Cups are coming...

[bicilotti]

[Link to cup rating test page removed, it's not ready yet!]
Cups are coming...  and I felt sad from the very first page

[Ali]

I don't mind the cup ratings, because I do feel people should be able to filter out games below two cups if they choose to do so. I've found it tiresome to trawl through the database before, so I welcome this.

What seems to be missing from this is a breakdown of the AGS panel's scores in the same way that we can see the users' votes. I would like to be able to click on the cup rating and see how many cups a game's graphics or puzzles were awarded. I don't know if that's planned, but I think it would add depth to the rating. I'd like to know, perhaps if a game has poor graphics, that the panel felt it had strong puzzles.

Also, are the rating panel's identities a secret? Are they all sequestered in SSH's country mansion, or Andail's airship?

[bicilotti]

I just hope AGS does not drift towards "professionalism". And I agree with you, a detailed breakdown would be better.

Third: dear rating panel, please take your time to judge new releases. If you smash a game into pieces before a few people have tried it the creator of the game itself will not get some useful feedback for his/her future projects. Numbers (and unfortunately even big blue cups) don't speak for themselves.

[Neil Dnuma]

Christmas Quest 2 > Cirque de Zale?

lol

[Akatosh]

Is it just me or does the panel give ridiculously low rating?

[bicilotti]

Christmas Quest 2 > Cirque de Zale?

lol

I lol with you, just not to get on my knees and cry. Please mr Jones, just make sure this panel thing will not become the doom of us all.

[scotch]

It's just an editor's rating on a single website... you're acting like it's a big deal. If you have a major problem with a specific rating, fine, I'm sure the panel will be willing to take a look at it. I think the ratings that are there seem generally useful, though. As for the making or breaking a game stuff, if you rely on the AGS games database to drive your traffic you're really not getting close to as many players as you could, 5 cups or 1 cup.

[Radiant]

Post withdrawn. When I posted this, I thought Bicilotti was on the rating panel and announcing a preview. Guess I was wrong.

[scotch]

I agree the bias towards rating things low is an issue. While most AGS games are quite poor in the greater scheme of things like those of any hobbyist game making program, I think people realise this, and we don't need to reinforce it by marking lots of stuff low. On the other hand, the massive amount of awful in the games database is the main reason why the cups system was discussed, and the one cup rating is there to say something is a test game, or unplayable. There are a lot more unplayable games than awesome games.

Things are mostly rated by one person each right now, which is one reason for the sometimes odd results if you compare one game's rating to another. I hope they intend to do another pass with each other's game selections and average things out, but it depends on manpower I suppose.

[AGA]

Christmas Quest 2 > Cirque de Zale?

lol

This is absolutely true! ¬¬

That implies that either the rating is heavily biased towards the lower end, or that nearly every AGS game is pretty crappy.

The vast majority of AGS games released just aren't that good.

Also, very few games deserve 5 cups. 5 out of 5 implies the game is perfect, or very close to it. Not many games are.

[Radiant]

Post likewise withdrawn.

[scotch]

I second the idea about putting the 3+ games past second or third reviewers. It seems manageable.

[ildu]

or that nearly every AGS game is pretty crappy.

Yup :|.

[LUniqueDan]

How many '5 cups' at the actual standards are you planning to find in the entire database? Max 3-4 others.

Why not just locate them in their own window (or in the front page of the site) and have a better division between the other games. Even SSH's pick of the month is only '2 cups' right now.

Also :
Reactor 9 == Chick Chaser == Meta == Larry Vales?

Due to the nature of AGS and people who hang around game creation, I seriously think that it's going to fit better just to have a R5 division : divide the entire game list (without the best of the best) in 5 equally size groups. It's just going to be more fair (and also way more useful) for everyone.

With the actual narrowed category, once we have played grade 4 and 5 games (and most of us did), we found ourself in the same messy jungle than before, to find new games to play.

[bicilotti]

I second the idea about putting the 3+ games past second or third reviewers. It seems manageable.

expecially to alien threat (3 cups??!)

[LimpingFish]

dear rating panel, please take your time to judge new releases. If you smash a game into pieces before a few people have tried it the creator of the game itself will not get some useful feedback for his/her future projects. Numbers (and unfortunately even big blue cups) don't speak for themselves.

Useful feedback: A crap game is a crap game, professional or amatuer, regardless of who made it. As a gamer, I'm not in the habit of playing crap games just so I can give feedback to a developer in the hope that the next one won't suck. I play games to be entertained, and if a game fails to do that, either from the outset or over time, then that game is not worth bothering with.

I'm tired of the amatuer/indie community as a whole feeling that just because a game was made by one person, or is free, that some sort of handicap should be used when reviewing such.

There are dozens of free/indie games that are excellent, made by people with obvious talent. But for every excellent game, there is vast quantities of toss. And as such it should be labelled as toss.

Harsh as that may seem...

I'm sure the panel could be all touchy-feely and rate everthing three cups, so as not to upset anybody. I don't think that would be very helpful.

Having said that, one man's gaming toss is another man's gaming gold, and as such the AGS panel rating is only one opinion. We don't have to agree with it.

[Pumaman]

Um bicilotti, who gave you the URL to that page? It shouldn't be made public yet, the panel still have to finish rating all the games and then review the ratings before we launch the site. Where did you get this link from?

[deadsuperhero]

Um bicilotti, who gave you the URL to that page? It shouldn't be made public yet, the panel still have to finish rating all the games and then review the ratings before we launch the site. Where did you get this link from?

Probably from typing random stuff after the domain name. I do stuff like that all the time, just to see what happens.

[bicilotti]

Useful feedback: A crap game is a crap game, professional or amatuer, regardless of who made it. As a gamer, I'm not in the habit of playing crap games just so I can give feedback to a developer in the hope that the next one won't suck. I play games to be entertained, and if a game fails to do that, either from the outset or over time, then that game is not worth bothering with.

Let's say I answer to your post with this:

"your post falls in the 3 cups category"

Maybe you prefer something like:

"I got you idea but I partially disagree with that.
Let's say a great storyteller or writer picks up AGS. He makes a game which is interesting and enjoyable, but puzzles are too easy. Now, someone of the rating panel sticks a "two cup" on it justa after it is released.
Results: the game creator gets very few feedbacks, feels frustrated, abandons the AGS community.

Now, if we let the new games float around like 2 or 3 weeks without putting a school-mark on them, some useful flow of information happens, the game creator recognize his/her fault and deliver the next time a great game (beg you pardon panel, a 5-cups game)".

I like indie game to be professional, which means with a lot of effort put in them. I don't like "professionalism", which stops men and women with lot of good ideas and skills from learning AGS and experimenting with it.

[Link to cup rating test page removed, it's not ready yet!]

Talking of feedback, the few people who visited the link gave you useful feedback, Scotch (like Radiant). Put it back, let the AGS get a taste of the improvements.

Um bicilotti, who gave you the URL to that page? It shouldn't be made public yet, the panel still have to finish rating all the games and then review the ratings before we launch the site. Where did you get this link from?

Messing around with google. Again, maybe it should be made public, just to let people see how the thing is growing.

P.S.: There is a filter for the cups (like "games with at least 3 cups" etc.) in the search screen, but not one for the user's vote (something like "games with at least 60%.." etc.).
Is that a feature that it is "work in progress" or do you plan to implement only the cup filter?

[scotch]

If it was at the stage where people felt it was ready for feedback it'd be posted.
I wonder how it got into google...

[buloght]

I went to the games page earlier today and saw the cups. But when I looked now it was gone. Some games had and others not.

[Pumaman]

Let me explain why I'm rather upset that you posted that link here.

Suppose that you'd been working on a game for a while, and it was now in the beta testing phase. You've given it to some beta testers, and you want to fix the bugs they find and add some more stuff before you release the game to the public.

But then one of your beta testers posts a link to the beta version on the forums. Everybody plays the beta version of the game, says "this is rubbish, it's got loads of bugs in it" and forms their opinions on your game based on that.

Would you be happy that the beta tester had posted the unfinished game without your permission, and that people were complaining about bugs that you knew were there and that you were planning to fix before releasing it to the public?

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I will say people have a right to disagree with the cup ratings.  I will also say that you have a right to disagree with ratings on any/all game sites, yet they still exist and some people find them quite useful.  If you don't think the rating is accurate it's your right to ignore it and continue to believe the game is as wonderful as you like.  The currently rated games were all rated based on criteria the entire judicial panel agreed to with a set of guidelines they follow for each and every game.  These guidelines do allow for a bit of personal preference like any rating system (fun/tilt/you name it from any review site) and as such you will undoubtedly find games that in your opinion don't stack up well against others.  The ratings system is a general method for further categorizing games and giving some idea about the quality the random visitor can expect, that's all.  Several of the games will/do have judicial feedback about why exactly the judge(s) felt the game deserved such a high/low rating.  This can be useful to fringe players but isn't something I'd expect ags regulars to pay a lot of attention to, as we all have our favorite game series and will like them regardless of what anyone says. 

My advice is to:

A)  Relax.  It's a rating system, not a condemnation of your efforts as an author.  If you don't like the rating you could do a few things:

     1.  Ignore it, because hey it's just our opinion based on some rules.  You can love the game all you want!

     2.  Contest it if you just can't live with having the rating.

     3.  Take a hard look at your game with the rose-colored glasses off and wonder if the rating might have a point.


B)  Take it for what it is, a rating system by a group of agsers who like to play games on the site.  These ratings aren't going to reflect everyone's tastes, and in fact no rating system will.  This is something you need to be realistic about.

C)  Take a moment to play a few of the games again that you think are rated poorly -- especially the ones with judge feedback.  Maybe you'll see at least some validity there.

D)  Be grateful to CJ and the rating team for the truly massive overhaul of the database, which includes:

      1.  Categorizing every game that can be rated so the authors don't need to (genre/type/etc).

      2.  Fixing an absolutely massive number of broken links and working to make every game in the database available for download, regardless of author activity.

      3.  Playing all these games and giving an honest, no-bullshit assessment of them.

      4.  Re-arranging the database to be quick and easy to search and without tons of broken games!



Seriously guys, relax.

[bicilotti]

Let me explain why I'm rather upset that you posted that link here.

Suppose that you'd been working on a game for a while, and it was now in the beta testing phase. You've given it to some beta testers, and you want to fix the bugs they find and add some more stuff before you release the game to the public.

But then one of your beta testers posts a link to the beta version on the forums. Everybody plays the beta version of the game, says "this is rubbish, it's got loads of bugs in it" and forms their opinions on your game based on that.

Would you be happy that the beta tester had posted the unfinished game without your permission, and that people were complaining about bugs that you knew were there and that you were planning to fix before releasing it to the public?

No, that is why i don't upload things on the public internet when i plan to keep them confidential. Don't get me wrong, I respect your will of secretness: if you don't want to post the link because you feel it's an alpha-version that's fine for me.

Just be more careful next time in choosing the appropriate restrictions

[m0ds]

LEAKAGE! This rating system was always dodgy business but I feel it's one for the best. And normally I'm the last person you want to talk to when it comes to changing old ways.

Every step in this industry is a challenge, and sometimes a line needs to be drawn. By including your game in the database you're instantly allowing it to be reviewed & rated by a greater audience anyway - the general public. Afterall you're not putting it there for the developers to see, are you? Otherwise what's the point in the Announcements forum? The AGS developers that want to see your work would (I assume) use that forum as a one-stop shop to what other developers are creating. Sure people will want to check the database for games they've missed or that are "old" to them & by the raters giving a little more accuracy to searches, they can find games right up their alley. But the datbase, in my eyes, is for us - the community. Your own websites, forums & datablogzeebases POP3 stuff is equally important in you being satisfied in the end with the way your game is recieved.

When you make games for yourself, and you don't put them online at all - then...well, I totally respect you. If someone like you actually exists then I envy you..for reasons I won't discuss! But when you toy with the general public then you have to be ready for anything. Internet exposure isn't easy & it's not going to come to you en-mass just because you've got an EXE with an animated cursor, something the majority of people probably still couldn't do. But progression is natural, and from that you can learn how to manipulate it to work in your favour. Okay, so this has nowt to do with the ratings system but I'd like it if people here simply weren't so insulted by a system that could be considered elitest. This is NOT just a generic adventure game online chatting function, it is geared strongly towards Chris' creation & those that get to grips with it in amazing ways. When people become disgusted that a panel needs to rate games to filter more cohernetly the games database, I simply believe it's because you're not willing enough to try & develop your skills & really earn something that means a LOT within the community.

Imagine if you had a 5 cup rating. The community would obviously respect you as the jesus christ game designer you are. Isn't that something to aspire to? No? Then you're probably looking for a more generic adventure game function like JustAdventure. So by putting your game in the database, you're already asking for it to be rated. And not by those that would probably end up respecting you most, and buy you drinks, but by a random majority of people you'll only ever know through email.

And by having a cup rating sytem you're instantly giving people the chance to find the best of the best. Are you aiming to make the best of the best or are you aiming to make a cusror on a screen because everyone else you know can't? The panelists are people who have an understanding of the engine, game development but importantly this community. The general public can cast a vote but you HAVE to accept that those on exactly the same wavelength have EVERY right to do the same thing. And by rating the games interally, that's what they're doing. But hey, Andail did even offer that chance to you - and on a monthly basis I still believe you have the opportunity to work on the panel.

I don't think its much to ask to just accept the way some things work in the AGS community. At the end of the day the heart of the community works as a group of friends, not as an anonymous set of general discusioners. And anyone is welcome to be a part of that, it just takes a positive approach rather than a "hey, let's leak this" attitude.

For those that actually see my point & see the database as only a tiny section of publicity for your work & don't feel judged by the hits & ratings - I applaud you! People who have taken the time to create a simple web-page for their game & generate exposure elsewhere are probably the people more interested in making games for themselves, rather than those people that just seem to want TEH GREAT EXPOSYOUR they think is generated from the database.

I remember hearing that Rob Blanc has a dismal 2 or 3 cups yet within the community it had a great status at one point. At the end of the day, by which I mean the very end of the current occuring moment, Rob Blanc is a pretty crap game considering what AGS 2.8 can now do. If Yahtzee went over that game added a few things here and there, and pushed the functionality of the game to suit what we'd expect NOW, it would probably boost the cup rating. Is this unfair? I don't think so. I think Yahtzee would agree his older games do, in many ways, seem old & undesirable compared to new games being released using AGS. BUT THAT'LL BE WHY YAHTZEE IS STILL MAKING GAMES 10 YEARS ON AND MAKING THEM BETTER EVERY TIME AND WINNING LOADS OF GODDAMN AWARDS! He didn't just come here to piss about. He came here to do what he enjoyed doing himself.

Your ratings will be honourable, even if you think the rating is crap.

Finally, I wasn't going to get angry with bicilotti but I want to reiterate some of the things CJ has said. Firstly, who are you? Sorry if I seem a little forward but yeah - who are you? I've never heard of you and I don't understand why you've been snooping around the AGS site for pages that possibly do or don't exist. Do you think it's wise to turn up here and cause some shit? So you created a hefty debate, was it such a great debate? You've er, upset CJ for a start. That's not a particularly clever thing to do. He's the one, if you forgot, that made the game engine. You'll find his details on Wikipedia.

I know I should probably be un-biassed and all "middle of the road" moderatey like (because people at AG Underground might think I'm being bolshy and never post here! ) but in this incident you've just been a bit of a prick & I'm quite happy to tell you that. Why should Chris be careful? You'll be surprised to know that he actually respects the people that come here & help inspire him to keep creating the engine for US. He doesn't expect people to be picking his forums & website apart for holes & causing a stir in the forums when the majority of people here haven't even heard of them. So instead of your arrogant "but maybe you should do this in the future CJ" reply you should apologise and explain to CJ, and myself, and the rest of us here - why you felt the need to go "behind the scenes" for yourself & then post a topic about it.

ps - I do know who you are now because of 4 of Clubs. But I do think you've been very unfair on CJ, the panel AND the community by exposing this. As CJ said if someone exposed your beta would you put up with a "yes but perhaps you should increase your security" response or would just want to throttle the guy? I've had stuff leaked & that man will still have his balls kicked repeatedly (eh Andrew ) when I come to meet him... So I can only imagine that CJ is royally pissed off with you interfering with something he was trying to perfect for your, and our, benefit.

[bicilotti]

Maybe my slippery english made me misunderstood, so let me reiterate a few things:

I am not a big fan of the cups system (orly???) because:

A) I think it will kill most of the comments on many games that needs them.
B) I think the guidelines the judges are required to follow (there was a .doc on a thread somwhere on this very forum but I don't really remember where) are quite dull.

The moderators have introduced the cup system to help the newcomers to find their path in the jungle of the AGS database. So my toughts are:

A) Put the panelist on hold in the firts week after the game release
B) Implement (maybe it's there already) a filter by user votes, not just a filter for cups rating.

I tought (and I still think) these two views can be merged without any problem (and, maybe and hopefully, without a lot of effort too).
Every rating system may be (and surely must be) criticized, but I am not a zealot who wants to kill every panelist and blue cup in this world.

***

you've just been a bit of a prick & I'm quite happy to tell you that

That hurts me.
I found the link by chance and unintentionally when I was working on the stats of the site were I've uploaded "4 of Clubs" (a little italian site regarding card playing, not much but hey, why not upload the ags game there so the users can download it faster?).
Clicked on it, found it interesting, decided that maybe someone on the forum would be interested too.

Reviewing my actions I surely find them questionable (why not check the homepage to see if the cups were really implemented or this was just a beta thing or simply PMing a mod after all), in the rush I missed these few easy and polite steps.

That lack of good manners (and sadly common sense I must admit) should not be mistaken for bad faith. I was not trying to hack the ags site, I am not a beta tester who leaked on purpose some secret information, I was not hiding or lurking "behind the scenes" in search of material to attack you and your work.
Words like "prick" "leakage" "interfering" "posted without our permission" are quite out of line: as soon I was pointed that the link was some alpha version I'd removed it myself.

Please do not paint me as a man who is plotting against your efforts because it is an unfair and appalling picture.

[GarageGothic]

While I do think the cup ratings are a good idea, I actually agree with bicilotti that there probably should be a week or two's embargo on rating games just after their release. If a section of "Recent additions" was added to the games list, the games would still be advertised even though they're unrated.

I also agree that the games list could use some more filters. What about, for instance, to have games rated first by number of cups, then by user rating. As I understood it, the ratings was one way of avoiding the alphabetic lists, so there's no reason why the sub-category lists should be alphabetic.

[Ali]

I'm sorry to have commented on a work in progress. I look forward to discussing this matter when the rating system has been fully implemented and reviewed.

[AGA]

There is a most-recently-added section on the games page already. Perhaps a boxout on the front page showing the most recent 5 or something would be more obvious though.

[LimpingFish]

A) Put the panelist on hold in the firts week after the game release

I actually agree with bicilotti that there probably should be a week or two's embargo on rating games just after their release.

I'm sorry, and I mean no offence, but where on earth do you find the logic in that suggestion?!

Isn't that what publishers pressure the games media to do when they know they have a stinker on their hands?

What would the point in protecting these games be? So people can blindly download them for a forthnight, with no idea of their quality?

Games are subject, and rightly so, to be reviewed as soon as they are released and a potential reviewer has had time to play them enough to form an opinion of their quality. Freeware, indie, or commercial.

If a developer doesn't want to have their game rated until fourteen days has passed, then don't release it. Use those fourteen days to find bugs, tighten up the scripting, proof-read the dialogue, etc.

Then release your five cup opus.

EDIT: I agree that a user rating filter would be a plus.

[Ghost]

I feel a need to step in here. I've had some contact with bic when I beta tested his game. If he says he's sorry, I believe he means it. When we talked a bit beyond 4of clubs I got the impression he's a young man with ambition who has many qualities most people who're up on their first game lack.
I will not step into the Cub Rating discussion, but for me, he saying sorry equals he means it. I've seen some arguments here, and I've seen people leaving because they were misunderstood or put off by long-time members. I'd very much like to see this case as one that doesn't end in some general grudge against a newcomer who made a mistake AND ADMITTED IT.

Ghost out.

[GarageGothic]

I'm sorry, and I mean no offence, but where on earth do you find the logic in that suggestion?! Isn't that what publishers pressure the games media to do when they know they have a stinker on their hands? What would the point in protecting these games be? So people can blindly download them for a forthnight, with no idea of their quality?

So that people can download them without prejudice for a fortnight. Imagine that Trevor Daison had received the two cups stamp just a couple of days after its release. How many people would have played it? Enough to gain it the excellent user rating it has now? Besides, when was the last time you downloaded a game "blindly"? I'm pretty sure that most of us look at the screenshots, read the plot description, scan the user feedback in the promotion thread. If your time is too valuable to download games without the official stamp of approval, just wait a week or two before getting it.

If a developer doesn't want to have their game rated until fourteen days has passed, then don't release it. Use those fourteen days to find bugs, tighten up the scripting, proof-read the dialogue, etc. Then release your five cup opus.

Or hey, maybe you release the game, get loads more user feedback than your beta testers were able to supply, and then release a much improved version 1.1 within a week. In a perfect world, every game would we bug free on release, but even with professional QA that's nigh impossible. How would the original release of The Infinity String have scored compared to the patched version that came out a few days later?

[MrColossal]

I'm not speaking for any committee but when a game comes out it's not like the people rating games are going to jump on it the second it comes out and rate it. When the backlog is rated I could imagine one week out of the month the ratings panel of the moment catches up and rates the outstanding games.

[LimpingFish]

I never said a game has to be perfect, or has to be rated, before it's ready for general consumption.

Again...

While I do think the cup ratings are a good idea, I actually agree with bicilotti that there probably should be a week or two's embargo on rating games just after their release.

Release it as a beta version in the GiP thread. Don't add it to the database. If it's not in the database it won't be rated.

If a game which contains fatal bugs is added to the database, then it's been added too early. What's the rush?

But to introduce some kind of waiting period, because you, as a developer, want feedback on the functionality of your custom GUI, or you want to tweak the the difficulty of a certain puzzle? That's what beta-testing is for.

Yes, some minor bugs might get through, but, if they are indeed minor, I'm sure the rating panel will make a judgement call, rather than condemn the game to a minor score.

In the case of a game receiving a major update after release, I'm sure it will be re-evaluated by the panel.

[Pumaman]

I don't have a problem with putting the game in a "New games" section for a couple of weeks after release. It would give new games more exposure and make website visitors who don't browse the forum more likely to spot the game.

Whether it should be rated within that period is another matter. As MrColossal says, I doubt the ratings panel are going to eagerly pounce on every new game and rate it within 24 hours of release, so this shouldn't be an issue.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

But to introduce some kind of waiting period, because you, as a developer, want feedback on the functionality of your custom GUI, or you want to tweak the the difficulty of a certain puzzle? That's what beta-testing is for.

I just wanted to butt in for a second and comment that it seems that's been happening a lot lately. The most notorious was Bananaman, which was released for free and then went commercial - with, apparently, only the smallest of changes, except for some bug-fixes. Other gamemakers have all but *said* that "this is a beta version, let me know of any problems so I can fix them".

There seems to be a common misconception - that just because you're in a community where you can get criticism, you can actually release your game before it's ready to be released and expect to be held by the hand and guided on the completion and polish of your own game. Which is something I just can't sympathize with. And thankfully I can speak on this matter, because I've made the same mistake once, and hope never to do it again.

Re reviewing new games... really, the panel for reviewing has been chosen, or will be chosen. People will get to know the panel's reviews and opinions. I'm sure people will trust that the panel has been chosen for its impartiality and for the kinds of opinions of shares, and how it shares them (i.e., careful wording or direct bashing/praising). I, for myself, trust that the people who have been chosen are capable of fair reviews.

And really, when you have that, who cares how long the game's been out? A day, a week or a year, if the reviewer's fair, it's all the same.

[Neil Dnuma]

Yeah, I'll join Ali and apologize for commenting on something not ready; I really didn't realize. I honestly thought a couple of the ratings were  questionable (as mentioned), but I guess this is not the time to attack these ratings. Let's just give the panel the time they need to work this out, and discuss later.

[Andail]

How about everyone just wait till it's done, and then we can have one big thread where everybody can comment on it.
It won't work if every Joe Smith starts a thread just to tell what he thinks about it; this is a forum for everybody, but not everyone can agree on everything.

bicilotti, I don't think you're a prick, but I think you come across as a bit loud-mouthed, considering that you've been here like half a year and barely posted outside your own game-thread. In the end, this is CJ's forum and it doesn't look pretty when a random newcomer is telling him what to do with it.

[m0ds]

I apologise for calling you a prick, but I'm still not impressed with what you did. And I'm fed up of being middle of the road over issues that affect other forum members personally, and in this case the AUTHOR. So I'm glad I seemed out of line, because it's on par with what you stirred up. You also seem to be avoiding apologising to Chris. If you haven't already then I'd suggest a quick PM.

Anyway. This system is under development, when it's ready & working, it can be fully discussed.

If anyone has any further questions about the rating system before it goes live then I suggest you address CJ or the panel personally.