Honor rating?

[Cardinalsrule]

Could someone in Majcom Command please give us a quick explanation of what the honors number means? And perhaps how it is calculated? I'm currently a little over 200, is that good? mediocre? poor?

 

[mapguy]

I think that you guys are on the wrong track here. I envision a big clusterfuck ahead.

CC used to have a great Feedback feature, but they changed it so as to have less complaints from people about unfair bad ratings. BUT, they failed to understand just what the Feedback system was good for, and why it is imperative to allow players to be able to say a few words (if they wished) about their experience with each others game. This must NOT be anonymous, for more than one reason. Lets say you are perusing a players Feedback and you come across a bad rating. You have absolutely no way of ascertaining how legitimate this rating is unless you are able to go check ALL of the ratings left by this player. Then you can see what kind of a "rater" he is. It just may be the case that he gives out bad ratings like candy at Halloween.

If you make ratings anonymous, one rating is just as legitimate as the next, and we all know that this is NOT true, Some people are buttheads and rate everyone negatively, while some are just the opposite and rate everyone positively. By allowing the buttheads anonymity, you only give them an invisible shield to hide behind. Also, after a while you can learn who are the the most trusted critiques, and who are not worth even reading. All of this strengthens the feedback system, not even to mention the fact that it hinders bullying.

Now i realize that this "Honor" score only includes the Diplo. thing, but in my opinion, it should all be a part of a "Feedback" feature that resembles the old CC one.

 

[Evan]

Now i realize that this "Honor" score only includes the Diplo. thing,

it does? I didn't realize that the honor had anything to do with diplo, directly.

Lets say you are perusing a players Feedback and you come across a bad rating.

This scenario simply does not exist. This is not ebay. You can not "come across a bad rating". You can ONLY see the players overall honor score.

If you make ratings anonymous, one rating is just as legitimate as the next, and we all know that this is NOT true, Some people are buttheads and rate everyone negatively, while some are just the opposite and rate everyone positively.

And as such, it evens out perfectly with the true factor being the middle people who vote reasonably.

By allowing the buttheads anonymity, you only give them an invisible shield to hide behind.

They're not invisible. Certain members of the staff can see who votes what. Anyone breaking the rules at MC will be dealt with. (which I believe voting everyone all bad always or vice versa is a case of)

Also, after a while you can learn who are the the most trusted critiques, and who are not worth even reading. All of this strengthens the feedback system, not even to mention the fact that it hinders bullying.

Bullying is nullified by making the people anonymous. Not the other way around. bullies need to be seen/known to have motive.

 

[MrBenn]

One way of mitigating against persons who always/only give negative ratings, is to perhaps adjust your own honor rating based upon the average ratings you have given?

Would be unusual to give more than 20-25% negative ratings? If so, then why not set it so that every negative rating (above 20-25%) had an effect on your own honor rating? The bar could always be raised to 33% or 50% if people wanted; but certainly if people are giving more negative ratings than positive ones then there is likely to be a problem.

 

[Badorties]

We don't need special features to deal with people who only give bad ratings. Those are just outliers.

Also, CC's first rating system was a mess and not ideal at all. It's second was just a disaster. The honor system was created with CC shortfalls in mind. It's a good system, give it some time, you'll see.

 

[mapguy]

We don't need special features to deal with people who only give bad ratings. Those are just outliers.

Also, CC's first rating system was a mess and not ideal at all. It's second was just a disaster. The honor system was created with CC shortfalls in mind. It's a good system, give it some time, you'll see.

Boss, could you explain why it was a mess. In my opinion it worked very efficiently. It was easy to sum up a player by reading his Feedback. Everyone (even myself) eventually got a bad rating or two, but when you take the time to research the person leaving the bad rating, you learn that he leaves a lot of unfavorable remarks. On the other hand all of the rest was countless glowing remarks that pretty much said the same thing. Nice, friendly, and all of the positive things that one could say about another player. I was very proud of my Feedback page, and was very disheartened when they changed it. Many felt the same way as I did, and the whole idea of feedback was ruined when they took away the personal messages that you could leave.

 

[Badorties]

If I recall, the admins were constantly having to clean up and remove all kinds of retaliatory and other unwarranted feed back. Any system that requires constant housekeeping is never going to work.

 

[MrBenn]

It was nice being able to leave a message along with the feedback rating; the need for mod intervention could be removed by allowing users to remove abusive comments (if not the negative ratings) - a bit like the wall that was later introduced over at conk..

 

[Dreadnought]

I honestly dont see the need for the honor rating system and see only potential negative effects of the system. Diplomatic rating is in my view the only true rating system and if someone really is dishonorable it should be adressed to the site staff who have the tools to correct any wrong doings.

 

[Badorties]

It was nice being able to leave a message along with the feedback rating; the need for mod intervention could be removed by allowing users to remove abusive comments (if not the negative ratings) - a bit like the wall that was later introduced over at conk..

So why would a user leave any negative comment on themselves? People would just have the good reviews posted.

 

[Badorties]

I honestly dont see the need for the honor rating system and see only potential negative effects of the system. Diplomatic rating is in my view the only true rating system and if someone really is dishonorable it should be adressed to the site staff who have the tools to correct any wrong doings.

The goal of the honor system is to encourage honorable play. Actions like suiciding and abusive chat are not handled by the diplo system and staff should only have to interviene in serious bannable offenses.

 

[ORBOTRON]

Maybe I'm missing something, but users can already leave any comments they want on other users profile pages, is somebody suggesting yet another area on the userpage to leave comments? Seems redundant and a waste of space to me.

 

[masterjskye]

Anyone breaking the rules at MC will be dealt with. (which I believe voting everyone all bad always or vice versa is a case of)

Is this true? I thought MC only had 2 rules ; )

Actually, thinking about it I guess it would come under being "that guy"... but even if you are just nice and rate lots of people positive?

 

[mapguy]

Maybe I'm missing something, but users can already leave any comments they want on other users profile pages, is somebody suggesting yet another area on the userpage to leave comments? Seems redundant and a waste of space to me.

No, I am talking about feedback for every game played. Comments on the users profile page are not for this purpose. They are for chit chat that rarely have anything to do with the games themselves.

I am also talking about a tab on the Feedback page for both feedback received and feedback left.

If there is NOT to be a Feedback feature and only some kind of anonymous "Honor" rating, then I would lobby that things such as diplo violations are never removed no matter how long the passage of time has occurred. I would make the score reflect the amount of games played verses the number of violations. So, the more games that a player chalks up without a violation, the smaller the violations will effect the score, but NEVER remove them, as this would not be fair to those players that have NEVER violated a diplo agreement.

 

[Dreadnought]

The goal of the honor system is to encourage honorable play. Actions like suiciding and abusive chat are not handled by the diplo system and staff should only have to interviene in serious bannable offenses.

Problem is that people who play like that wont care about the honor rating system and by the time a players honor rating has gone down enough for anyone to acctually stop playing with this unknown player the person will simply change names. The fact is that only staff intervention and diplomatic rating can handle this problem and the rating system will eventually be less favorable to active players with lots of games than noobs, especially the suicider/abusive "noob" who just changed his name. If site managers are dead set on introducing the honor rating system I would like to recommend it as a warning system for the staff rather than having hundreds of different opionions on whats dishonorable behavior/gameplay from every player on this site which would probably make the rating system a stage for endless tit for tat wars between players that should just move on to the next game.

 

[ORBOTRON]

"simply change names"? There's nothing simple about changing your name here, you can request it be changed, but your user # stays the same, we know who you are. If you're talking about people being abusive and then just making a multiple account, that won't work either. Abusive people are warned, then banned, and if they try to come back we send drone attacks with highly accurate douche seeking missiles.

 

[MrBenn]

It was nice being able to leave a message along with the feedback rating; the need for mod intervention could be removed by allowing users to remove abusive comments (if not the negative ratings) - a bit like the wall that was later introduced over at conk..

So why would a user leave any negative comment on themselves? People would just have the good reviews posted.

I meant that a user could remove an abusive comment, but not the negative rating.

 

[Evan]

Is this true? I thought MC only had 2 rules ; )

That's correct ; )

Actually, thinking about it I guess it would come under being "that guy"... but even if you are just nice and rate lots of people positive?

Of course. You're ruining the experience and therefor you're being "that guy" (not YOU literally )

EDIT: Dont get me wrong. You can rate lots of people honorable (I do). but if you indiscriminately rate everyone positive, then that would be investigatable.

 

[Evan]

I don't mind criticism; But I hear a lot of ignorance-based arguments. The points you're making are simply invalid because they're based on non-reality.

Why don't we just leave it alone until an actual problem occurs with it? (I'm not being defensive; i didn't invent this thing. I just don't understand the point of this long thread)

 

[ORBOTRON]

Reasons for the long thread:
1) People always like a good debate
2) Some people are a bit jaded (understandably) and have come here with a chip on their shoulder from certain other sites. Given the similarities, some people are always going to look for CC 2.0 instead of thinking without preconceived notions.

The fact is, we can learn from some others' mistakes, but sometimes we need to have our own ideas and let them sink or swim on their own without prejudice.

 

[FLAGG]

I have had a number of complaints to me on this honor system from past teammates, and a few examples of where people downgraded my honor as a response to losing.

I think this honor rating system was a good idea but simply does not work in practice and should be eliminated. I think that people too often:

1) Get friends to rate them honorable regardless of game play
2) Use the honor system as a childish response to fairly losing a game.

I have never voted someone one way or the other. Am I to start to? Should I start spending game time asking people that I like and play with a lot to give me an honorable rating? Does everyone else do this? I am unsure if the honor system, as it currently stands shows anything.

I look at my rating and see that several people have named me dishonorable. I don't know when or why? I have never broken a truce, or backed down on my word that I know of? Yet my honor is questioned?

The diplomacy rating is the only thing I can control. It sits at 1000 for me. I am going to get back to enjoying the game, and not getting all caught up with this honor stuff.

FLAGG