One Day Chance to Change Rating

[Funkyterrance]

Concise description:

A one day grace period is allowed for players to view their ratings received and adjust their own rating accordingly.


How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

I read a thread in questions earlier and it just reminded me of sore subject I have regarding the current rating system. I always try to rate my opponents/teammates in a fair manner but on more than one occasion, five days later or whatever, I get his/or her rating back and am like "are you kidding me?". If someone gives me a vindictive rating on my game for whatever mentally unstable reason, I want a chance to adjust my rating accordingly. The attitude of a player's game isn't over once the game is over, thanks to the current rating system. Sore players can always get one last vindictive jab in. I think it would only be fair for the rating to be open for one more day after it shows up on your list just to avoid this sort of abuse.
This would benefit the site by curbing a very common way for players to be vindictive. At least the offended player would be able to dish out what he/she was served, which is only fair.

[sniffie]

isn't always possible to change it withing 5 days, untill the game is archived?
Or play the player again and you can rate him again.

sniff

[spiesr]

The rating system was set up the way it is in order to avoid exactly what you are suggesting it should be changed to allow people to do. We don't want people to see that they got a bad rating from someone and then change their rating of that person to bad for revenge. So, I see this suggesting being rejected...

[Funkyterrance]

Sniffer,
You can change your rating within the 5 days but you can't see what your player rated you within that time frame. That's my whole point. I don't want to play someone again who rated me in a vindictive way since they will most likely do it again, so I am never going to come out even.

spiesr,

The system is flawed. If someone gives me a vindictive/illogical rating, why should I not have to option to reevaluate my rating of them? C+A needs you to provide a mountain of evidence to fight someone who does this sort of thing so there is no real way to deal with this issue with the current system. The first person to rate vindictively is rating for revenge so why can't the receiver do the same??? What you are suggesting is fair only benefits the person who FIRST decides to be vindictive. How is this a good system?
Besides, if everyone knew there would be repercussions for rating vindictively they would maybe think twice before doing so and there would be no need for anyone to change their rating in the first place.

[AndyDufresne]

The system is flawed. If someone gives me a vindictive/illogical rating, why should I not have to option to reevaluate my rating of them? C+A needs you to provide a mountain of evidence to fight someone who does this sort of thing so there is no real way to deal with this issue with the current system. The first person to rate vindictively is rating for revenge so why can't the receiver do the same??? What you are suggesting is fair only benefits the person who FIRST decides to be vindictive. How is this a good system?
Besides, if everyone knew there would be repercussions for rating vindictively they would maybe think twice before doing so and there would be no need for anyone to change their rating in the first place.

There is an option to Re-rate someone---play them again.

Once the game is archived the rating cannot be changed unless you play the member again, at which point you may revise your rating to reflect any changes in opinion.

--Andy

[Funkyterrance]

Yea Andy, I realize that. The guy two posts before suggested that but the problem is you are just setting yourself up to be vindictively rated again. No matter how many times you play that person he/she will have damaged your reputation more than you have theirs, which is not even what I want to accomplish. My intent is to maybe dissuade players from making this sort of vindictive move in the first place and if they do, they should get their just desserts as far as their attitude rating in concerned.

[AndyDufresne]

Yea Andy, I realize that. The guy two posts before suggested that but the problem is you are just setting yourself up to be vindictively rated again. No matter how many times you play that person he/she will have damaged your reputation more than you have theirs, which is not even what I want to accomplish. My intent is to maybe dissuade players from making this sort of vindictive move in the first place and if they do, they should get their just desserts as far as their attitude rating in concerned.

If someone is abusing ratings---leaving clearly inaccurate or spurious ratings---you can always report them in the Cheating & Abuse forum. Taking on the discipline yourself, I'm not sure if that is right way to go about it.


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

The system is flawed. If someone gives me a vindictive/illogical rating, why should I not have to option to reevaluate my rating of them?

Because your rating is supposed to be evaluation of their gameplay and not an evaluation of their ratings habits. If you re-rate, you're no longer commenting on their attitude during the game but on their attitude after the game. That's not what the ratings system is about.

[Funkyterrance]

Hehe, Andy.
Does it border on vigilante justice? Maybe. What do you do if something unconscionable keeps happening and the offending parties go unchecked because of red tape?
Actually what I am suggesting would technically not even be discipline if it were not abused. If someone rates me vindictively I feel I should be allowed to rate them poorly on attitude, doesn't seem disciplinary to me, just my honest overall rating. I feel that attitude isn't fully determined until the rating has been left or expires. If players choose to abuse this new system by retaliating and rating their opponent all 1's they are arguably no better but how is this any worse than the initial abuse by the originally vindictive player? At least with the new system there would be no victimization, which is why I feel so strongly about this issue.

[AndyDufresne]

At least with the new system there would be no victimization, which is why I feel so strongly about this issue.

I think a few would argue that this doubles the victimization, from party to two!


--Andy

[TheForgivenOne]

Actually what I am suggesting would technically not even be discipline if it were not abused. If someone rates me vindictively I feel I should be allowed to rate them poorly on attitude, doesn't seem disciplinary to me, just my honest overall rating.

The attitude rating isn't about what happens after the game, it's what happens DURING the game. And how does you rating him poorly after make the situation any better? How does that make you the better person?

Btw, a person can only rate you once. So if you got all 1 star's from him, he can't re-rate you all 1 star's. If anything, you can only go up from playing said user again.

[Funkyterrance]

Good point Forgiven in that you can only rate someone once, this fact slipped my mind. The fact remains that the person who was initially rated vindictively did NOTHING to deserve a poor rating. So even all coming out even in the end is not really a good solution. It is just the best possible outcome. Whereas if one person rates vindictively and the other has no chance to retaliate, they are by far the victim.

However, Andy I don't know about your line of logic...
If someone stabs me on the street and I stab them back, do they now become a victim? This is a stretch to say the least.

[army of nobunaga]

deuumbo


nice bubba.


why do people that play 500 ish games here think they have great ideas and post them? only to look like A-holes? dude.... get some games under your belt... see what the community is liek and then see what is really needed...

no real player here takes ratings serious.

most of us look at our ratings like once every 400 games.

[Funkyterrance]

Ouch lol. Did I do something to you in a former life?
I am TRYING to have a discussion here...
If you think I am pounding my head against the keyboard and drenched with tears you are mistaken. I remember starting this game and thinking the ratings were "very" important so maybe this applies to newbies who are quite valuable as "potential customers".
As far as looking like an A-hole... you...ah forget it.

[army of nobunaga]

nope... even new people could care less about the ratings...


this isn't exactly a place for discussion, just suggestions. I am not trying to be mean, I think I just come across that way. Any man that trys to help is a good man. In life and on the net.

But I just ask you to put some more games behind you... get a feel for the community here.

There are literally and no offense to you, 100000 better ideas that have been put out that have been ignored for years here.

[army of nobunaga]

I mean, anyone over 2000 games here will tell you the CC rating system is broke, dumb, and the while thing needs to be scraped.


This is jsut a can of worms that you do not get till you have been here for some time.


same thing with your dice suggestion... there might have been 2000 threads taht I have read over the last 4 years over dice here. You might need to read some of those before you come up with your magical fix of the dice.


And for the record.. they are pretty damn random.

[DarthFrog]

If someone rates you badly, just write a response.

As for no one caring about the ranking, I doubt that's true. I don't mind the system. It's helped me find some real douchebags on this site that I have foed before ever playing a game with them.

[Super Nova]

If someone rates you badly, just write a response.

As for no one caring about the ranking, I doubt that's true. I don't mind the system. It's helped me find some real douchebags on this site that I have foed before ever playing a game with them.

Or when they give you the bad rating, foe them then.

Perhaps a better idea would be something were everyone can see how many people have foed a player, just to get an idea of their sportsmanship.

[SirSebstar]

I mean, anyone over 2000 games here will tell you the CC rating system is broke, dumb, and the while thing needs to be scraped.
...

I think I have over 2000 games, i think the rating system shows the worst and best cases. And thats exactly as it should be.
those with 500or more ratings are more or less accurate. A 3.2 on a few ratings is a bit low, but a 5.0 with 1000+ ratings is going to be something speciale. And even so, any player can be a douche, or rub the wrong way in a game. What I think is not what you think and vice versa. Does this mean the rating system is flawed.
No, but it does mean any conclusions should be made with care..

[Funkyterrance]

Ok, maybe I should change the wording. The rating system is inaccurate. From what I am gathering most people are either saying that it doesn't matter or that you can't really trust it. This to me seems like enough evidence to suggest that it needs tweaking in one form or another. Either that or just get rid of it, if it is more or less meaningless.

[DarthFrog]

Ok, maybe I should change the wording. The rating system is inaccurate. From what I am gathering most people are either saying that it doesn't matter or that you can't really trust it. This to me seems like enough evidence to suggest that it needs tweaking in one form or another. Either that or just get rid of it, if it is more or less meaningless.

You are missing the point of the ratings. If I'm about to join a game with a guy who has a 4.3 rating (especially for doubles), it will make me look at his profile and ratings. Often time, I will see that he has a low turn percentage, and some mentions on his ratings put him as silent, or deadbeat, or bad teammate, etc. This will make me avoid the game that player is in.

I'll join a cook in a doubles game because he has a 4.9 rating and seems like a fun person to play with.

The rating system is about as good as it gets, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who looks at it as a guide to players I'm about to play for the first time. After I've played with someone, I couldn't care less what their ratings are though.

[SirSebstar]

I concur DarthFrog,
The ratings are meant to be a player driven system that can give an indication about the player you are facing. If you had a foul game and it’s the exception, you will likely balance out in the longer run. Players with a lower rating then most you face, often have something special. They may have had only a few ratings, or they might have had a lot of bad games, with things like deadbeating, arguments, ect ect. It happens, don’t worry about it, but if it happens often, maybe the problem really is you… Anyways, ratings give an indication.

This is not a problem., it is a solution.
The previous system, was feedback, where you actually had to write down what you thought about the payer. This lead to a greater and steadily increasing requests for moderation, as people started to use it to flame insult and cause general mayhem. The current system is less inclined to have excesses. Ofcourse sometimes rating abuse will still occur, but much less now then in the old days.

Overall, the system gives a fair indication of what you can expect in general from a player. A 4.9 or 5.0 with 1000+ ratings is very unlikely to cause you great grief. A player with a 100+ 3.2 is likely to cause you grief. Stay away if you care..

[Funkyterrance]

Thanks for your contributions guys, sincerely. IMO after weighing everything that was discussed here I think I personally am going to scrap the whole ratings business and not even bother. In fact, I feel a little silly for rating anyone in the past and taking it at all seriously.

Cheers,
Funky