Retaliatory Red Thumb

[senatorhung]

Hi,

Thanks for your message.

About qpenguin initial request : yes, at now someone expel from a game can give a red thumb. It sounds unfair, but you should also consider the case where a player in a winning position go over the time limit for just 1 second, near the end of the game, and is kicked out by an opponent : in this case, you may want to attribute a red thumb to your opponent.

About private thumb : I agree with senatorhung that it is actually useful to know the "wisdom of the crowd", but as qpenguin says later, players are giving red thumb for various reasons that are all different, and I can't count the number of post/messages received complaining about "I receive a red thumb and I don't know why". This is not possible to satisfy anyone, but as this thumb system is very subjective we'd like to reduce its visibility so that everyone of you don't feel attacked each time you receive a red thumb.

you could have a very limited list of situations which you would allow a red thumb to be given. then you would include a 3rd 'thumb' category to take the place of the remainder of the red thumb actions .. yellow half thumb ??

so each player would have 3 thumbs displayed instead of 2. green for approval. yellow for disapproval. red for strong disapproval. a player getting a red thumb would have a note posted on their profile with the game report so that they know what they were thumbed for (and OTHERS can see when looking at their profile).

my list of things that i would like to see red.thumb worthy:
1. multi.account (or what some have called 'kingmaking' on the forum) ... to play multiple players at the same game to cheat and boost ELO
2. very rude players (language)
3. quitting a game with no explanation
4. consistent game delays
5. extremely poor sportsmanship / attitude ?? this one might be bumped into the yellow category since it is more subjective

the first 2 on the list could generate an automatic report to the dev.team for further possible action. 3 and 4 could 'replace' the time and quitting penalties so you would only get those indications if another player actually red.thumbed you for it. the trade.off is that the timeout and quitting penalties would no longer expire after 60 days.

so, someone could still give a retaliatory red.thumb, but if the list is limited, the dev.team can more readily sort out if there is an actual issue that needs to be addressed.

[sourisdudesert]

Thanks for the messages.

Yes, it can be useful to categorized red thumb. The only thing is that we want to clarify the reputation system to make it more readable - especially for beginers - so we are probably not going to add some complexity.

Note that the timeframe for these changes are between may and october.

[intrepid]

red thumb in my opinion.red thumb in his or her opinion.now we enter this crowds opinion and we rally a different crowds opinion.Goes NOWHERE.WE ALL ARE SUBJECT TO OPINIONS SHOULD THIS BE A PART OF GREEN ,YELLOW RED THUMBS .in MY OPINIION WE SHOULD CHANGE THE COLORS.pLEASe KEEP OPINIONS OUT OF IT.pLEASE KEEP THIS SITE sIMPLE OR LET IT KEEP SPIRALING OUT OF CONTROL.p.s heres a good one that will ruffle feathers in my opinion we should either pay or donate time to be able to play on BGA.thanks for all the hard work.

[Ranif88]

A few short add-on notes to the every-popular 'thumbs or thumb' issue...

1. Days Of Wonder's Karma - The system is automatically applied and primarily for rewarding good site play/manners (don't leave when playing, etc.).
Over time regardless of play and through simple avoidance of exits, most everyone's karma becomes quite high and therefore somewhat diluted;
however, a system utilizing this metric plus a user activated and subjective element for good play would be more meaningful. Note that other 'tactical play' estimations can be derived from other-than-karma metrics (DOW uses ELO for example, so a savvy player could look at both karma and ELO and decide if someone is a ' good player' so to speak).

2. KISS principle - From some of the recent comments, keeping it simple is smart but so is keeping it fair (KIF). The simplist form of acknowledgement of 'good gamer' or not is a single positive thumb option that (if used) aids the karma-like individual statistics of the player acknowledge their 'goodness' for future play. It's similar to tipping in which if the service was above average or great, the server receives a reward of a tip; if not, then not (rather than attempting to subtract one's impression of poor service $ from the bill as punishment....). Recall the green thumb count is intended to be shown for all games played as well (or all players interacted with) so one has an idea of meaning (my "100 green thumbs over 110 games or players played' should count more than one's "100 green thumbs over 400 games/players played, etc).

3. Recall the point - In a prior post, had made the observation that many gaming rating systems result in a focus on the negative rather than striving to support the positive in their use or result. This is more an artifice of any system allowing a spectrum of judging from two options for 'good' or 'bad'; however, a relatively similar result favoring 'good' can occur when the options become 'reward with good' or 'hold reward (just giving a green thumb or deciding not to).

4. Private or public? - Good question and both have value, question is what's each worth to each of us? Personally, I find good value from my yes/no player status that I developed over time as it cues me to folks I've enjoyed playing with and those not so much. When playing with someone I do not yet know (or have played with), I usually am open to anyone as long as the general red thumb level is less than 10-20% - again, to see how it goes and ultimately give my own opinion of the rank for future use. This is hard-won knowledge and sometimes suffers the person having to play with significant 'jerks' (for lack of a better term) to acquire an estimate of the playing folks. As such, at times it is handy to have the 'crowd flava' or estimate for evaluating play/dont play, but as discussed in length the subjective/reactive negative rewards without information (why? from who?) keep diluting the reds' utility. A similar public 'how many good/green thumbs' can be just the same in usefulness as is my private recall of whether I've given a green thumb (or not) to players I'd like to play with more in the future.

5. Still got issues? - The end key remains many players dont care to inform anyone when giving a negative result. No feedback, no change, no fun.
If you cannot ask for a 'why' then it's just a drive by (most likely). If you want to inform someone, often they dont care to get it or change (same result). So, if IM'ing (which exists) isn't used / welcomed / adopted to clarify the red thumbs, let's exit the general negatives overall and get to green.

So,
Karma + user input = probably better system than karma alone (and ELO remains separate)
Simple (green thumb or no?)
Positive view (liked how it went? player seemed fun/happy/open to dialog if miscommunications, etc?)
Private and public viewing of green thumbs accrued (and that karma...and that ELO...)
IM if you want to clarify or dialog on a player or game's issues

[intrepid]

A WELCOMED POSTIVE OPINION ABOUT HOW BGA CAN MAKE SITE MORE ENJOYABLE.IN MY OPINION POSITIVE WORKS BETTER THAN negative. hope we get additinal feedback on this issue it ALL HELPS.

[EllieK]

Hi,

Thanks for your comments.

We are indeed considering to replace the current reputation system by something more simple like this other website https://www.daysofwonder.com/online/en/play/karma/

What do you think about this?

I think you already have all this stuff. You have the quit game counter; you have the over-time counter; you have the thumb system. No need to change anything. Your system is a good system. I can look at a player's three numbers and get a pretty good idea of the kind of player he or she is. I play often with people with a high percentage of red thumbs and almost never have any issues with anyone. I don't put a high value on the thumbs but in conjunction with the other two numbers (quits and overtimes) they have meaning.

I think fiddling with the thumbs is silly. If you get a red thumb and you don't like it, work extra hard for 30 green thumbs to offset it. Simple.

[Giau]

Hi, don't want to be a bit off topic. I'm very new here and still need to get used to the house rules.

It indeed happened to me to give a red thumb to a player who kicked me out at the very last round of Season when probably realising that he/she was about to lose after having conducted the whole game.

Facts:
- fast game (3:00 min)
- i was out of time just the last round
- i admit: not just few seconds but approx 1 minute
- anyhow I was playing as fast as I could (my connection was quite bad)
- i then asked for explanantion in PM - no answer

Question:
Fair to kick a player out when he/she is out of time but clearly playing? (ok, I know that the concept of fairness is pretty flexible, still I'd like to hear other players)

Sidenote: I read the whole discussion which became more a generic topic on how to handle players reputation.

Still if possible I'm interestd in other players' view on timing issues vs. red thumb as described above.

Thanks

Giau

[Silene]

It was clear you were still playing (making actions)? Clear red thump imo - even with 1min over time.

Seasons sometimes leads to very long turns when the game proceeds. When you have many cards that give you actions - you sometimes have to play without thinking to not get over time limit.

The actual time-keeping-system doesn't fit seasons (and maybe other games too) very well because the distribution of time/move is very wide.

Possible solution: Add some time per action you take - so you have more thinking time, when you really need it.

[veme]

I would never give a red thumb if I were kicked for being over time. In my opinion, the timing is a rule like any other - if you break it, you are essentially cheating - thus it is fair to kick you. I personally try to be polite and give people some leeway on their time, but no one is owed this courtesy; I think it is perfectly fine (though in some cases, maybe a little rude) to strictly enforce the agreed upon time limit, and I don't think that it is fair to give red thumbs to people just because they do it. Even if it is only one second on the last turn... I mean why should you get an extra second to think? That's cheating

But people should still always have the power to give a red thumb to anyone they play with, because there are so many other reasons to give them. There will always be people who don't agree with your personal system for assigning them, it is just supposed to be a rough estimate of reputation.

[Giau]

Hi, took note of your comment.

First, let me say that I'm very reluctant in giving red thumbs (probably did it 1/2 times, not even when people left w/o even saying a words).

The reason of my being unhappy about being kicked out is that indeed i was really playing while going overtime, w/o any explanation, not even afterwards. Yours, for example, is indeed an explanation of your position.

Second, there's one thing that is key in your comment: time: is a strict rule or not?

You suggest so when you say that going overtime would be cheating. Personally, just my opinion, I'd not be so straightforward. If it were a rule, breach of it (meaning overtime) would result in a player to lose the game. Automatically. That's not the case, and it is left to the players to decide what to do.

Actually, when playing, I try to act as if the people were around a table, in person; which means that, unless you have clarified that overtime = game lost, people should be granted some fair flexibility. This, actually, in the interest of the game itself. I'd rather play and lose with a good (sometime slow) player, than increase my ELO just leveraging (and exercising my power ) on the kick-out button (is it fear to lose.? ...).

As to red thumb or not: yes, I agree it's just a question of personal view whether or not to give it in such a case.