Reputation Scores

It's been awhile since we discussed the "positive feedback" option but if I remember correctly we where thinking a long the lines of giving players the option to describe each player in 1 word.
We could give players the choice between say 20 words to describe a players playing style/contribution.
This would be a mix between positive and negative ways to describe a players contribution to the game you just played together.
If a player takes the time to teach a newbie how to be a better player you could "tag" him as being " helpfull " for example.
If a player threatens and makes fun of players abilities or lack of experience you could "tag" them as bully or unhelpfull.
I would also make so that it takes at least 2 players who give you the same "tag" in the same game to make it count.
1 on 1 games would be excluded from this system simply because it's 1 players word against another and there's little point in going that route.
This to avoid the situation that 1 players "sore loser syndrome" results in a lot of negative tags that don't really say anything constructive about a players "playing personnality".
You would then have to make some way to display the last 100 "tags" every player has and I would suggest a list starting with the word most used to describe this player.
And below that the 2nd most used word and so fort until you have the 3 or 5 most used words used by players to describe this player.
This would also be a rolling system like the reputation tabs are now so only the last 100 tags would be show giving every player every opportunity to make up for past behavior.
You would then get a general idea of a players personality.
If you see a player where the most used word to describe him or her is "bully" well you would know what you are getting into when you invite that player or enter a game with this player.
This would also be very helpful for newer players who are looking to play with a more experienced player but don't want to be verbally and tactically destroyed and wind up learning nothing.
If you don't like games where you have to read 60 lines of chat every time you take a turn avoid players with a high "talkative" tag rating.
If you don't like players who take extreme risks or try strange experiments, avoid the players with the "gambler" tags.
etc etc etc.
I think this would help players avoid certain types of player they would rather not play with (and let's face it, the root cause for the majority of arguments and problems with chat and rule breaking is usually found in the unhappy mixing of players with extremely different playing styles).
I think we've all experienced this, you are enjoying a game with seasoned players who like to plan and implement a quite extensive strategy and 1 player starts to complain that this games is taking way to long and he has no premium so he can only enter 4 games and he could be playing another game and after complaining for a couple of turns he either suicides or defaults thereby ruining the game for everyone.
I think this could help in avoiding these kind of mismatched games.

I would like to add something real quick. When you are reporting someone for say, unfair play, please give it a second thought before pressing the button. Sometimes it's hard to see the difference between unfair play and smart strategy.

Hello, My problem with the attendance part is that I live in a third world. We have many brownouts so I dnt play many live games. I realize this is my problem and not others. But there are times that I only miss a turn not the entire game. I dnt think missing a turn only should knock down your attendance points. Missing a turn is not the same as missing the entire game. But what do i know I'm usually wrong.

The purpose of the reputation system is to give information to the people about the players that are in the game that they want to join. They use that information to decide whether or not to play with you. The information they want to know is whether or not you miss any turns at all. I personally don't want to play with someone who misses even one turn because it slows down the game too much. Other people don't care as much or don't bother to look at your score.

I am sure you're still able to get games started even with your low attendance score.

Personally I am glad to see the reputation system in place, I think it makes the site more... professional!

So far we haven't had many problems with the reputation system except for getting players to use it.

There are plenty of players getting dinged on their chat scores but most players fair play scores are still in the 98-100 range even though some deserve to be lower.

I think it would be more effective if we added another thing to report players for.

One of the major differences between playing Risk online and playing in real life on a board is that in real life you don't get away with making outrageous, infuriating moves. If you make a move like that then the other guy flips the board and throws the dice in your face. You risk everyone quitting and never coming over to play with you again.
Unfortunately online you get rewarded if everyone quits because you get their points.

What I propose is to add another thing to report players for, making outrageous and infuriating moves. This would include a broad range of offenses such as breaking temporary truces early or making very low probability attempts for the win that ruin the game for most of the players.

While the definition is very broad the report will only affect their fair play score if someone seconds your report. This does not mean that the second player also has to be infuriated, it just means that they would be infuriated if the same thing had happened to them.

I don't think we have to go to the trouble of defining every situation that would fall under this report type. If what the player does makes you so upset that you would flip the board and walk out in real life then report the player. If another player in the game sees how upset you are and agrees that you were wronged then they can second the report. The whole point of this system is for the players who are actually playing in the game to decide what kind of behavior is not acceptable.

I don't like this. If we still aren't able to say what is a suicide movement, do you think that it will be easier with "outrageous and infuriating moves"?

If the definition we have is: "If what the player does makes you so upset that you would flip the board and walk out in real life then report the player" we are far away from the solution. I guess, Vexer, that you should play more with Low-ranked players and read everybody's complains (high ranked saying that some newbie ruined the game or suicide against him, newbies complaining that somebody is bulling him, etc.)I don't think that your suggestion will help to solve this.

The main purpose of the reputation system is to get an idea about what other players think of a player before you join a game with them. If someone is frequently enraging other players then their score should be lower.

If two players in the game can agree about it then that's good enough to reduce their score. It should be the players who are actually in the game deciding and not us. This system is mostly opinion based. It's impossible to have a judge review each problem game. We tried that and were overwhelmed. So instead we now have a scoring system and a way for players to affect other player's scores. It's not perfect but it's better than having a long list of games to review and no time to review them.

Report option question:
What would straight lying be classified as? I mean there aren't specific rules against it. But I just watched a game (still going on) where a guy said he would truce or not attack a neighbor... then attacked.

Then talked him into peace again, then attacked. Then did it again! I mean I blame the other player for falling for that so many times as much as anything, but I would personally never play that guy that lied in a game ever. 

I prefer not to make truces at all. Sometimes the only way to play to win is to break a truce, sometimes keeping it is really unfair.

But if you do make truces, lying is allowed I guess, it's war after all.

I won't play with that guy ever. He was just dirty. He would break a region, then act like oh my bad, I'll back out and we can be friends.

Then did it again, then would be like, here you can take this region. Then bam, did it again. It was unscrupulous. 

I never make truces and I never fault anyone for how they play, and they can do whatever they want whenever they want against me. But I will still tell them my intentions, and I don't lie. I'll say something like I'll farm with you here, or I have no intention of wasting my troops on this border war with you, etc. Just making my intentions known. 

What I just saw was kind of sickening. Just lie after lie after lie, and he won. Lol. He would have been rolled by the guy he lied to in a fair fight. I think there's politics which is a HUGE part of risk, but I draw the line at making deals for your protection then going back on them. Especially when you do it 4 or 5 times.

UPDATE:

Some how he didn't win yet.... had the game easy but went for bonus instead of kills. SMH. And now is timing out. Craziness.

Any thoughts on maybe adding some positive reports? I don't want to clutter it up too much but maybe something like a general 'Good Game' or 'Good to Play With' option?

Fun to chat with.

A lot of games may have good gameplay, but I have much more fun when players are lively and talkative. Even if I don't know them, it's nice to chat with someone over a game rather than play my turn and move on. And it's especially nice not to receive silence when I make an offer, proposal, or suggestion.

I like PsymonStarks's suggestion, if its possible, that there be an attendance limit option when creating games, to filter out probable turn-missers.

So many cool things about this site. This is quite brilliant.
The reputation scores and stuff. Sorry in advance for any of my referrals that may use offensive language, as we came from a barely moderated server where there was probably less play waiting for games, and moreso chat, mostly bad habits. It's a refreshing experience for myself, and surpasses everything I imagined for online risk. Glad I found it, and this is my new Risk home.