Tweet
Rasputin, if you see an argument you want to jump into it, no matter if you should or should not. For the sake of keeping this argument clean, your rating is not part of the dispute here, so don't throw fuel on the fire.
Ottoman, I've looked at your attitude ratings, there's nothing wrong with it.
One civ gave you an '1', but this civ also gave to a number of others 1's and 2's (and 5's and 6's.)
You did also get 5's and a 6 from other civs. It's just that in the end your rating was slightly the lowest. (3.93, which almost equals to '4', which is avg)
We can't debate the reasons for how people rate till the end. Everyone has it's reasons, and reasons may be good, some may be bad. We'll never solve that. The idea is that in the end it should work out.
Perhaps we should therefore reconsider our vote to award points per month instead of per year. Maybe we should indeed after all look at the avg over the entire game, and not per month.
I'm sorry, I don't know the answer.
Ottoman, I've looked at your attitude ratings, there's nothing wrong with it.
One civ gave you an '1', but this civ also gave to a number of others 1's and 2's (and 5's and 6's.)
You did also get 5's and a 6 from other civs. It's just that in the end your rating was slightly the lowest. (3.93, which almost equals to '4', which is avg)
We can't debate the reasons for how people rate till the end. Everyone has it's reasons, and reasons may be good, some may be bad. We'll never solve that. The idea is that in the end it should work out.
Perhaps we should therefore reconsider our vote to award points per month instead of per year. Maybe we should indeed after all look at the avg over the entire game, and not per month.
I'm sorry, I don't know the answer.
Comment