|
| Thread: Suggestion: To report Honor level when reporting a win or loss |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Jinxer
Legendary Hero
*****
|
posted July 31, 2001 03:12 PM |
|
|
I like Deth8 scale of Honor the 1-5
BUT instead of having it on the win/loss report for each game. Dont make it manditory. Make a separate button on the main page the HONOUR button and if a person feel you played very honorably or very dishonorably they can goto the button and submit there vote. They ofcourse would have to put there handle and password and still list the game they are refering to but this way people dont have to to cmoe up with some sort of judgement right after the game in the win/loss report or they dont even have to report at all.
Also if you do make a vote for a rating of 2 or less then I think it should be manditory to put your reasons down. And then any ratings that were made for 2 or under can check the reasons and if they are reasonable then the admisistrator can uphold them or discount them.
Thoughts?
Jinxer
|
|
deth8
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2001 03:15 PM |
|
|
well we'll see what people think
Most people should be rated honorable if there is no interaction I would think. There certainly would be no cause for a 1 or a 2. I don't see any for a 4 or 5 either, and thus by default a player would be rated honorable.
Again over time cream rises to the top is the kind of system that this would be and most of the time it is hoped that people would be rated 3 and not 5. If 5% of the players are rated a 5 then that option should not come up much at all really.
Least that is what I am thinking at this point.
No need to put down such dishonorable conduct as cheating etc since people are booted for that once a case is examined. Maybe some qualifications about that should be listed so that people who have a dispute over a game are not rated in accordance with that dispute (not necessarily anyhow).
|
|
deth8
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2001 03:26 PM |
|
Edited By: deth8 on 31 Jul 2001
|
good ideas Jinxer
I am thinking people will only fill out the negative most of the time if it is not there as part of the form. However people will not have to check any of the honor rankings if they simply don't select one of the options.
As long as people are cool they won't get the negatives. If they do and feel it was unjust they could dispute it to a certain degree but the bottom line is if they fit into the criteria.....say they start getting out of line because they are frustrated or their opponent is already out of line then the rating sticks....ya know? I do think have an explanation box would be great though. It should have to be filled in for the answer to be calculated in for the honor ranking and thus that option would state that it was mandatory to be filled in if they were giving someone that rating.
I say we work this out with some definitions and try it out. If it doesn't work so hot we remove it. I think it will pan out fine. It is the total of events that will matter. Same as ebay pretty much.
Quote:
BUT instead of having it on the win/loss report for each game. Dont make it manditory
Also if you do make a vote for a rating of 2 or less then I think it should be manditory to put your reasons down.
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted July 31, 2001 06:51 PM |
|
|
Honor has no scale.
You either have honor or you don't.
We should not be rating someone's personality or wether or not we like them.
Honor is about wether or not the person followed the rules prescribed by the administrators. If they did they played with honor, if not they didn't and should be investigated for discipline within the bounds of TOH.
And if one of the rules is no profanity, if I fofiet a game because of the other players profane chat I would report my forfeit and the reason and ask the adminstrators if they want to take action against the perpetrator. (I probably would continue the game and try to beat the guy then tell everyone what happened in a thread and make it more difficult for the guy to get a new game.) Tournament games need to be played out.
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
sos
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2001 06:55 PM |
|
|
I would say make it optional, but keep it on the only submit page for a game. Advantages:
1. You need to submit win/lose/honor form only once for a game. It may not sound like a big deal, but I am sometimes frustrated by cites that make me click several times for things that can be made accessible by a single click.
2. Make an honor check box, which is disabled by default. So, if you dont have enough interaction with the other player (language issue, or anything) and you dont want to rate his/her honor you dont need to do anything - saves time.
3. If you chose to rate the honor you need 2 additional clicks - activate the checkbox and select a rate in a scale. It even can be implemented by a single click - by default the rate scale is empty and is automatically activated when you click on it.
If implemeted that way you will need to load a single page to report a game. A big deal for people with slow connections (I guess some russian players will appreciate this  ).
|
|
Maximane
Adventuring Hero
Pot Burner
|
|
posted July 31, 2001 08:29 PM |
|
|
If we do have this numbered system it will be open to biased opinions.
It doesn't matter with how much honour someone played with; there are simply no inbetweens. Someone plays with honour (and perhaps chivalry) than yes they played with honour, plain and simple. If they didn't, they didn't.
Unfortunately if you have a point-driven system it will be abused, or misconceived when voting.
It is then that the person with the clicker has to think...
"Did they or did they not play with honour?"
____________
"Understanding is a three-edged sword..."
|
|
sos
Known Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2001 09:00 PM |
bonus applied. |
|
more thoughts
I agree with deth8 and find the idea of a scale from 1 to 5 very good. You may call it honor or something else, it doesn't matter. The purpose of the whole thing is to give indication whether playing with somebody is enjoyable or not, 5 meaning - this was one of my favorite games, I would play this guy any time and recommend to everyone to play him, and 1 meaning - I would never play this guy again, no matter what. Everyone should start with a level of 0, and as soon as somebody rates him, his average rate is calculated. So if you see a rating around 3 and above, you know that this will probably be an anjoyable game.
This is the basic thing. Other things can be added such as number of people that rated you, number of people that you rated, and average rate that you give. This will discourage some people from giving only low rates, and also will make it easier to recover from a single bad rate in the begining.
Now for the unreported games. As I understand the system now, if you are on the unreported page you stay there for a while, so your opponent can notify the HC and you will probably get email to report your game. However, after some time this info is lost and nothing can be done. What I suggest is to have another statistics for everyone - unreported games. Any time you did not report a game in a certain time frame you get one unreported game point. This info may be available in the search player data, so you can judje if the opponent is reliable. This will stimulate most people to report their games promptly.
Some more things that I would like to see improved, but which are by no means essential are players statistics. Having all this data available it would be nice if you can sort players up and down by rank, points(of course), number of games, number of wins, number of loses, honor rating, unreported games, and so on.
Also, it will be usefull to see a more detailed info of the played games (basically a history of games), for instance opponents, maps, and result(win or lose). This way one can see if somebody gets his wins by playing mostly a single map, or the same opponent. This info can be put on the players profile page. If this seems like too much work, maybe only the most palyed 3 maps of a player can be shown.
Thaat's it for now. Your oppinion is welcome.
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted July 31, 2001 09:03 PM |
|
|
I like your scale alot dEth8
That 1-5 scale with explenations would probably give people the guidance they need in determining what honor rating they should choose for their opponent.
There is a downside to making reporting honor optional. It would increase the ratio of extreme honor ratings, as the ones who would have given a 3 probably donīt care too much about reporting that, but the ones who would report a 1 (for some reason, wrong or right) are more inclined to take the initiative to do so. In statistics this selective pick of reports would make the poll useless. That is why reporting honor, if implemented, should be mandatory. That way one bad comment (in the case of an honorable player getting it) would be just a drop in the ocean compared to the high amount of good ratings.
I donīt think I understand your graph there, but Im sure its good.
You wrote this:
"If there was some jerk ranking people low it would show up pretty fast in their postings for win/loss and might be disputed too. We could take care of them through their own honor ranking and deletion of all their data for honor ranking to others if needed. "
I totally agree with that =)
That is a good solution to the problem of dishonorable players ranking everyone low: To monitor the average honor report from a player. Either (1) hidden so that administrators only have access to it, or (2)open so that all ToH member can see it. Pros with (1) are that members canīt look for players that have high honor giving averages to try to up their own honor. Cons are that itīs slower than (2) to sniff out, since players donīt get the info needed to avoid those that misuse the system. Maybe the system could automatically find players that give average honor reports of 2- or 4.5+ and send a little message to an administrator?
As long as the average honor reports from players are monitored for very high or very low averages I think the advantages of an honor report system outweigh the disadvantages.
There has been alot of discussion of how a honor report system like this would work. In making my suggestions I have tried to keep in mind that there will be alot more players with Homm4, and that the administrators canīt be expected to check on everything. It is important with a system that requires as little administrator time as possible. It is also important to keep in mind human behaviour, good and bad.
Players who are dishonorable, but still in ToH, are probably in it for looking good. They want high points, any way they can get them. They care about their veiwable record on ToH, and the way their record is published and kept guides their actions. If wins/losses, info, and points are all that is on their record, that is all they will care about. If the honor reports given to them are on it, maybe they will be nicer in their games (maybe we all will=). If the honor they report to others is on their record, they will probably care about that too, and make sure it looks good, reporting true instead of falsy low. If the honor reported by players is directly viewable by other players, maybe there will probably be less low-reporting-problems for the administrators to deal with. It is better to avoid a problem from happening than to police it.
Enough about how it would work.. thatīs not the big issue here. Itīs important that it works but we shouldnīt get stuck on that and forget what all this would be for. Sure, people could look at an honor record and decide if they want to play that person or not. Maybe that would be good. But the important thing here, is that when you enter a game with another person, and you know that they will let ToH know what they thought about the way you treated them, you will be nicer, caring, more honorable..
You will try to be a better person.
Quote:
This really should be on the general rules thread for next season.
I like the idea and am thinking something like the following as a simple check box idea on the win/loss submission page.
Rate the honor of your opponent (1 - 5). This has little to do with the game but rather their personal interaction and conduct with you.
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted August 01, 2001 03:59 AM |
|
|
Maybe this part came out wrong..
I meant that only specifically for my post. I didnīt want to keep on rambling =). Of course I donīt want anyone to stop posting ideas and thoughts on how it would work. Go ahead, be creative.
Quote:
Enough about how it would work
|
|
JTL
Hired Hero
King of Tossers
|
|
posted August 01, 2001 05:52 AM |
|
|
First off, great topic.
Probably one of the most 'useful' things I've seen on the message boards.
Secondly, Max: I totally agree with the Keep it simple concept. Optional Yes/No Toggle to me seems the best plan.
But, if it must be a 1-10 or 1-5 scale as many have suggested this creates the problem of different ppl having ideas of what a '2' is... "honor has no arbitrary ranking" (as someone wrote). Say I give ppl a '4' while some nice person like rychen gives out an '8' for the same 'level' of honor..this is clearly a problem. A way to fix that would be to keep track of the avg. score given by a person...so that if I give the next person I play a 5..to me that person was above average while a 5 from (well since I used his name b4) rychen would be piss poor.
Obviously this breaks Max's K.I.S. rule...so I still think Yes/No toggle is best...but always nice to have options so I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.
____________
Wow...it says I could use BB code here..but not HTML... I got no clue what that means
|
|
vesuvius
Hero of Order
Honor Above all Else
|
posted August 01, 2001 06:17 AM |
|
|
What will be implemented.
After discussing it with the professional automation team, Ive pretty much worked out what we will do for this part.
I am a believer of KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) and so I think it is best that we leave the honor rating as a yes/no answer.
Basically on the winloss report page, with the regular things they need to fill out, they will have:
'Did your opponent play with honor?' with a yes/no tickbox.
Players will start with a 50% honor rating, that can go 0-100% with the extremes being difficult to get of course.
Each time a yes is placed, 4% is added, and a no 4% is lost. The key here is, however, that the administrators can modify this rating at any time. Unreported winloss issues and honor issues may reduce their rating by increments of 5%, and a medal of honor being issued will bring their rating up to 90% automatically.
This honor rating will not be seen as a percentage on the player search, but as a term within certain parameters.
90-100% - Highest Honor
70-89% - High Honor
50-69% - Honorable
40-49% - Average
20-39% - Poor
0-19% - Disgraceful
This way, we keep it simple, but at the same time follow deth8's 5-level terminology setup. In essence, getting best of both worlds.
Again, it will not show on the player rankings, but on the player search/info section with the rest of the players' statistics.
Notice that players are automatically assumed to be 'honorable' a their time of registration and beginning
Please comment on this before I give it a go to the automation guys, and it becomes part TOH's future.
____________
|
|
MidnightWraith
Adventuring Hero
|
posted August 01, 2001 10:14 AM |
|
|
so does this allow reporting against quitters?
currently if someone quits, r u supposed to report a win against them? I never have. And i'm sure they have never reported a loss!! I have talked to a few new players who r frustrated by quitting, would they report a game against quitters and tick the dick head box? The sneaky quitters of course are not so obvious as just dropping (lots of great excuses) but we at least can start somewhere. Maybe there should be 3 options for reporting, report a win, report a loss, report a quitter, and maybe a 4th one, report a drug dealer in ur suburb (hang on, i'd better stop somewhere).
____________
|
|
Maximane
Adventuring Hero
Pot Burner
|
|
posted August 01, 2001 10:25 AM |
|
|
Well I suppose it can be considered that quitting a game when imminent defeat is apparent could be considered dishonourable. However it all really depends on the voters to see how the battle went. You know, there are sometimes though rare occasions where you have to cheat for legitimate reasons. Or... sometimes the (rare) possibility that you lose your connection arises.
Perhaps Disconnected games are not to be rated?
Well... there is a small dilemma with that in that the other opponent who did not quit is unable to receive an honour rating.
____________
"Understanding is a three-edged sword..."
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted August 01, 2001 12:38 PM |
|
|
That sounds good
This is what every idea needs. Someone who has his feet on the ground and keeps it simple. I like what you are presenting here, and youīre right. ToH players should be assumed honorable until proven guilty =)
Itīs inspiring to see someone who has great insight still show this much faith in his fellow man. Iīm impressed.
Good job =)
Quote:
After discussing it with the professional automation team, Ive pretty much worked out what we will do for this part.
I am a believer of KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) and so I think it is best that we leave the honor rating as a yes/no answer.
Notice that players are automatically assumed to be 'honorable' a their time of registration and beginning
|
|
sos
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2001 05:28 PM |
|
|
Ves's ideas sound reasonable. What is not clear tho, is if the honor rating is mandatory or optional. I think it'll be better if we have a third (neutral) option, which is the default one. The reason is that sometimes is difficult to decide between 2 extremes. I remember games that I will have no difficulty chosing between these 2. However, there are also games, where I would choose the neutral option if it was there. This way, the yes option will have more meaning, it really should be for people that behave above the average.
The way I seee it, it can be done like this:
1. Mandatory voting with 3 ratings: yes, no, neutral
2. Optional voting with 2 options, yes/no. Voting disabled by default, i.e. both boxes are empty. You can select and unselect one box or the other. If you vote yes - +4%, no - -4%.
|
|
deth8
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2001 06:42 PM |
|
|
honor rating
I do think we should give some descriptors of what the expectations are for yes, and no rather than just letting the opinions flow.
A cut on that 1-5 rating I posted say between 2 and 3 could help. Take a few excerpts from that so people know what we would like to see modelled by way of respect for others.
Yes, of course we would hope all would know and have this expectation. However, I don't think it would always be the case. That would still probably work out over time anyhow though since it is just an averaging factor.
-btw- I know this is old news, but the check box would never need to have been toggled off or on folks....just don't check it and it would have gone through as long as it was not made a mandatory thing for the form.
|
|
sos
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2001 08:13 PM |
|
|
some issues
I think if we go with a 3 grade system, the meaning of your vote is pretty obvious: yes - above average, neutral (or no vote) - average, no - below average. Here goes the problem with the subjective nature of the vote - everyone votes according to his/her criterea of average, so most votes should gravitate around the average rate. If someone votes consistantly yes or no, he may receive an email from HC to rethink their notion of average.
One problem with the proposed system tho is what happens when you reach the 100% rate (or 0% for that matter). It will take only 13 yes votes (actually 12.5) to reach it, so I guess after a while a lot of folks will have 100% rate. This somehow defeats the 5 categories that were proposed. On the other hand, an average rate does not suffer from this drawback, but has the disadvntage that initially the rates may oscilate wildly with only few games. So I don't know what is better here.
One solution must be to lower the increase/decrease percentage (or points) to say, 1. Then you need 50 more yes votes to reach 100, but then the problem remains. Or we can use different points, let's say +1 for yes, and -2 for no to stimulate honorable play. This are all details and I am sure they will be worked out.
Finally, for the implementation. You need select/unselect option of the radio buttons (or check boxes) in case you want to change your mind from voting to non voting (if voting is optional). The way I envision it, we have 2 radio buttons (yes/no), which are blank by default. When you click once, it is selected, clicking again unselects it. Clicking on the second button while the first is selected will select the latter and unselect the former. So, if you dont want to vote you dont have to do anything, if you want to vote you just select yes or no, but if you change your mind to non voting you can unselect your previous choice, instead of reloading the page again.
|
|
deth8
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2001 02:30 AM |
|
|
I maintain that people will always vote when they are ticked off about something.....maybe something that didn't even have to do with honor necessarily. But if things go average to great you might get less voting.
As to whether or not we will make it mandatory we still have no definites but my thought is that making it mandatory would keep things mentioned above in my post from happenning.
Initially I thought it would be best to see it non madatory, however the more I consider it i think to give better statistical validity that mandatory is the way to go. I mostly didn't like mandatory because I always like to choose or have some control over things......mandatory takes that away. If a game is neutral I think most people will vote positively.
Lastly, I do think that maybe lowering the points to say 2 might be better. But then again if someone is playing at 100% then that is good for people to know as well. Additionally will they ever reach 100% if they ever get a negative? Seems not if we carry enough digits in the percentages, but I do thing rounding to the 100ths place would be the best.
**note that graphic chart I placed above was how songs on an album were rated. I just like the way the data was shown as an example.
|
|
vesuvius
Hero of Order
Honor Above all Else
|
|
posted August 02, 2001 05:56 AM |
|
|
The rating system
The yes and no tickbox will be there, along with a 'neutral' tickbox. Neutral will not change the honor rating. I will drop the % to 3% instead of 4%; again it will be pretty clear who is what, and if a whole bunch are 100% after 20 games, that is a good thing, right?
Beyond this, players ask about the droppers and non-reporters. Remember that is a totally different issue. It falls in the realm of the player dealing with it by sending a save to the honor council or the more simple issues to the person taking care of the unreported winloss reports. That administrator (most likely me) if sees that its a valid drop, will not only credit the player, but add a -5% or more to droppers honor rating.
The unreported winloss automation will be a little more simplified (especially for me), but basically you can automatically dispute without having to directly email, by selecting the unreported entry and submitting it with your comments.
____________
|
|
Ichon
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2001 06:51 AM |
|
|
So Vesuvius;
Are the ratings going to be %'s or will it be a category? High Honor being 90% and above for example while dishonorable is 30% and less? It shouldn't matter if you reach 100% since that is a good thing. Why make the competition extend to honor? How can you be more honorable? You either are or you aren't I'd think. The honor here is just other players views of your honor, there can be misunderstandings- my biggest gripe is when someone says wait during my turn when I have no battles left to fight, and it goes to their turn- when they don't return I quit the game so the comptuer doesn't play their turn, then I wait for about 5-10 minutes. Honestly I don't like to waste my time waiting for no explanation. So I start a new game and about 15 min into it they are zming me saying why did I quit the game with them and come back and play... now I have to be labeled a quitter by one of the two people I am playing, since about 50% of the time I never see the person I was playing within a reasonable amount of time to continue the game, it seems a dead end, but if they can go make a report reflecting on honor it doesn't seem a good idea.
I think the neutral button is a good idea. On a sliding % scale, perhaps dishonor -3% while honor is +4%? Or just keep it equal. I can't make up my mind honestly. I know I've had some disputes with people who subsequently were kicked from ToH, but meanwhile they would have reported every game as dishonborable by me, is there a way to remove banned members votes from the system? Probably not... hopefully they just go with the flow in most cases before they do something bad enough to get banned.
|
| |
|
|
