no because then friends would just vote each other higher

if you dont like them dont sit at the same table simple

what a stupid idea

it's prone to abuse

[x] hell no
[ ] yes

Just for a discussion, I got an idea, how a slightly more usable rating system could look. Same principle like Blks version, BUT you would only see the sum of ratings posted to the player by people in your friends list. That way you would see how is the player rated by the people you trust (instead of a ballance of his allies vs. enemies).

I dont say we need such thing. It would probably encourage the development of "alliances" - closed groups of people who trust each other - which i guess is not what we want. Furthermore, the demands on database space (list of all rating donations received by the player) and computing power (counting the +/- sum individual to the viewing player) would be quite notable. So, the conlusion is, screw this :-).

Instead of rating system, i would quite welcome an implementation of personal blacklist. Blacklist would be your PRIVATE (invisible for any other player but you) list of players, who you found dishonest. If you sit on a table with a player, who is on your blacklist, you would see some symbol next to his av. That would help you to immediately recognize the people, who backstabbed you in the past (of course, you should just remember their names, but well, people forget quite quickly - especially me :-)). It's clear, that this would be 100% abuse-resistant.

I agree about all that friends, alliances stuff

so what about this idea:

in every game, you can vote + or - for every player (after a set amount of turns, so you can't do that just after the first round because you hate the nickname...)
and if you got, let's say, 2 more + than you got -, you'll get an overall + for this game, which counts as your rating. So it's not just a rating based on sympathy, but rather on how you act in games.

No we don't.

Not funny.