Does anyone else rate people the "correct" way?

[Neoteny]

There's a correct way to use this atrocity?

[Rocketry]

I started off doing it properly. Now I just give everyone either 5/5/5 or 1/1/1.

Rocket.

[PLAYER57832]

1 star = poor
2 star = below average
3 star = average
4 star = above average
5 star = outstanding

I usually give people 4 stars if they are friendly and win a game, sometimes i give them out when people lose too when they put up a good fight. I rarely give out 5 stars because people rarely deserve them. Yet when i look at other peoples ratings they are so inflated (mine included) they mean absolutely nothing.

Why can't people use the system as intended.

Instead of the mods changing the 'forting' set up they should have come up with a better rating system. This rating system has had many drawbacks to it.

First, people are always going to have a tendency to rate people a little better than perhaps they "should" on a site like this. It's a fun site, about having fun and telling someone "you are not that good/nice/etc" is not what most people call "fun". Furthermore, I am not sure its even effective, because most people's response will be "oh YEAH! ..... so YOU think so?.."

Second, there are serious issues with giving valid ratings. Most importantly few people play the same every time. So, you are left with trying to remember how you played that person, spending way too much time researching past games (not even that easy to do!), rating them based on that one game (for most people OK if the rating is decent, but do you really want to erase 100 games because of one poor-playing incident?), stick with a general rating for everyone OR simply don't rate.

Most people go with all 5's. I have wound up doing the same, unless someone deadbeats or is a jerk -- then I write a private not in the chat and blank their rating. Only if they are a REAL jerk -- foe list material -- do I rate them down severely.

I think the new system was a valid attempt, but it now that we have used it, it is time for a revision.

[targetman377]

1 star = poor
2 star = below average
3 star = average
4 star = above average
5 star = outstanding

I usually give people 4 stars if they are friendly and win a game, sometimes i give them out when people lose too when they put up a good fight. I rarely give out 5 stars because people rarely deserve them. Yet when i look at other peoples ratings they are so inflated (mine included) they mean absolutely nothing.

Why can't people use the system as intended.

Instead of the mods changing the 'forting' set up they should have come up with a better rating system. This rating system has had many drawbacks to it.

First, people are always going to have a tendency to rate people a little better than perhaps they "should" on a site like this. It's a fun site, about having fun and telling someone "you are not that good/nice/etc" is not what most people call "fun". Furthermore, I am not sure its even effective, because most people's response will be "oh YEAH! ..... so YOU think so?.."

Second, there are serious issues with giving valid ratings. Most importantly few people play the same every time. So, you are left with trying to remember how you played that person, spending way too much time researching past games (not even that easy to do!), rating them based on that one game (for most people OK if the rating is decent, but do you really want to erase 100 games because of one poor-playing incident?), stick with a general rating for everyone OR simply don't rate.

Most people go with all 5's. I have wound up doing the same, unless someone deadbeats or is a jerk -- then I write a private not in the chat and blank their rating. Only if they are a REAL jerk -- foe list material -- do I rate them down severely.

I think the new system was a valid attempt, but it now that we have used it, it is time for a revision.

i agree with you 100%

[oVo]

There's a correct way to use this atrocity?

I dunno... the winner of this game rated a pair of ? deadbeats all 5s ffs.
I'd certainly hate to stay in that 5 Star NoTeL.

[ender516]

I hope that by talking about this, I am not making myself a target, but I try to make my ratings 3-based, rather than 5-based. So far, I have only had a couple of players object, and I am prepared to delete a rating if the ratee is inconsolable, and did do so once.

Because I play at CC for fun, and try to treat it like playing a game around a table with friends (or at least acquaintances with similar interests), the rating I set most consistently is the Attitude. Since I always wish everyone good luck, anyone who is completely silent gets the Silent check box and a 2. This leaves room for a 1 if someone is actively obnoxious, which luckily I have yet to encounter, and for deadbeats (check box and a 1). Any simple response to my good wishes rates at least a 3. Enter into some real conversation, and you move up to 4 or 5.

Gameplay I tend to rate more generously, because it is difficult to separate poor strategy from bad dice if you are not watching every second. Being (I believe) no better than average myself, I often give a 5 to the winner and a 4 to anyone who I feel beat me. I don't think I have given anyone less than 3, aside from deadbeats, who again get a 1.

Now to paraphrase a response I gave to one player who objected to my rating:

As far as fair play goes, in my mind, a person who plays fairly gets a 3 "Average". Shady types would be marked lower. To do better than 3, one would have to be "more than fair", say, for example, in resolving a dispute which came up during the game regarding the interpretation of an alliance agreement. Since so far I have had no dealings in any way where I could recognize fair or foul play, I give pretty much everyone the 3 which is the standard to which I hold the human race: the average person does the right thing. Because I feel deadbeats spoil a game, they get a 1 here as well.

[mpjh]

How about a three rating system:
1 bad
2 ok
3 fun

then use the check items for detail

[THE ARMY]

Maybe there should be catagories like:

Lunatic
Jackass
Joe
Warrior
Leader
Savior

then when people rate the average of a certain amount comes up: For example GGIP would be a Warrior

[juventino]

I did rate people the way it was intended. But a mod told me it was unfair ratings.

I had done some rating based upon things outside the game itself ie wall, gamechat, pm and even sitters in other games. As I said this wasnt ok.

The problem is that people are giving out to high ratings. In silly cases.

This is a problem because people sometimes remove their ratings if they see that they didnt get one back. This will lead to even higher rating. There are alot of people just giving out 5-5-5 ratings to everyone just in case.

Lower ratings will by themself lead to a low rating since people tend to give lower ratings to people who in turn give out low ratings.


As many have said, the rating system is flaud and should be replaced.

[pimphawks70]

To those that are concerned about their overall average, just play more games and it will pick back up. Most every player on CC, with a good number of games, should be in the 4.7-4.9 region easily and generally, they are worth playing against.

The gentleman known as codeblue1018 is rated at a 2.8 despite being one of the most polite and considerate player on CC. It's a mystery to me how one of his manners has such a low rating...

On a serious note, it's easy to complain about the rating systems but this really is one of the best ways to do it. And anyways, even if an idea is suggested, we can expect to wait the usual 2.5 year implementation cross over...

[PLAYER57832]

On a serious note, it's easy to complain about the rating systems but this really is one of the best ways to do it. And anyways, even if an idea is suggested, we can expect to wait the usual 2.5 year implementation cross over...

I am not criticizing the change or effort that went into it. However, I think some improvement is not only possible, but warranted.

I do agree that simply complaining is not enough. A better system needs to be suggested, which is why I am starting a couple of threads on the matter.

[pimphawks70]

On a serious note, it's easy to complain about the rating systems but this really is one of the best ways to do it. And anyways, even if an idea is suggested, we can expect to wait the usual 2.5 year implementation cross over...

I am not criticizing the change or effort that went into it. However, I think some improvement is not only possible, but warranted.

I do agree that simply complaining is not enough. A better system needs to be suggested, which is why I am starting a couple of threads on the matter.

That post was not directed at you...

It was a post directed at all who sit there and bitch and whine, but offer no better solution...

[juventino]

There's a correct way to use this atrocity?

I dunno... the winner of this game rated a pair of ? deadbeats all 5s ffs.
I'd certainly hate to stay in that 5 Star NoTeL.

it is ok to rate deadbeats all 5's. I "asked" to see how I should rate and the mod told me in order to keep this a happy place we should all give out 5's.

[ender516]

There's a correct way to use this atrocity?

I dunno... the winner of this game rated a pair of ? deadbeats all 5s ffs.
I'd certainly hate to stay in that 5 Star NoTeL.

it is ok to rate deadbeats all 5's. I "asked" to see how I should rate and the mod told me in order to keep this a happy place we should all give out 5's.

Are you serious??? A mod told you that? That mod must think the ratings are already useless, because if they aren't, they soon would be with a policy like that.

[AkiraS]

I generally give people 4's if they're quiet, and played average, 5's if they played well and i found them chellenging, 3's if they were talking and were being annoying, and 1's if I find myself on the receiving end of a 4 vs 1 (I don't join in a 4 vs 1 going the other way). The only thing I can't stand is playing against people who then realise you're gaining some kind of advantage and then start talking to everyone to attack you and only you, forcing you into a loss where you had no way of stopping. Then and only then do I end up giving out 1's and nasty comments.

[PLAYER57832]

1 star = poor
2 star = below average
3 star = average
4 star = above average
5 star = outstanding

I usually give people 4 stars if they are friendly and win a game, sometimes i give them out when people lose too when they put up a good fight. I rarely give out 5 stars because people rarely deserve them. Yet when i look at other peoples ratings they are so inflated (mine included) they mean absolutely nothing.

Why can't people use the system as intended.

The short answer is that its really not so simple. The real problem is that ratings are permanent. To truly rate someone "correctly", you need to not just remember the last game (hard enough if you have 50 games to rate), but you have to remember each and every game you ever played with the person. Even just finding the number of games you have played before is a pain.

So, rather than make a mistake and rate someone down who doesn't deserve it, most people either give a "straight" 5 unless there is a serious problem or do something like give 4's until they play a few games with no problems ... etc.

Another problem is just not addressed by the ratings. There are too many issues that matter a lot to some people, but only to some and right now there is just no way to tell if someone rated you down because you swore or were "too slow" in a casual game.

[Fruitcake]

There's a correct way to use this atrocity?

I dunno... the winner of this game rated a pair of ? deadbeats all 5s ffs.
I'd certainly hate to stay in that 5 Star NoTeL.

it is ok to rate deadbeats all 5's. I "asked" to see how I should rate and the mod told me in order to keep this a happy place we should all give out 5's.

Quite right. It is important that cc is a happy place, then we don't have the mods getting all modly and using their tools on us.

[oVo]

Keep 'em happy when the goal of the game is to eliminate players? heh!

Some players are very forgiving with their ratings. For instance, sanman678 and emporium both played games with a pair of cheats and still managed to give each of them all 5 Star ratings.

[tamcardiff]

It seems that if you give a player average ratings, this is construed as negative. If you do leave that rating, the other player will hit you with a low rating, lowering your own score. I only leave now positive scores for decent players or good play, or good spirit in adversity (poor dice rolls) and don't bother with a negative rating.

So now, if I play someone who is dumb, deadbeat or plays a deferred bonus strategy, if I don't want to play them then I foe them.

When I rate films. it is exceptional films that get 5* or very good films get 4*. In CC, a 5* = a good rating and 4*= an average rating. Even then, you can only really leave a 4* rating without risking a hit on your rating.

Not quite sure what a better system would be. I guess, that if one player irritates you enough then you share it with a low rating.

[THE ARMY]

What about...people rate the player out of a scale of 1,000,000 for this would surely seperate the numbers. THEN take the waited average and in a standard distribution bell curve give the people grades, A+ to F?

[safariguy5]

I rather liked the old way with just positive, negative or neutral. You could also explain more.

[Timminz]

I enjoy getting all 1's. They usually stem from "interesting" games.

[oVo]

It is ok to rate deadbeats all 5's.

I think that is a mistake and an injustice to your fellow competitors as well. The best aspect of the rating system is leaving behind an indication of what you might expect from a player in future games. To give a deadbeat 5 Stars and boost their rating doesn't reflect their actions at all or change the odds that they will fail to participate in any games you share with them.

I rather liked the old way with just positive, negative or neutral. You could also explain more.

Me too. Maybe the current system would be improved with the simple inclusion of comments with the ratings.

[safariguy5]

It is ok to rate deadbeats all 5's.

I think that is a mistake and an injustice to your fellow competitors as well. The best aspect of the rating system is leaving behind an indication of what you might expect from a player in future games. To give a deadbeat 5 Stars and boost their rating doesn't reflect their actions at all or change the odds that they will fail to participate in any games you share with them.

I rather liked the old way with just positive, negative or neutral. You could also explain more.

Me too. Maybe the current system would be improved with the simple inclusion of comments with the ratings.

What exactly was the reason for changing it?

[oVo]

I think it was mostly "abuse of the system" which was the source of a lot of bitching from players and took too much moderator time. Receiving a neg carried more weight than receiving all ones does in the current rating system. It takes more negative feedback to drag your rating down now than it used to and getting all ones occassionally isn't the end of the world.

The abuse of the ratings system will always exist, but it's effects aren't as harsch anymore.