Do not generally post; however, recent events have raised interest in expressing the following regarding the red thumb system:
1 - In general, 'rating' systems of any kind have inherent value only when there is a criteria for the rating (why 'good'? why 'bad'?) that is generally accepted by the intended group it is meant to apply to. Specifically to this site, the use of the green / red thumb indicators presents a topical quality impression of the various players participating, in part to indicate likelihood of fair / good play and perhaps support the broadening of networking amongst existing and even new players interested in games with like-minded individuals.
The evaluations for ‘good’ or green thumbs are subjective but often fall into very similar camps including fair player, good sport, helpful, polite, timely with play, and other relatively common sense (and defendable) criteria. Often the impression that a player is in fact ‘good’ comes quite quickly, noting their style of play, comments, and expressions during and after play, and many people are comfortable with a green thumb as a default response from a game with no apparent issues. While subjectively applied, ‘good’ ratings suffer the least given that any positive impressions are typically most common and through simple accumulation create a beneficial indicator of relative quality towards that player/gamer/situation, etc. The ability to denote an exact reason for giving a ‘good’ rating would be positive, but, given the general association of qualities to ‘good’, is less beneficial than the quantity of accumulated ‘green thumbs’ (in my opinion).
2 - ‘Bad’ ratings, while similar in use for a quality indication, have significantly more weight than ‘good’ ratings as individuals are often more interested in why a situation or player may have caused or had a negative reaction to another player. In these cases, ‘cause’ is part of the issue as the presence of a red thumb suggests that the player receiving same ‘earned’ the thumb through some issue of play, character, or even misunderstanding. Often however, the subjective nature of ranking ‘bad’ is not related to an apparent cause by the player (even to the player or others in a game) and solely presented through the whim of emotion or impression another player may have. A different way to express this is that, while ‘good’ associations are beneficial to accumulate but less impactful, a single ‘bad’ association has much higher potential impact and deeper interest as to the specific reason.
Significantly, players receiving red thumbs are often the most interested in the exact reason why this impression was left with the red thumb ‘giver’, often due to a desire to correct any slight or miscommunication, maintain and build a strengthened network of players, and to improve their own play and performance. Sadly, when no specific reasons are given nor any ability or recourse to offer correction or counter the red thumb, the receiving player is left with (a) a negative mark against their reputation and (b) a less positive impression of the site and community they in fact are helping to support.
3 - Understanding the thumb system does not necessarily endanger a quality of play for most players, it does in fact exist and presents an implied rationale for rating the 'quality' of gamers being ranked in its use. Suggesting ‘oh well, never mind’ to those bothered by the subjective application of red thumbs is naïve and ignores the value of a rating approach. By applying an input-only system (anyone can vote 'good' or 'bad' to anyone) without the ability to either better understand the rationale for 'why' a particular rank occurred or to enable any form of pushback/counter/removal by the ranked to the 'rankee', this system quickly loses its utility and favors the drive-by thumb giver or emotional player at the growing expense/frustration of those truly looking to play politely and to help grow the community.
4- The current fully anonymous approach is not tenable and invalidates the use of the ranking system. As such, it is recommended that (at the very least) any recipient of a red thumb be notified of the individual sending same in order to provide a channel of communication to request (a) why this may have occurred and (b) an opportunity to apologize/correct/counter the impression. Should the recipient acknowledge the action or cause, the situation ends there and is no different than today’s system. Should a resolution not be achieved, it is fully within the red thumb recipient’s rights to provide a red thumb to the sender if it is equally felt that a good faith effort was not performed or if poor sportsmanship or reactiveness is the only reason given to the recipient. In this way a corrective rebalancing of the red thumb system can occur to help reduce or eliminate the reactive red thumb sender actions.
As a final note, elimination of the thumb ranking system should be considered given that most fair / good players have achieved a game quantity and various performance rank scores that can be used similarly even by new players to get an impression of who may be valid to engage play with.
