| Author | Message |
|---|
Last post: 18 Sep 11 at 09:36
|
Posted on 25 December 10 at 14:01 |
There needs to be a way to have the session leader leave a single negative feedback bomb for someone who no shows, no message, etc and then remove them from the session even after it has started. Maybe with a vote of other people in the session?
I dunno, but I'm tired of people who I give deserved negative feedback to giving negative feedback in return that I didn't earn. Seems very flawed to me. |
Nighthawk
WTFMan.com |
Last post: 06 Mar 11 at 19:55
|
Posted on 25 December 10 at 14:36 |
WTFMan NH said:There needs to be a way to have the session leader leave a single negative feedback bomb for someone who no shows, no message, etc and then remove them from the session even after it has started. Maybe with a vote of other people in the session?
I dunno, but I'm tired of people who I give deserved negative feedback to giving negative feedback in return that I didn't earn. Seems very flawed to me.Don't think this is perfect but I do think something should be done, appealing or something. |
No online game is "n00bish", you just suck, doesn't matter if it's Halo,COD or GOW. |
Last post: 06 Apr at 19:18
|
Posted on 25 December 10 at 14:50, Edited on 25 December 10 at 22:11 by Lozzy Denton |
Edit: I didn't do a very good job of explaining this, WTFman does a much better job below.
I can't remember where it was suggested, but the best solution I saw for this issue was for feedback to have a time restricted system. One where people need to set their feedback for other people in the session before 2 weeks is up, but the feedback is not actually applied. Then, 2 weeks after the session, the feedback will be properly applied and setting further feedback for that session would be disabled.
This way, people can't give retaliatory feedback, however they could give preemptive feedback. Though I should imagine that would be rare. |
check out my youtube account if you like Vegas 2: http://www.youtube.com/RainbowSixFan11 |
Last post: 06 Mar 11 at 19:55
|
Posted on 25 December 10 at 15:25 |
lozzy7 said:I can't remember where it was suggested, but the best solution I saw for this issue was for feedback to have a time restricted system. One where people need to set their feedback for other people in the session before 2 weeks is up, but the feedback is not actually applied. Then, 2 weeks after the session, the feedback will be properly applied and setting further feedback for that session would be disabled.
This way, people can't give retaliatory feedback, however they could give preemptive feedback. Though I should imagine that would be rare.So to give negative feedback to a no show/arsehole you would have to wait 2 weeks just to prevent yourself getting feedback? Doesn't seem fair. |
No online game is "n00bish", you just suck, doesn't matter if it's Halo,COD or GOW. |
Last post: 06 Apr at 19:18
|
Posted on 25 December 10 at 17:04 |
| I know it's not perfect, but it made sense to add it to the idea pool. |
check out my youtube account if you like Vegas 2: http://www.youtube.com/RainbowSixFan11 |
Last post: 06 Mar 11 at 19:55
|
Posted on 25 December 10 at 18:52 |
| lozzy7 said:I know it's not perfect, but it made sense to add it to the idea pool.I suppose, what annoys me about feedback is that only me, out of 6 people will neg as they are scared of retaliation and I don't see this idea helping that. |
No online game is "n00bish", you just suck, doesn't matter if it's Halo,COD or GOW. |
Last post: 04 Jun at 04:01
|
Posted on 25 December 10 at 19:15 |
| UlteriorDesert said:lozzy7 said:I know it's not perfect, but it made sense to add it to the idea pool.I suppose, what annoys me about feedback is that only me, out of 6 people will neg as they are scared of retaliation and I don't see this idea helping that.The thing is if the session has enough people in who give you good feedback, the bad feedback will be cancelled out. While the bad feedback for that other player will stay, if enough people give it to him. |
Last post: 06 Mar 11 at 19:55
|
Posted on 25 December 10 at 21:13 |
| jphil03 said:UlteriorDesert said:lozzy7 said:I know it's not perfect, but it made sense to add it to the idea pool.I suppose, what annoys me about feedback is that only me, out of 6 people will neg as they are scared of retaliation and I don't see this idea helping that.The thing is if the session has enough people in who give you good feedback, the bad feedback will be cancelled out. While the bad feedback for that other player will stay, if enough people give it to him.Yeah, but it's a number of factors, not everyone gives feedback, people are afraid of neg feedback and so will just give good no matter how much a person fucks up a session, thus ruining the point, I would like someone to give me a good solution to this. |
No online game is "n00bish", you just suck, doesn't matter if it's Halo,COD or GOW. |
Last post: 18 Sep 11 at 09:36
|
Posted on 25 December 10 at 21:56 |
UlteriorDesert said:Yeah, but it's a number of factors, not everyone gives feedback, people are afraid of neg feedback and so will just give good no matter how much a person fucks up a session, thus ruining the point, I would like someone to give me a good solution to this.Only things I can think of are:
1> Like the above suggestion (only clarified/refined): all feedback is private until 1 week or something after the session. Then all feedback is posted and closed. So, if I give someone negative feedback, they don't know I've done so until they no longer have the option to retaliate. That way, you get honest feedback without fear.
2> Negative feedback by half the session members automatically removes all feedback for said session the negative person. That way if someone no shows/no messages, is counterproductive to an extreme or something else that would merit a negative feedback from the session as a whole, then their feedback is irrelevant since they weren't a productive member of the session anyhow. |
Nighthawk
WTFMan.com |
Last post: 06 Mar 11 at 19:55
|
Posted on 25 December 10 at 22:02 |
WTFMan NH said:UlteriorDesert said:Yeah, but it's a number of factors, not everyone gives feedback, people are afraid of neg feedback and so will just give good no matter how much a person fucks up a session, thus ruining the point, I would like someone to give me a good solution to this.Only things I can think of are:
1> Like the above suggestion (only clarified/refined): all feedback is private until 1 week or something after the session. Then all feedback is posted and closed. So, if I give someone negative feedback, they don't know I've done so until they no longer have the option to retaliate. That way, you get honest feedback without fear.
2> Negative feedback by half the session members automatically removes all feedback for said session the negative person. That way if someone no shows/no messages, is counterproductive to an extreme or something else that would merit a negative feedback from the session as a whole, then their feedback is irrelevant since they weren't a productive member of the session anyhow.Like the first one, but the second could have some problems, like if there are only 2 in the session. |
No online game is "n00bish", you just suck, doesn't matter if it's Halo,COD or GOW. |
Last post: 06 Apr at 19:18
|
Posted on 25 December 10 at 22:14, Edited on 25 December 10 at 22:18 by Lozzy Denton |
Thank you Nitehawk/WTFman. You explained that much better than I did! Kudos.
Edit: Your second point is already implemented supposedly. If a large enough portion of session members negative vote a person, that person's votes should be nullified. That rule is only supposed to apply to sessions with at least 3 members I believe. |
check out my youtube account if you like Vegas 2: http://www.youtube.com/RainbowSixFan11 |
Last post: 18 Sep 11 at 09:36
|
Posted on 25 December 10 at 22:57, Edited on 25 December 10 at 22:57 by NighthawkJoV |
lozzy7 said:Edit: Your second point is already implemented supposedly. Do you have a link or reference I can look at regarding that? I've looked around, but I haven't found anything along those lines. If that's the case, I can make sure that more people vote in the session that prompted me thinking about this and then I guess it's a non-issue.
I still like the other suggestion better, but anything to counteract retaliatory feedback is welcome really. |
Nighthawk
WTFMan.com |
Last post: Today at 04:46
|
Posted on 27 December 10 at 02:35, Edited on 27 December 10 at 02:36 by JMJimmy |
| I've found a very simple and effective way to discourage this: If someone who was a no show posts negative feedback simply add "Gives retribution feedback" to the feedback you give them - you'd be amazed at how fast they contact you & change it (in most cases). |
Life, it's funny that way. |
Last post: Yesterday at 08:12
|
Posted on 23 June 12 at 11:27 |
I support this. I just got my first negative ever just because someone didn't show up and then sent a retribution negative.
Taken JMJimmy's advice and added to my post, great suggestion thankyou :)
As a small side point, anyone know how the points are calculated. I now have a 0.6 added despite that session giving me 4+ and 1- . I would've thought 0.8? |
Last post: Yesterday at 21:02
|
Posted on 23 June 12 at 15:40 |
No, that's 4-1=3 out of possible 5. 3/5 = 0.6.
I've also had such a guy giving me my first neg ever, even though session majority gave him a negative. Now he has disappeard from all feedback, I guess his session rights have been taken away. Good, but unfortunately total feedback scores are not adjusted. |