Mentor Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 http://www.mmatycoon.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=34809&st=20 That brought up a suggestion. Why not have the option for org owners to rate their managers? I mean they can rate the org, so why not the other way round? 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verbalkint Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Not a fan of this, i think it's a bad idea... this is something the community has to regulate, not an anonymous biased system which gives shady org owners a tool to set managers under pressure. We need an open system "managed" in forum... like Dee does it with the id restriced org thread. Facs on the table, mail to the accused manager to give him the chance to explain himself, too. My post from the mentioned thread: http://www.mmatycoon.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=34809&#entry421590 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imfromhoiland Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 Not a fan of this, i think it's a bad idea... this is something the community has to regulate, not an anonymous biased system which gives shady org owners a tool to set managers under pressure. We need an open system "managed" in forum... like Dee does it with the id restriced org thread. Facs on the table, mail to the accused manager to give him the chance to explain himself, too. My post from the mentioned thread: http://www.mmatycoon...38;#entry421590 Agreed. Managers could be pressured into accepting fights they really shouldn't accept for fear of being downvoted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CusDamato Posted March 1, 2013 Report Share Posted March 1, 2013 This has been brought up a few times and always shot down because of the reasons above. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2013 Report Share Posted March 2, 2013 I still don't understand what the big fear is that managers have. There are only a few shady org owners out there and many, many shady managers. This is really needed. There is no reason to fear a downvote anyway. If you have one or two negative downvotes, you can easily explain yourself in a PM and any reasonable org owner will listen to what you have to say. If you have 10 downvotes, though, that is proof that it has been more than just one shady org owner. To quell some fears, I'd like to propose a very manager friendly version of this: 1. The org owner will have his name attached to all ratings, both positive and negative, that he gives. This way, if you have been downvoted by a guy with a 45% satisfaction org or a guy who simply has a bad rep, you will have ammunition to defend yourself. 2. It doesn't matter how many fighters you have signed to an org. The owner can only rate you once. 3. The first negative vote that you get will remain hidden. This means that one shady owner's bad vote will not be seen by anyone. 4. All negative votes will expire after six months, so if you were previously a jerk, but you turned it around, you can redeem your reputation. These rules would make it so that you would need to get downvoted by at least two owners within a six month period for any poor ratings to be publicly seen. It is very unlikely that you will get unfairly punished in this situation. Even if you do, you can defend yourself by showing exactly who it was that downvoted you. Any reasonable org owner will listen to what you have to say. Besides, one of the negative votes will expire shortly after and you will be back to a clean record. The only people who will really get punished are people who receive at least 4 or 5 downvotes within a 6 month period. You have to be a real asshole to accumulate that. It would mean that you are pissing off just about every org owner that you deal with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentor Posted March 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Put it this way. Orgs wont usually bad rate their own managers unless they are actually bad! Declining fights usually does that. If anything, this is 2 way. If a manager does not like his org, he is allowed to rate them low, so i do not see why org owners cannot do the same if they are not happy. How i see it. The main reason why an org owner would rate a manager poorly would be: #1 a poor attitude (this is a pretty rare case) #2 rejecting fights (especially without reason) If you are a manager which is trying to get his fighter a job, you would want to join an org which can offer him relatively good even levels of competition. So unless you joined an Org which cannot offer that, you would expect to fight most of the people in that division. In general, bad org owners dont survive very long anyway and most org owners offer (under normal cases) fights which are relatively even in p4p or skills (one of the 2 or both). Either way, you should talk to your employer before joining to know how he books fights and get to know what org you are joining. I still think rejecting a fight for whatever reason is unacceptable. Same with real life. The only exception would be if someone was feeding 18-20y old fighters against guys with well over 50,000 ID points higher on a regular basis. I am not sure that such cases even exist and if they do are VERY rare and well advertised on the forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Put it this way. Orgs wont usually bad rate their own managers unless they are actually bad! Declining fights usually does that. If anything, this is 2 way. If a manager does not like his org, he is allowed to rate them low, so i do not see why org owners cannot do the same if they are not happy. How i see it. The main reason why an org owner would rate a manager poorly would be: #1 a poor attitude (this is a pretty rare case) #2 rejecting fights (especially without reason) If you are a manager which is trying to get his fighter a job, you would want to join an org which can offer him relatively good even levels of competition. So unless you joined an Org which cannot offer that, you would expect to fight most of the people in that division. In general, bad org owners dont survive very long anyway and most org owners offer (under normal cases) fights which are relatively even in p4p or skills (one of the 2 or both). Either way, you should talk to your employer before joining to know how he books fights and get to know what org you are joining. I still think rejecting a fight for whatever reason is unacceptable. Same with real life. The only exception would be if someone was feeding 18-20y old fighters against guys with well over 50,000 ID points higher on a regular basis. I am not sure that such cases even exist and if they do are VERY rare and well advertised on the forums. I'm not quite as hardass as you about declining fights. Sometimes guys have a legit reason to decline. However, guys who do it all the time or don't give a reason are annoying to deal with. I completely agree with you that there would be very, very few org owners downvoting people. Why? Because if you downvote a manager, he is going to downvote your org. This means that you either need to release guys that you downvote to prevent them from ruining your org rating, or allow your org rating to be destroyed, thus preventing you from recruiting new fighters. Either way, your org will quickly go down the toilet unless you use the downvote very sparingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 How about we address the actual issue instead! Each manager has a 'decline history' link in which you can see every fight declined, the links to both fighters involved and the reason why declined. This gives no pressure or rating on the manager, allows org bosses to see the manager's history in terms of declines and make their own decision as to whether it was unreasonable or not and base their decisions on this. Yeah, I am pretty much a genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 This is highly needed. Been discussed plenty of times, needs to be implemented ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 How about we address the actual issue instead! Each manager has a 'decline history' link in which you can see every fight declined, the links to both fighters involved and the reason why declined. This gives no pressure or rating on the manager, allows org bosses to see the manager's history in terms of declines and make their own decision as to whether it was unreasonable or not and base their decisions on this. Yeah, I am pretty much a genius. This would create a monumental problem. Declining fights is only a secondary problem. A far bigger problem is managers simply not responding at all. The smart asshats know that this is a way to avoid a fight they don't like without resetting their inactivity clause. If we put in the ability of managers to see decline histories, there would be even more people simply not responding to offers and making it impossible to book cards. The only way to make it work would be to also have an "average time to respond to fight offers" statistic for managers as well. That would close that loophole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2013 Report Share Posted March 5, 2013 Then seize the initiative and add the next logical step to that... a list of 'declines' and a list of 'did not responds' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts