First | Prev || Next | Last
¿Question #3828?
CDRodeffer: Do the several extra 5.5 ratings in the Bayesian Average count as shills?

Svengaard: Huh?
Hendal: mo not at all
TiwazTyrsfist: No.
MisterCranky: I am reminded of the theme song from "Rocket Robin Hood." I am not sure why.
Cygnus2112: ok
vandemonium: Only if it has left its shell.
Lorsche: I've never played Bayesian Average. What do the rules say?
kallman1206: I dunno, I don't see it nessesarily a bad thing for the scores to be adjusted more towards the medium (I know I give higher marks for games than I probably should)
GrimJester: No, that's by design.
boldot: only as negative shills
bigmop: No
DHEK: Ummm... no... why would they be considered as such?
aleo09: maybe
Beyak: no
kimba: I dont know sorry
POvidiusNaso: Totally.
Brentoon: not imo
MaksimSmelchak: N/A.
HScottBuck: What?
nnf1: shilling who's shilling hang em I say
Drathorn: probabalistic maths is a pet hate of mine so i don't know
puffinge: nope
Culvan: I'll vote no.
Loquutus: booger
brainrob: No
mgoddard: I reject this question and would like to start.... ahh I got nothing.
scriptorum: Only the last 3.3 of them do.
djlg: No.
ValJor: No, they don't. They are just for statistical purposes.
skrutsch: no
Legend Dan: ??
CharlieWonka: No idea
jttm: Sure
chaddyboy_2000: Oh yeah.
sourwyrm: what?
Lord_Prussian: No
CortexBomb: No, they count as Bayesian equalizers
Spielfreak: hehe, no.
skelebone: Yeah, but neutral shills.
CDRodeffer: I think they do. So then, why isn't there a general outcry!?