed was so that moderation could do other things rather than field feedback complaints. If we let people add comments it just recreates the old problem, and I don't see the increased community moderation being something lack would agree with, it's hard enough keeping the 'real' moderators in line sometimes.

Maybe eventually comments could come back, but right now it would use up the man power in ways that lack doesn't want. He wants to be able to spend more time adding features, and I want him to do that as well.

What I wouldn't mind is where you could add comments to remind yourself why you rated the player the way you did, that only you (or maybe you and your friends) can see. But it isn't that important to me.

by your writing i really dont think you have grasped the concept here. Try reading the one in GD as well.