Red Thumb

[Nijay]

It's just sort of like perfect attendance, you know? Irksome to miss one day because a meteor hit your house.

Saboteur almost got me to hand out an angry red thumb because I didn't understand the rules.

One of my Noir opponents didn't understand the rules and thought I was being a jerk because I didn't tell him about the killer winning with 16 kills until after the game when he said something in chat indicating he thought the killer could only win by killing the inspector. The ironic part is what he was doing in the game was actually a viable strategy and it was giving me fits. He never killed after the first one, he just kept disguising. I used it later on a better player and it helped me win a game. So essentially because I played against a beginner player that was using an unconventional strategy that was very effective as an ironic side effect of their ignorance of the rules, who asked no questions during the game, and corrected their misunderstanding when it came up, I got a red thumb. So I guess the moral of this story is to beware of beginners, too, but remember that you can learn from anyone.

I hand out green thumbs like candy. Everyone gets a green thumb unless I really disagree with how you play, and red thumbs usually go along with a reported player (vulgarity/insults/etc.) I love playing games and I am glad for all the people on this site who share my interest!

[ap_seidel]

Another idea may be to force people to give a comment with every red thumb as to why the thumb was given. That way the hunger stemming from the "what did I do wrong" question that eats away at every good player with a red thumb would be satisfied.

To take the idea even further, illegitimate red thumbs could be reported to moderators and negated.

The moment I red-thumb someone for bad behavior, and that red thumb is removed for being "illegitimate," I'd quit BGA forever. I already can't ban horrible dipshits from joining my games, because learning that I red-thumbed them might hurt their precious fee-fee feelings. I have a huge hunger for "I can't harm these people I don't like, who will go on hurting other good players in the future," and it eats away at me far more than any red thumb I've ever gotten (for "real" reasons or not).

So I'll tell you what I get told every time I bring this up: GET OVER IT. Walk it off, as they used to tell us back in gym class.

Getting red thumbs is gonna happen if you play enough, and as there is LITERALLY no penalty for it provided you stay below 10% recent red thumbs, there's no harm.

Every red thumb is legitimate. It's just feedback. There's no such thing as good feedback, or bad feedback. You asked people what button they were gonna push, and then they pushed the button.

(I'll also add, if someone has 300 green thumbs, and 299 red thumbs, I think the next time they get a red thumb, the system should publish their real address, so one of us can buy an international plane ticket, and come burn their house down. They are bad, and they should feel bad.)

Ok, perhaps taking red thumbs off might be too far, but I see no reason why there can't be a required message provided with a red thumb. Since, as you said, the red thumb is meant for feedback, it makes sense to allow players to receive specific feedback in order to help refine their game to the needs of others rather than just a simple button push.

In my mind, red thumb removals would be rare, and would only be done for those who attempt to circumvent the system and give no message whatsoever (perhaps a series of random letters, etc.). Any reason stated relating to the game would be good enough to keep the thumb, just so as the player understands the problem. I wouldn't see any harm in that system.

[Pisaac]

Here is another idea:
If you give someone a red thumb, you are forced to report them. That would stop the over use of red thumbs. If you give some one a red thumb for no reason, and nobody asks for a reason, you get away with it. To stop it, we can have a team moderators look at the reasons for why they gave that person a red thumb. Then the moderators will re-watch the game and see if the reason is legitimate and the person can't be over-reacting. But the moderator can't be biased either, which is why there is a moderator team. That team would vote if they are over-reacting or they aren't. But since this is a pretty big set up ( ) this will only happen for the people who wonder why they have a red thumb and think they don't deserve it.
But in the end, it doesn't really matter! Almost everyone I see have a huge amount of green thumbs compared to red thumbs. If you have three hundred green thumbs and you get your first red thumb, it doesn't even matter! It's not like you are going to be declined to some games. 300:1!!! The only people who I see have 20 percent red thumbs, are the people who have just started their account on the website with three green thumbs (or something around there) and one red thumb.

I hope this helps!
Pisaac

[LtSterling]

Got my first "red thumb" after several years on BGA and it was from you guessed it... Hanabi... I am sadly finished with that game here. And... I am sure I know who gave it - the person who was berating everyone in the game on their "bad" plays. The frustrating thing is I am sure I gave that person a green thumb as I usually do as long as you are not cussing me out or timing out turn after turn...

As someone said earlier, the first one is the hardest... I stewed on it for a day or two and then just decided I had to let it go... Being able to vent a bit here has actually been very cathartic!!!

Thanks as always BGA for the best damn online board game site bar none!

[Gavman]

I still remember my first red thumb. I knew who gave it and sent them a note asking why; their response? Because I hadn't given them a green thumb. The only reason I hadn't given a green thumb was because i hadn't got to voting! I can't help thinking this is the most ridiculous reason to get a red thumb.

I do seem to get rather a lot of red thumbs. Since I don't usually comment on peoples plays, (and when I do it is generally positive),there are only 3 possible causes: (1)They are jerks. (2) My computer crashed and I timed out. (3) I am still learning the game, and being slow to play. Unfortunately, I have no idea which of these is the reason I got my red thumbs, making it almost meaningless. I say almost because I have had people refuse to play with me, and I am barred from some games because I am at >10%, but not knowing which of these is the reason for getting a red thumb means I will never learn from any mistakes I am making. I like the idea of an anonymous comment, and also peer review (or some form of appeal). To the guy that said he'd walk if his red thumbs were removed, I'd say good: this site is better off without you. Red thumbs should not be given out lightly as they impact member's access to the games, and anyone who fears a review is obviously giving them out for spurious reasons.

What I find annoying is getting red thumbs because you time out. If that happens, it could be because your computer crashed; how is that your fault? if the recipient was offline and timed out, reviews should not be permitted; you are already being penalised for timing out and that is part of your record, You should not be additionally penalised over something that is beyond your control, especially as the site seems to cause crashes frequently. I have had more crashes on this site than I have on all other programmes or sites I have ever used. I don't know why this site should cause so many, but it does.

[Ranif88]

If it's December it must be time to discuss red thumbs at least from my perspective of (a) just having received a rare one and (b) updating my prior post last year:
See viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4355&p=18071&hilit=ranif88+red+thumb#p18071

To the replies here, would re-support that any attempt at including a feedback system using the current thumb approach without a method of including 'rationale/reason' severely reduces its utility as still in favor of the subjective/emotional responder, with no positive use for corrective action (if applicable) and much negative reaction especially (again) to just the core/good/helpful/care about their rep type players BGA intends to foster and grow.

In my most recent example, the use of IM/messaging to contact all players in a game to ascertain which sent a red thumb and then to request a reason to insure a miscommunication or gather feedback to avoid future issues was performed, giving the 'thumb giver' ample opportunity to respond/dialog/communicate/etc. with no reply.
The result is another (be it yet so small) 'ding' on the BGA-formatted reputation for myself and no specific beneift as well to potentially improve my play/communication/etc. Oh, and by the way, no negative impact to the (anonymous) thumb giver at all - in actuality, only a positive benefit (able to vent/etc.).

To those that continue to support the 'dont sweat it' position, agree in principle but again if a system is going to be used in place (e.g. the thumbs) then a beneift needs to be provided for both a pro and con vote use. In the case of Facebook, the utility of only a 'Like' action enables the value of a positive response to be higher and removes the negativity of the reactionist/emotional clicker-type not interested in improving the community. A percentage of collected 'Likes' to number of total participants interfaced with is a pretty good indicator of fair play, with anyone not encouraged enough to respond positively simply not clicking the 'Like' for that person/game. IMs exist to communicate a question or observation about play that in 95% of cases I have seen end up clearing any negative impression and (in this case) avoiding a red thumb (or leading to a clicked 'Like').

In the current state, as mentioned most players give automatic green thumbs ('Likes') to annyone who at a bare minimum appears to be trying to understand and/or play the game in a somewhat fair and reasonable fashion. This currently dilutes even the utility of the grreen thumbs as the bar is quite low to award them for most.

My take away is that a binary rank system without specific rationale for feedback does in fact incur more negative damage to the receiver and the site overall than I believe most here give creedence to. It's not thin skin as most of us do shake it off, but it underscores the general lack of usefullness and actual (not potential) extra negativity for the site.

For any system there is limited defense against the reactionist, the emotional, the less strategic /less rules aware players to instantly respond negatively to any implied slight or attack, but aligning a feedback system to enable this more easily is not positive. In the current system this immediacy is favored perhaps for the ease of use for all players, yet supports an opposite effect of encouraging too quick to judge reactionism and more weight for the negatives vs positives.

Why not redo the system to favor a bit more thoughtfulness and perhaps even cooling of heads by favoring the weight and use of a positive action instead?

As an updated recommendation, a 'plays well' vote (green thumb) only action should be enacted/used with the red thumbs removed and a percentage of greens received per players interacted with should be used. This may even occur per game rather than the current 1x per player interaction (thought for future). IM /messaging already exists and should be utiliitzed more to address any serious discussions/clarifications between players on the fence about awarding a greenie. The upset can request clairification directly via IMs and, if justifiction is felt, then decide to award a green or not rather than additionally provide a further and non-counterable red such as today's system.

The end result is a simpler positive and higher resolution feedback system, less player negativity, and less aupport for the reactive.
Sounds like a win. Let's do this.

[The4thDr]

I felt the same way about my first red thumb just a few days ago. I've only been playing games on this site for a few weeks. The red thumb came from a games of Seasons because I wasn't playing fast enough for an experienced player but well within the time limit that was set for the game. At first I was thinking "How dare they give me a thumb I did nothing wrong" then i realized that some people just like to complain and that is one way. I quickly got over the ignorance

[Primadirettiva]

I'm not here to add so much to what already written up to now, but i'm here on BGA just from a couple of weeks, this is my first red thumbs (2 originated by the same 6... nimmt game) and I have to admit to myself that I'm in trouble to accept it because I'm really not able to understand the reason.
By the way, I perfectly know who gave me; no reply at all at my request for explanation. This after I gave them a green thumb.
So, I understand difficulties to modify effectively a feedback method avoiding all possible counterindications, but if I play correctly, if I respect other players, if I participate only in games where I'm confident to know well the rules, if I use the chat respectfully, I have the expectation to measure me with a feedback system that returns me at worst neutrality.
I know that this is the "First red syndrome" and that will pass quickly but in my opinion it is a pity for the community that Xxxxxxx and Yyyyyyyyy are free to mark anyone without any explanation.

I like for example proposal of Ranif88 (see below)

QUOTE
As an updated recommendation, a 'plays well' vote (green thumb) only action should be enacted/used with the red thumbs removed and a percentage of greens received per players interacted with should be used. This may even occur per game rather than the current 1x per player interaction (thought for future). IM /messaging already exists and should be utiliitzed more to address any serious discussions/clarifications between players on the fence about awarding a greenie. The upset can request clairification directly via IMs and, if justifiction is felt, then decide to award a green or not rather than additionally provide a further and non-counterable red such as today's system.

The end result is a simpler positive and higher resolution feedback system, less player negativity, and less aupport for the reactive.
Sounds like a win. Let's do this.
UNQUOTE

[cosmosis]

As an updated recommendation, a 'plays well' vote (green thumb) only action should be enacted/used with the red thumbs removed and a percentage of greens received per players interacted with should be used.

This seems like a bad idea since it counts on all players actively awarding green thumbs each game. If you play with people who just ignore the rating system you're at a disadvantage.

I support the idea of letting players include a comment when they give a red thumb. I don't think a comment should be mandatory, but the ability to comment seems like it can only be a plus. Another solution could be an anonymous messaging system (although this sounds like it might be hard to implement): when you get a red thumb you can send a message to whoever gave you the red thumb, BGA never reveals the player name but directs it to the correct person. That person can then respond if they want to and their reply will have no username attached.

[Ranif88]

Just as a clarification: The green thumb only (GTO) proposal is intended to perform the following:

1. Simplify the process of providing feedback from 3 states (nothing, green thumb, red thumb) to two (nothing/neutral or green/good).
2. Eliminate the negative subjectivity and protection of anonymous* (see below) red thumb givers.
3. Remove the resulting negative stigma from accrual of counts of red thumbs with a mix of valid/invalid rationale.
4. Enact a more conscious-thought process to truly awarding 'good play' via green thumb awards than the currently diluted awardings often by default (see other posts).

In the core approach, should a player (for WHATEVER REASON) not feel sufficiently pleased by either the player or play of game by said player, they simply choose not to award a thumb. However, if a minimum criteria of good sportsmanship, plesantness, and courtesy appear to be met in good faith, the green thumb is awarded.
ANY issue or discussion or questions can be handled between players using the existing IM structure. The recommendations for additional methods to submit complaints, etc simply do not address the above intent to change the culture more positively and already can be addressed by (again) existing tools.

To the points noted in an earlier reply: the GTO does no more rely on everyone using the feedback system than today's approach, with no further disadvantage if ignored.

Two mechanizations are possible: (A) opportunity for green thumb awards occur once per player interaction (the way it is done today), or (B) green thumbs are awarded after every game each time (to potentially account for a change of character/poor sportsmanship, etc.). In the first mechanization, the number of green thumbs can be viewed against the quantity of players interfaced with - a good metric that gives a fairly good indication of 'this player appears to work well with others' or 'generally good play' as is denoted in the current green thumb awarding. In the second mechanization, the totals are tallied by total players and total games (a much larger number but with the benefit of more resolution over time). Each can be better viewed using a percentage metric as well, helping with the general feeling of >80% favorable seems to indicate "good player".

To address specific issues: There is quite a bit of focus on the anonymity of the red thumb giver, often from those interested in learning why primarily to correct a situation or misunderstanding. While iterative messaging of players in a recent game (*) can usually result in finding the red thumber, many do not respond, leaving the interested party at all loss to better themselves or correct the misunderstandings. For those attempting poor play and generating several red thumbs, they do not care who provides them and are not considered a case to address here. For those trying to offer usable feedback or question poor play, anonymity should not be a crutch as moderators here are positive to avoid flame wars etc via forums or messaging, and for those simply too immature or reactive to work withing a more positive system they can exit or be exited. The anonymity focus and continued favoritism to the drive-by red thumb twitcher should again not be the focus supporting a useful feedback system.

In the single award system, it's very much like gold stars: Do something good, get one; do so-so or not good, don't get one. Those with more, earned them; those with less, did not. This creates a positive vs. negative feedback atmosphere which should over time actually reduce the negative play (feel free to run an A-B test here...).

Hope this helps clarify the single GTO/green thumb option. Again, win-win. Let's do this.