Rating system

I feel there are just too many times nowadays when I play a game and I'm either suicided on or someone is a jerk in the chat or when I am suicided in players won't report it so they can take the win and it's all just getting really frustrating. I'm especially discouraged because I know that it is rare that players seriously penalized for repeatedly doing this. It's impossible for the admins to keep up with every instance of this BS. I think a better solution would be for players to rate each other on gameplay, chat, speed, sportsmanship and so on. That way every player would have an average score based on what other players on the site have experienced. Especially because in a lot of instances some people do things that aren't necessarily cheating, like adding time when they know they're about to lose. It's not technically cheating but it's obnoxious and annoying. Or sometimes I'm the chat if one player isn't technically cursing or doing anything illegal, but they're still being a jerk, you can just give them a low score for the chat. This way WE don't have to complain to the admins every other second and bad players on the site are still penalized.

If you report a player through the reporting system in-game, that will affect users' reputation scores which can be found on the profile page of a user. Is this the rating system you want?

No, it takes at least 2 people to report a player and that's only for murder suicide. If it's a 3 person game and someone suicides on you the third player isn't going to report anything. They're just going to take the win. And even if they did, then what you get 99 out of one hundred? That's still a good score. And that's only for murder suicide. What about when people add time to just be annoying? Or take extra turns to kill you just to annoy you? Or just straight up terrible strategy? I'm talking about something where we can directly rate other players. Like Yelp for each user. If someone suicides on me then I can give them 1 out of 5 stars. Or if someone is a jerk in the chat I can give them 1 out of 5 stars. And then we can reward good behavior as well.

I think i understand her idea, almost like a "what other users say about this player" tab. A type of peer review for others to read.

I understand kelly's concerns about suiciding and chat, it seems to happen much more these days than it used too. It may be that we have a newer crowd that isnt broken in or maybe even a rougher crowd, but either way its what we have to work with in filling games.

Yea and it's not like we would write specific comments. And it could be anonymous.

What about malicious sabotage?
Players who wish to ruin the good reputation of another player, even if they have been an excellent and fair player!

What about schools that join and play part games, but spam & troll everything and everyone, I'm sure they would love to mass click something like this?

It wouldn't matter because that's not the majority of the sure. If I have 40 players give me a score of 5 out of 5 stars but 10 give me a score of 0 out of 5, I'm still going to have an average of 4 out of 5 stars. Also those people that just troll would most likely have a terrible score from everyone else so I'm probably not joining a game with the,. Also I feel like we all understand statistics. If I see that epic has been rated only a few time and has a mediocre score I'll assume it's just bad luck. But let's say I look at, oh I don't know, space invader and he has a low score and has been reviewed a lot, I'm not joining a game with him.

Honestly, send a link of the game to a staff member. We can second a report and also make decisions like disabling the add time feature for abusers.
You might think that it is annoying to the staff but in reality, that is what we are here for. While it seems like this happens a lot, the reality is that it is usually either a new player who needs to be reminded or shown the rules or it is a repeat offender who has not been reported and therefore doesn't care because they have continuously gotten away with it.

The truth is, there are far too many members for the staff to monitor even a fraction of the games so we rely on our good members to either make in game reports or bring it to the direct attention of the staff so we can look into it further and take any necessary action required to make the site better for all.

I do send the link to a staff member. But a chat score of 99 out of 100 is meaningless. I know theres not enough staff members to monitor everything. That's the whole point.

I don't know why you all have this forum if you're just going to shoot down any idea that's not from a staff member. I said there's a problem and offered a solution but instead of talking about it you just deny that there's a problem at all.

That's unfair Kelly. Your comments on this forum have been read and responded to by staff. Not dismissed out of hand.
The staff here have always welcomed suggestions and I'm always amazed by how much time they give to replying to comments.

Personally I think your concern is a valid one. But your solution is one that would just get abused and therefore not tell us a huge amount about the other player.
I've considered a public positive score - a 'like' but it doesn't really address the problem directly. A 'thumbs up' and 'thumbs down' rating? Would that work? (Just kicking around other ideas).

I never said they don't reply. You want me to be thankful just because you responded to me? Elysium doesn't even think there is a problem. There is a HUGE problem. I don't think I've seen anyone's FairPlay score ever under 98. And when the entire d12 community is between an 98-100 it' defeats the point of a fair play or char score at all. I actually agree that a public score thumbs up or thumbs down would absolutely be the way to go.

Thank you for A) acknowledging the problem acknowledging the solution and C) offering an alternative solution.

No, I didn't post simply seeking your gratitude. I have one or two better things to do with my time
My point about staff replying - and I think this was obvious from what I was saying - was that I disagree with your point about staff shooting down any new ideas. And I don't think Elysium was saying there is no problem, rather he was saying that the current solution is better than the one you had suggested.

Let's see if there are any other ideas and gauge what sort of priority this should be given.

Look I've posted about how not only this issue was handled but how other issues are handled on this site and it's really disgusting. I posted about my administrative concerns and instead of anyone taking them seriously OR listening to see if others felt that way, you just delete the entire forum thread.

I had so much faith in the admins but now I'm just seeing a lot of abuse of power and poor leadership. It will run this site into the ground.

When I first came here, I had a tendency to expect what I suggested as a change for the better to be implemented or at least seen the way I see it, but what I failed to consider was, the implications of such suggestions and that they may have already been considered by the people who write the program and try to improve it, but always strive to keep it fair for all, without exception.
As well as the fact that other players (mostly more experienced than me) had a different point of view to how I saw it and it's effect on the game.

I just randomly browsed through countless player accounts and saw (apart from the higher ranks on page 1) many with low Fair Play and many others with low Attendance ratings.
This is something I always check before inviting a player to a game and I would consider mostly low Attendance as a game killer on a live Capitals game in particular, because of the game type, which is very much about timing and a missed turn can collapse all plans and timings. Therefore, I wouldn't invite anyone with less than 90 and even then, they would have to have played a lot of games daily to warrant so many missed turns.

I believe there is also an Auto Ban system in place which works on the Ratings, so players that are perpetual abusers are stopped from doing so.

For the apathy in response to such a suggestion, this could be that the senior staff are engaged in very big issues and fixes on their "To Do" lists and can sometimes only allocate time to things of high importance to the site in general.

To get a broader outlook of where we all stand in the suggestions forum, have a read of some old threads and you'll find that some really good suggestions had to be shelved due to low precedence or opposed points of view. I too have many suggestions that were never implemented or considered further, but as things change on the site, I may re-suggest any that I feel will now be feasible.

The main thing to do is keep thinking about improvement and where your thoughts and ideas may spark something of interest and consideration and keep suggesting things that might even be food for thought.
I see many senior staff members making suggestions that get rejected instantly with a brief explanation of why it won't work or would be unfair to some or could be open to abuse etc etc.

Keep thinking of ideas and maybe even another way that your issue can be resolved! It's all good and progressive stuff!

You guys are acting like I'm butt hurt that my idea got shot down. I don't even care about the damn rating system. Unfortunately my actual concerns were deleted because some admins care more about their egos than listening the users.