[ QUOTE ]
123 ratings at 5-stars last night, nicely sitting on the 3rd page.
126 ratings at 4-stars now this afternoon.
Losing all the 0-stars was a good first step, but it's not stopping these people.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ever think that your Arc might not be that good and people just vote how they feel? I have given some bad Arcs top score cause I feel bad, but there might be people out there that vote for real.
lvl 50 - Elec/WP/Mu Mastery Stalker, lvl 50 - Dark/EA/Soul Mastery Stalker, lvl 50 - EM/Nin/Soul Mastery Stalker
New Toons
lvl 21 - StJ/WP Stalker
[ QUOTE ]
imho, nobody deserves 5 stars
[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't even make sense.
There will always be a few at anything that are the best.
(QR)
Best part of this thread is the multiple comments saying "Or maybe you suck."
And not best in a good way.
[ QUOTE ]
123 ratings at 5-stars last night, nicely sitting on the 3rd page.
126 ratings at 4-stars now this afternoon.
Losing all the 0-stars was a good first step, but it's not stopping these people.
[/ QUOTE ]
You could also have just barely been scraping the 5 star average. Take one or two non-5 votes and it could bring you down.
IMO, I'd call this inconclusive. If you suddenly got 12 votes at once, all 1 or 2 star ratings, in a row, I'd be more inclined to call it orchestrated griefing. As others have pointed out, it could simply have been someone who didn't like your story, and that was enough of a hairpin trigger to rank you down.
What's the story arc in question? If I get power back at home today, I'll check it out and grie- er, rate you fairly. 
@TURGENEV - Freedom Server / IRON / B.A.N.E / HORDE
Turg Fiction: Ghost in the Machine Acts III & IV coming 2012!
Turg Fiction: IX is now LIVE on Architect Entertainment!
[ QUOTE ]
I'm quite happy to tell an arc owner their arc sucks, but I don't think anyone should be forced to justify their rating.
[/ QUOTE ]
This
"Life is about perseverance. It's about slogging through no matter what." - Stormy Llewellyn
Current project - Orgo to Plowshares 42 Kat/Inv Scrap
Main -Orgo 50 Rad/Rad def
[ QUOTE ]
(QR)
Best part of this thread is the multiple comments saying "Or maybe you suck."
And not best in a good way.
[/ QUOTE ]
No kidding. Most of the people that seem to think this doesn't happen have never had an arc with more than 50 votes in the pre-I15 environment. It isn't as bad as it was (since a 0 star was absolutely devastating statistically, especially when you magically get 6 or 8 of them in a two minute period with no additions to your playthrough badge) since now there are so many 5 star arcs that that front page isn't as big a target as it used to be.
I'm sure it's still going on, but I'm not too worried about it. The number of ratings griefers was never that large, but the power they had was disproportionate to the power someone rating you 5 stars had.
People who don't rate anything 5 stars crack me up. Your tastes are just sooooo refined that there's nothing us mere plebians who are doing this for fun and with no change of any real rewards can come up with that will meet your high standards.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
imho, nobody deserves 5 stars
[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't even make sense.
There will always be a few at anything that are the best.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand it either. It sounds like a philosophical decision or something.
Arc ID#30821, A Clean Break
The only problem with defeating the Tsoo is that an hour later, you want to defeat them again!
"Life is just better boosted!" -- LadyMage
"I'm a big believer in Personal Force Field on a blaster. ... It's your happy place." -- Fulmens
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(QR)
Best part of this thread is the multiple comments saying "Or maybe you suck."
And not best in a good way.
[/ QUOTE ]
No kidding. Most of the people that seem to think this doesn't happen have never had an arc with more than 50 votes in the pre-I15 environment. It isn't as bad as it was (since a 0 star was absolutely devastating statistically, especially when you magically get 6 or 8 of them in a two minute period with no additions to your playthrough badge) since now there are so many 5 star arcs that that front page isn't as big a target as it used to be.
I'm sure it's still going on, but I'm not too worried about it. The number of ratings griefers was never that large, but the power they had was disproportionate to the power someone rating you 5 stars had.
People who don't rate anything 5 stars crack me up. Your tastes are just sooooo refined that there's nothing us mere plebians who are doing this for fun and with no change of any real rewards can come up with that will meet your high standards.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said griefing never happens and pre=i15 I had over 600 votes.
I'm just saying its downright idiotic and arrogant to assume anyone who didnt like your arc and didnt explain why MUST be a griefer.
Want comedy and lighthearted action? Between levels 1-14? Try Nuclear in 90 - The Fusionette Task Force!
Arc ID 58363!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
imho, nobody deserves 5 stars
[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't even make sense.
There will always be a few at anything that are the best.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.
Nobody deserves 5 stars? Ever?
"Few deserve 5 stars" - ok, that's fine.
"nobody yet deserves 5 stars." That's fine too. I can understand feeling like that.
But really, what are you saving your 5-star virginity for? The Prince Charming of arcs? Maybe you are just afraid to vote 5-stars for fear of finding an even better arc later?
At any rate, anytime I see a flat declaration like that I automatically stamp it as false.
However... I agree with FredrikSvanberg that a "recommended" button is the best way to do these. Until then, the vote itself IS a recommendation, especially if it has a fairly decent score (and 4 is a great score). People look at that and automatically think "wow, 126 people thought this was a 4-star arc!"
It does seem that a lot of authors feel that anything less than a 5-star rating is griefing. In fact, several people have essentially stated that it is griefing as a matter of practicality.
I'll often play an arc that the author took a lot of care in writing. But I just don't like it. For whatever reason, what he thought of as fun or engaging does absolutely nothing for me.
My inclination is to give it a three for effort, but I know that it will torpedo the arcs's rating. So I just don't vote.
Perhaps the three people who played your arc had the same reaction, and gave you threes out of deference for your effort, but really didn't like the arc at all.
Obviously the rating system needs some kind of adjustment. One thing that would help would be display the number of plays an arc has received, in addition to the number of actual votes. That data would only show up on your story under your published tab, the same way that the new Comments button does.
It would also be nice if authors got some number of tickets (maybe 1 or 2 per mission) each time a player completes the arc, in addition to any tickets received for a 3+ rating. Think of it as "profit sharing" with NCSoft for providing other players some entertainment.
I think it's more accurate to say that there are some authors who believe that if a story has received only 4- and 5-star votes from a large audience, then any 1- or 2-star rating must be a grief.
I don't think that's true. Tastes vary, and an interesting thing about fiction in any medium is that there seems to be an element of the "fatal pet peeve" - something that most people will gloss over will bother someone to such an extent that they stop enjoying the work entirely. So it may be that you get lots of good ratings from a large group, and then you happen to hit a smaller group whose pet peeve goes off.
And for a while things were cold,
They were scared down in their holes
The forest that once was green
Was colored black by those killing machines
People who don't rate anything 5 stars crack me up.
What's even funnier is that I'm not one of them.
And we used to have a "How To Survive A Venture Review" thread until it was autopurged....
Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying its downright idiotic and arrogant to assume anyone who didnt like your arc and didnt explain why MUST be a griefer.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can agree with that, but pre-I15 I had all sorts of arguments with people who just refused to believe that the griefing was happening at all. This was at the height of it when people were openly talking about 0 starring everything on the front page to be sure their arc could get there instead (which is completely self-defeating since even if their Naruto fan-fic made it there, it would just be hit by the same group of people and bombed into obscurity anyway).
It was happening before and I'm sure it's still happening now, but without the 0 star weapon, they have a lot less impact.
I've gotten reviews from people who just plain haven't liked some of my arcs and even had them explain all the reasons why. I've come to realize that there are folks out there giving such great advice as "too many commas" when they're handing you their 1 star rating that you simply have no chance of pleasing. And that's fine. Their opinion might be on the fringe at best, but they're entitled to it.
And now they can't magically tank my arc with their one vote. Hurray for the loss of the 0 star!
It's hard to not take it as griefing sometimes when the only feedback you ever receive is "one of the best I've played" and such (of which I have dozens) because you assume everyone must have similar tastes, but they just don't. One man's trash is another man's treasure, your mileage may vary, etc etc.
But 5-10 0 stars all within a few minutes with zero progress on your playthroughs? That was always more than a little suspicious.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying its downright idiotic and arrogant to assume anyone who didnt like your arc and didnt explain why MUST be a griefer.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can agree with that, but pre-I15 I had all sorts of arguments with people who just refused to believe that the griefing was happening at all. This was at the height of it when people were openly talking about 0 starring everything on the front page to be sure their arc could get there instead (which is completely self-defeating since even if their Naruto fan-fic made it there, it would just be hit by the same group of people and bombed into obscurity anyway).
It was happening before and I'm sure it's still happening now, but without the 0 star weapon, they have a lot less impact.
I've gotten reviews from people who just plain haven't liked some of my arcs and even had them explain all the reasons why. I've come to realize that there are folks out there giving such great advice as "too many commas" when they're handing you their 1 star rating that you simply have no chance of pleasing. And that's fine. Their opinion might be on the fringe at best, but they're entitled to it.
And now they can't magically tank my arc with their one vote. Hurray for the loss of the 0 star!
It's hard to not take it as griefing sometimes when the only feedback you ever receive is "one of the best I've played" and such (of which I have dozens) because you assume everyone must have similar tastes, but they just don't. One man's trash is another man's treasure, your mileage may vary, etc etc.
But 5-10 0 stars all within a few minutes with zero progress on your playthroughs? That was always more than a little suspicious.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, well, I agree with that. i'm just saying, its a kneejerk to automatically assume theyre all griefs. Griefers do exist though. they do on every game ever that has multiplayer.
Want comedy and lighthearted action? Between levels 1-14? Try Nuclear in 90 - The Fusionette Task Force!
Arc ID 58363!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh I don't mind that, as long as you explain it.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, if I have this right, you believe--really believe--that anyone who rates your arc with less than a perfect 5 stars owes you some sort of explanation?
And, so long as they justify themselves to your satisfaction, then you "don't mind?"
It seems you don't view constructive criticism as something you should be thankful for and accept with a grain of salt.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I can't be sure, I think that the OP would likely say that it's not "constructive criticism" if there's nothing other than a low rating. Without some sort of commentary on the weaknesses of the piece, there's nothing "constructive" about it - simply a statement that the rater's individual assessment of the meaning of [x] stars was all the experience warranted.
Some people ascribe low ratings, sans commentary, to griefing. Clearly that's not always going to be true.
My postings to this forum are not to be used as data in any research study without my express written consent.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh I don't mind that, as long as you explain it.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, if I have this right, you believe--really believe--that anyone who rates your arc with less than a perfect 5 stars owes you some sort of explanation?
And, so long as they justify themselves to your satisfaction, then you "don't mind?"
It seems you don't view constructive criticism as something you should be thankful for and accept with a grain of salt.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I can't be sure, I think that the OP would likely say that it's not "constructive criticism" if there's nothing other than a low rating. Without some sort of commentary on the weaknesses of the piece, there's nothing "constructive" about it - simply a statement that the rater's individual assessment of the meaning of [x] stars was all the experience warranted.
Some people ascribe low ratings, sans commentary, to griefing. Clearly that's not always going to be true.
[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, anything short of 5 stars doesn't constitute a "low" rating. Second of all, the player is entitled to rate an arc with or without commentary. Third of all, the player owes the author no explanation as to how or why an arc was rated.
But the fact is that in many cases where players have offered constructive criticism on story arcs, they have been harassed in tells, publicly ridiculed, had their own arcs grief-rated, and have even had their comments taken out of context and posted in this very forum as a form of tar and feathering--as if those comments were anything less than a service to the author; as if they were somehow insufficient "justification" for the player giving the author fewer stars than he felt he deserved.
And clearly, the OP is in this camp: he openly states feeling that he's entitled to feedback as an "explanation" for a rating lower than five stars.
But my point is, if you receive feedback that isn't deliberately insulting or abusive, you should be thankful for it and take it with a grain of salt. It's not something that you deserve by virtue of writing the arc, and it isn't beig offered to appease you: its only purpose is to help you.
And if you don't get any feedback, it's probably because attitudes like those of the OP make giving feedback more hassle than it's typically worth.
So let me be clear on this point again: nobody owes you anything for playing your story arc: not ratings, not feedback, nothing. By publishing, you submit your work to the vagaries of public consumption and evaluation, and if you can't handle that, then don't publish.
I agree that ratings griefing is bad. Griefing sucks. Sure. But the notioin that anything short of five stars is griefing if it doesn't come with justification is obscenely arrogant. And the attitudes of entitlement and self-importance on the part of some authors in this forum are frankly disgraceful.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh I don't mind that, as long as you explain it.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, if I have this right, you believe--really believe--that anyone who rates your arc with less than a perfect 5 stars owes you some sort of explanation?
And, so long as they justify themselves to your satisfaction, then you "don't mind?"
It seems you don't view constructive criticism as something you should be thankful for and accept with a grain of salt.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I can't be sure, I think that the OP would likely say that it's not "constructive criticism" if there's nothing other than a low rating. Without some sort of commentary on the weaknesses of the piece, there's nothing "constructive" about it - simply a statement that the rater's individual assessment of the meaning of [x] stars was all the experience warranted.
Some people ascribe low ratings, sans commentary, to griefing. Clearly that's not always going to be true.
[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, anything short of 5 stars doesn't constitute a "low" rating. Second of all, the player is entitled to rate an arc with or without commentary. Third of all, the player owes the author no explanation as to how or why an arc was rated.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're just grandstanding and avoiding addressing my point. In fact, you're responding to an awful lot of stuff I never said, or even implied. When I type "low rating" I'm generally thinking of one that's low enough to fail to award tickets. 1 or 2 stars. I suppose I could have been more clear, I just didn't think it necessary.
I don't disagree with you that people can and should be able to give any rating they want. I don't disagree with you that ratings below 5 do not necessarily constitute "low" or "bad" ratings.
I am simply saying that any rating that does not come with commentary cannot meaningfully be called "constructive criticism". It's just an opinion, and is fine as far as that goes. If you're going to accuse someone, as you did, of not being able to take constructive criticism, it's better to not re-define "constructive criticism" to include random unsupported opinion that does nothing to help the author improve.
[ QUOTE ]
But the fact is that in many cases where players have offered constructive criticism on story arcs, they have been harassed in tells, publicly ridiculed, had their own arcs grief-rated, and have even had their comments taken out of context and posted in this very forum as a form of tar and feathering--as if those comments were anything less than a service to the author; as if they were somehow insufficient "justification" for the player giving the author fewer stars than he felt he deserved.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not disagreeing with you that quite a few authors have been extremely immature in their response to constructive criticism, either. You clearly know what it is, which causes me further confusion as to why you seemed to conflate it with raw ratings above. Am I just misunderstanding you?
[ QUOTE ]
But my point is, if you receive feedback that isn't deliberately insulting or abusive, you should be thankful for it and take it with a grain of salt.
[/ QUOTE ]
And again, I don't disagree with you. You do a lovely job tilting at windmills, though.
If there is no feedback other than the raw stars, however, what's there to be thankful for? It's just data, and nothing you can use to make meaningful changes.
I'm not claiming anyone is owed anything. I'm just saying that the rating system used without feedback does not allow for any kind of remediation of problems.
[ QUOTE ]
It's not something that you deserve by virtue of writing the arc, and it isn't beig offered to appease you: its only purpose is to help you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely agreed.
[ QUOTE ]
And if you don't get any feedback, it's probably because attitudes like those of the OP make giving feedback more hassle than it's typically worth.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or it might be that your style of giving feedback elicits attitudes like those of the OP. I don't think that authors who react badly to feedback are the only ones involved in the situation, and I don't think that they're the only ones responsible if the situation degrades. Placing all the blame on them seems unfair.
[ QUOTE ]
So let me be clear on this point again: nobody owes you anything for playing your story arc: not ratings, not feedback, nothing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I think of the MA, at this point, the way I think of blogs. You write it because you feel like writing it, you tell your friends, and if someone who's not your friend happens across it and thinks you said something interesting, great. Nobody owes any random blogger great respect for what they've done. Nobody even has to read what they've done. Being able to hit a button that says "Publish" does not mean that an individual is somehow worthy of more respect than they were before.
But they are worthy of the same amount of respect as anyone else.
My postings to this forum are not to be used as data in any research study without my express written consent.
[ QUOTE ]
I am simply saying that any rating that does not come with commentary cannot meaningfully be called "constructive criticism". It's just an opinion, and is fine as far as that goes. If you're going to accuse someone, as you did, of not being able to take constructive criticism, it's better to not re-define "constructive criticism" to include random unsupported opinion that does nothing to help the author improve.
[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, I didn't accuse the OP of not being able to take constructive criticism; nor did I conflate ratings without comments with constructive criticism.
I merely pointed out that any comments given to accompany a rating, so long as they aren't deliberately insulting or abusive, are constructive criticism, and as such, a service to the author. They don't exist to justify a rating or explain why the rating was less than perfect. The player has no need to justify or explain the rating, and therefore ratings of three stars without comments are perfectly valid.
But if an author says "I don't mind a three-star rating, [/b]as long as you explain it,"[/b] then he clearly doesn't see feedback as helpful, constructive criticism at all, but as appeasement, justification, or an explanation that he's owed by someone rating his arc less than five stars.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not disagreeing with you that quite a few authors have been extremely immature in their response to constructive criticism, either. You clearly know what it is, which causes me further confusion as to why you seemed to conflate it with raw ratings above. Am I just misunderstanding you?
[/ QUOTE ]
Evidently. Again, my point: comments aren't something that you deserve. They aren't needed to explain a rating. If they exist at all, they're merely constructive criticism, provided they're not deliberately insulting or abusive.
[ QUOTE ]
If there is no feedback other than the raw stars, however, what's there to be thankful for?
[/ QUOTE ]
And here's my point again. To be thankful for something, you must realize that it wasn't your due, that you didn't necessarily deserve it, that you recieved something which you rightly might not have recieved. But the OP's statement, "I don't mind being three-starred as long as you explain it," implies that he doesn't see a comment as something to be thankful for, but as something that he deserves as justification for a rating lower than five stars.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if you don't get any feedback, it's probably because attitudes like those of the OP make giving feedback more hassle than it's typically worth.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or it might be that your style of giving feedback elicits attitudes like those of the OP.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've given precious little feedback on arcs, mostly limiting myself to positive comments, or to very minor points I felt I could address without a lot of debate, precisely because I don't want to get into the sorts of argument that I've witnessed others wasting their time with in this forum.
So your shot in the dark misses its mark, since I've never personally had a problem with [/i]my own feedback[/i] being attacked, ridiculed, or lampooned in the forums. But that's partly because of self-censorship on my part, and that's precisely why I'll often decline to comment on a mediocre rating.
Besides, how is it that my style of criticism could possibly "elicit" an attitude of self-entitlement on the part of an author who feels he deserves something that he doesn't?
I rate stories according to criteria that I already gave upthread. I attempt to be consistent and objective in applying my ratings criteria. I have given several arcs five stars because I thought they deserved such a rating. Many arcs have gotten less.
And I don't comment on why I rated an arc the way I did unless I feel like it. That's the player's prerogative. If an author isn't "thankful" or happy with a three-star rating I give him without comment, that's too bad.
All the evidence I see points to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any more "thankful" or happy if I offered unflattering comments too. All I stand to gain for frank commentary on many arcs is grief, hassle, and immature or vindictive behavior on the part of the author, and that's something I can easily live without.
But if I were to give those less-than-flattering (yet non-insulting, non-abusive) comments as constructive criticism, precisely how is it that I'm partly to blame if the author then griefs my arc, harasses me in tells, or takes my comments out of context and lampoons them here?
If you really do agree with me that non-abusive feedback is something to be thankful for and taken with a grain of salt, I can't understand how you can possibly hold that such behavior on the part of authors is partly the fault of the player who gave the comments.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
imho, nobody deserves 5 stars
[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't even make sense.
There will always be a few at anything that are the best.
[/ QUOTE ]
so it doesn't make sense to you that I don't believe anything is perfect?
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I didn't accuse the OP of not being able to take constructive criticism; nor did I conflate ratings without comments with constructive criticism.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if an author says "I don't mind a three-star rating, as long as you explain it," then he clearly doesn't see feedback as helpful, constructive criticism at all, but as appeasement, justification, or an explanation that he's owed by someone rating his arc less than five stars.
[/ QUOTE ]
Make up your mind. You're either accusing or not, here you're trying to do both at the same time.
A rating without any comment at all is not constructive criticism in the slightest. In a way it can be considered griefing as you're not doing anything but causing grief for the author. They don't know what you didn't like, therefore they cannot fix the issue, therefore it is not fixed.
The most aggravating thing about the feedback system is that when somebody likes your arc, they more often than not tell you and tell you why they liked it. But most often when they don't like it they won't tell you anything.
When you get hundreds of ratings and most of them are very-good to excellent and suddenly get some bad ones, you are going to want to know why. Even more annoying if it is due to something that the Devs themselves broke in a patch and people are rating you down down for a bug that you didn't know about, and probably cannot even fix, but aren't alerting you to the issue. Such a thing can go unnoticed for days, even weeks.
[ QUOTE ]
And I don't comment on why I rated an arc the way I did unless I feel like it. That's the player's prerogative. If an author isn't "thankful" or happy with a three-star rating I give him without comment, that's too bad.
[/ QUOTE ]
And as far as I'm concerned, a low-rating with no comment whatsoever is less useful than the wings on a kiwi.
[ QUOTE ]
But if I were to give those less-than-flattering (yet non-insulting, non-abusive) comments as constructive criticism, precisely how is it that I'm partly to blame if the author then griefs my arc, harasses me in tells, or takes my comments out of context and lampoons them here?
[/ QUOTE ]
In my case, why would I want to destroy my reputation as a reviewer? Does it look like I can't take constructive criticism?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I didn't accuse the OP of not being able to take constructive criticism; nor did I conflate ratings without comments with constructive criticism.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if an author says "I don't mind a three-star rating, as long as you explain it," then he clearly doesn't see feedback as helpful, constructive criticism at all, but as appeasement, justification, or an explanation that he's owed by someone rating his arc less than five stars.
[/ QUOTE ]
Make up your mind. You're either accusing or not, here you're trying to do both at the same time.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm pointing out that you're owed no explanation whatsoever for a three-star rating; and that if you get one, you should be thankful for it. But if you don't, you should lose the attitude that you've been wronged somehow. It's disgraceful.
[ QUOTE ]
A rating without any comment at all is not constructive criticism in the slightest.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you're not owed any, either.
[ QUOTE ]
In a way it can be considered griefing as you're not doing anything but causing grief for the author.
[/ QUOTE ]
Absurd. Every single rating offers the rest of the playerbase one player's impression of the arc's overall merit. Some will be better than others. That's not griefing you in the slightest.
Neither the ratings nor the listings revolve around you and your arc. If I choose to help you with feedback, that's my choice. If I don't trust you to take it well or feel that you'll make good use of it, I won't offer any; that's also my choice. But if I rate your arc three stars, it's because in my opinion it merits no more. That's not griefing you. It's a frank evaluation of your work. It's my sounding board with the playerbase, not yours.
[ QUOTE ]
They don't know what you didn't like, therefore they cannot fix the issue, therefore it is not fixed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nor do they konw my global; therefore they cannot grief my arc for vindictive reasons; nor can they harass me in tells; nor can they lampoon my comments in the forums if there aren't any to lampoon.
Fixing your arc isn't my responsibility. Saving myself undue hassle and debate is my responsibility.
[ QUOTE ]
The most aggravating thing about the feedback system is that when somebody likes your arc, they more often than not tell you and tell you why they liked it. But most often when they don't like it they won't tell you anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
And again, there's a reason for that. If more authors realized that even the most unflattering, stark evaluation of the failings in their stories are still a service rendered for free, then more people would be inclined to offer difficult feedback.
Instead, you feel entitled to an explanation for any rating lower than five stars; you're clearly in the mood to defend your work, and other authors who have expressed the same attitides have openly attacked and griefed players for offering such feedback, whenever they didn't feel that the feedback sufficiently "justified" or "explained" the low rating.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I don't comment on why I rated an arc the way I did unless I feel like it. That's the player's prerogative. If an author isn't "thankful" or happy with a three-star rating I give him without comment, that's too bad.
[/ QUOTE ]
And as far as I'm concerned, a low-rating with no comment whatsoever is less useful than the wings on a kiwi.
[/ QUOTE ]
Less useful to you, perhaps. Much more valuable to the rest of the playerbase. I've seen arcs with a five-star average after a couple dozen plays, which are so poorly conceived or implemented in one way or another that I've rated with three stars or less. Am I supposed to say, (for example), "Your poor English writing skills are extremely off-putting and distracting to me; neither your spelling, nor grammar, nor punctuation are vaguely correct, and it undermines immersion in and believability of your text"? Or maybe, "Ill-conceived, self-indulgent origin stories like this don't interest me; in fact I view them as a waste of my time"?
A two or three-star rating is useful in cases like this, with or without comment. Whether or not they offer the author pointers to fix problems which might or might not be possible to fix, they offer the playerbase my assessment of the overall merit of a story arc. And my personal assessment is neither less nor more valid than any one of those that gave you five stars.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if I were to give those less-than-flattering (yet non-insulting, non-abusive) comments as constructive criticism, precisely how is it that I'm partly to blame if the author then griefs my arc, harasses me in tells, or takes my comments out of context and lampoons them here?
[/ QUOTE ]
In my case, why would I want to destroy my reputation as a reviewer? Does it look like I can't take constructive criticism?
[/ QUOTE ]
Since I'm not aware of your reputation, I can't comment on that. But it looks to me that whether you can deal appropriately with constructive criticism or not, you feel that players who rate your story less than five stars owe you some sort of explanation for it. And they don't.
[ QUOTE ]
you should lose the attitude that you've been wronged somehow. It's disgraceful.
[/ QUOTE ]
My attitude is just fine. You're actually making a bigger deal out of this topic than I am and making most of the accusations.
[ QUOTE ]
Every single rating offers the rest of the playerbase one player's impression of the arc's overall merit. Some will be better than others.
[/ QUOTE ]
A rating with no information attached to it doesn't help them much either in fact. They don't know if someone rated an arc 2 stars because it was a bad story or because "too many words, can't farm, lol".
[ QUOTE ]
Fixing your arc isn't my responsibility.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said that it was. Apparently however you don't think that it would be basic decency to alert the author to a problem which they may not, and likely are not, aware of.
[ QUOTE ]
you feel entitled to an explanation for any rating lower than five stars
[/ QUOTE ]
Nowhere did I say that I was entitled, that is something you keep saying. I only said that I would like an explanation. You love putting words in peoples mouths, don't you?
[ QUOTE ]
you feel that players who rate your story less than five stars owe you some sort of explanation for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
You keep saying that like you think it will magically turn out to be true. Anyhow, I'm tired of you trying to justify your cowardice. Feel free to keep talking but I don't see any reason to listen.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you feel that players who rate your story less than five stars owe you some sort of explanation for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
You keep saying that like you think it will magically turn out to be true. Anyhow, I'm tired of you trying to justify your cowardice. Feel free to keep talking but I don't see any reason to listen.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, although it isn't true that you feel entitled to an explanation for ratings lower than 5, the practice of not giving you one is "cowardice" that can't be "justified."
I see.
When you rate something, it doesn't have to give specifics. That's never been a mandetory part of a rating system. When one talk about specific details, they're referring to critical reviews. When and if feedback becomes mandatory, people would just stop rating because it would be a hassle.
The millions of surveys handed out to people to rate products of every industry shows that feedback is optional. In essence, ratings in general are only meant to give the creator a basic idea of how the "general populace" react to his material. Of course there will be times when the ratings given won't *necessarily* be justified but that's a inherent risk with every new material being published for public consumption.
This is why numbers is a bad idea for rating.
It should just be "recommended/not recommended", and only the number of "recommended" ratings should count for things such as Hall of Fame. If 1,000 people thought your arc was good enough to recommend it, that's all we really need to know.
Winner of Players' Choice Best Villainous Arc 2010: Fear and Loathing on Striga; ID #350522