retrocrush and his ratings [Warned]

[king sam]

From your examples:
ronc8649: he calls me a sore loser. but yet i beat him.

you lost in the terminator game (Game 3347505) and you weren't graceful in the loss either, which gives him probable cause to rate you with that tag or maybe he is rating you that way because of something that happened in Game 2873134, point being that he may have experienced something with you in those 2 games that you played with him in that you didn't win that lead him to rate you as a sore loser. We don't question the intent behind a rating if a door is open that can leave a possibility as to why someone would rate that way. In this example their were some heated words in chat and you had 2 games you didn't win against him. Had you won all 6 and he rated you as a sore loser this would be abuse seeing as you would have won every game against him and you couldn't be labeled as a "loser" of the game

esco99: he calls him a deadbeat, he only missed 1 turn.

his tag of deadbeat here is inaccurate.

jotheconqueror: he calls him a sore loser, but joe owns him in 4/6 games.

same as what was said about the rating of rons. There are 2 games that were not won by joetheconqueror and in Game 6156554 & Game 5275538 joe complained about the dice. Obviously complaining about the dice is something almost everyone does and it would be pretty crappy to rate someone as a sore loser from it like this, but it leaves the door of opportunity open for him to think/feel like this.

mallen152427: he calls him a deadbeat, he missed 2 turns...still not a deadbeat.

his tag of deadbeat here is inaccurate.

durantz: he calls him a quitter, but yet he was able to beat retrocrush.

once again you have to take all games played in to context. Check Game 6176054 to see the explanation as to why he has rated him this way. We do not moderate or take sides on why a person may feel a rating is deserved if their is a way that the rating could be justified. Their is a way that it could be justified in this example as well.

kingburger: he calls him a sore loser, and poor strategy, but yet kb won a few games against him.

retrocrush has won 3 out of 5 games against kingburger, and all his tags can be justified in all the games, check the 3 that retro won Game 5068867, Game 5235977, & Game 5615523 and you can see why he tagged him with sore loser & poor strategy.

retro uses inaccurate tags when it comes to the tag "deadbeat". he did it for the 2 above as well as:
slyon8tor
asgbawler
Crooper
assassin07
Thomas J.
420
cue_daddy06
jimboy
General Perron
IvoryCoast Ninja
Wingly
rdonatelli
rubntug (tagged with "teammate killer" & never played teams)
Ugly_Moose (tagged with "Clueless" & "Poor Strategy" but won all 4 games against retro)

going through the ratings you will also see some that are tagged completely opposite, like nikola_milicki tagged with complainer, sore loser. quitter but rated 5's in fair play & game play. In 2 of the games played nikola_milicki did extremely well and won against retrocrush and in the 3rd game he complained about dice and everything else. The rating is an overall experience that was witnessed from playing with this individual. You will also see a couple others in the history that do this like tagged with quick and slow. Some of the games played retro thought the user was quick with their turns, others he thought they were slow. That is not abuse as long as the rating has plausibility to be justified.

While 4 out of the 6 that you provided as evidence were not abuse further investigation on ratings given shows that he is abusing the system with inaccurate tags. Most of them being the "deadbeat" tag. A Warning has been sent out on regards to this infraction.

Closed.

KS

[ronsizzle]

i hear ya king sam. but you and i both know that you rate someone due to the previous game. and this player didnt research games dating back to the 2's...

and sometimes i will rate people with funny tags. people in my clan will have all kinds of crazy ratings. but they know it is coming. we have also played 100's of games together, and they can be trustworthy, backstabbing, quiet, and talkative....does that make sense?

[Snowgun]

Just want to throw this out here, regarding deadbeat tags....

If you are winning a game, and you have maybe 1-2 turns left before you finish the guy, and the guy just stops playing....Thats fucking deadbeating in my opinion, even if i kill them before they can miss all three turns..

just because I spent the time between his deadbeats to kill him off, and therefore finished the game before he could deadbeat the FULL 3 TIMES doesn't make him less of a deadbeat.

I think for future reference, the deatbeat tag should be ok if less than 3 turns were missed at the end of a game.

I think you would find that 70% of deadbeating happens at the end of the game but is cut short of 3 misses due to the other person using the time to finish them off.

[jefjef]

Just want to throw this out here, regarding deadbeat tags....

If you are winning a game, and you have maybe 1-2 turns left before you finish the guy, and the guy just stops playing....Thats fucking deadbeating in my opinion, even if i kill them before they can miss all three turns..

just because I spent the time between his deadbeats to kill him off, and therefore finished the game before he could deadbeat the FULL 3 TIMES doesn't make him less of a deadbeat.

I think for future reference, the deatbeat tag should be ok if less than 3 turns were missed at the end of a game.

I think you would find that 70% of deadbeating happens at the end of the game but is cut short of 3 misses due to the other person using the time to finish them off.

Well QUITTER would be a good tag and so would CHEAP TACTIC and RUDE. WOuld be nice to have a missed turns tag.

[rutherfoo]

I think for future reference, the deatbeat tag should be ok if less than 3 turns were missed at the end of a game.

I think you would find that 70% of deadbeating happens at the end of the game but is cut short of 3 misses due to the other person using the time to finish them off.

I completely agree with this.

[king sam]

I think for future reference, the deatbeat tag should be ok if less than 3 turns were missed at the end of a game.

I think you would find that 70% of deadbeating happens at the end of the game but is cut short of 3 misses due to the other person using the time to finish them off.

I completely agree with this.

Submit a claim in suggs & buggs that for all accounting purposes the deadbeat definition should be refined to include this sort of thing. See if it is taken in, if it is then that situation will from now on be that, if not then deadbeat stays as a player that has missed 3 consecutive turns and was kicked from the game.

You cant go changing definitions or rules mid game. Right now the term stands as is and the deadbeat tag should only be used for players that were kicked from the game for missing 3 consecutive turns.

There is a ton of other tags to use for someone missing turns:

slow (taking a lot of time to take his turn)
rude (being inconsiderate of others with all the missed turns)
coward (maybe not taking turns as a tactic that warrants this tag or a bad sport)
clueless (messed up the whole game with this behavior and is thus clueless)
quitter (stopped playing the game for whatever reason)
cheap tactics (could be trying the deffer ed troops tactic which could be considered cheap)
poor strategy (obviously goes without saying)
teammate killer (if its a teams game the missed turns could hurt the partners)

KS

[Snowgun]

Submit a claim in suggs & buggs

KS

Come on, no one actually pays any attention to suggs and bugs....it's a sucker bet.

Yea, I didn't wanna change the rules mid game, but I thought it was important to consider. Plus, the title of deadbeat is more accurate in peoples minds when someone misses the end of a game rather than quitter. I'd be surprised if people have ever even used that tag.

[king sam]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=108396

[retrocrush]

I've given some bad ratings, no mystery there, and I'm not questioning my warning.

It's silly, however, to punish for subjective interpretations of words that we click. If someone misses 2 turns, to me, they are a deadbeat. They didn't quit so the quitter tag is irrelevant. What's the best tag to choose? And why have a "quitter" and "deadbeat" tag, anyway? If you can only give "deadbeat" to someone who misses out, then why is the "quitter" tag even there? And what about someone who misses the last 2 turns in an escalating game and screws it up for everyone waiting their turn?

Also, the ratings get stale for a particular player. In my accuser's complaint, I had clicked him as a sore loser for a game that we played a long time ago. I had put him on my foe list and forgot about him. Seems that the foe list should keep you from playing the other player, not just the other way around. If I play him again and don't want to change my original rating, the comments from before stay there unless I uncheck them. Unfortunately, you aren't rating just that game, but just the player.

The entire ratings system is jacked up anyway. Most everyone either doesn't rate, or they rate the extremes of 5s and 1s. I'm sure if you did a sample of all ratings, you'd see that more than half of ratings given by players fall within those 2. I believe people see folks with bad ratings (like me) in the low 4s or high 3s and think of them as awful players, so they think giving a 3 or 4 is bad and just lowers their perfect rating of 5 that most people start with.

If CC is going to be hardcore with the "deadbeat" definition, then the system should be enhanced to actually have a number next to a player to show the amount of games they were a "3 turns then kicked out" player. Why leave it to us to flag that?

[serialkiller74]

the rating thing is just a huge pile of bullshit anyway that should be taking out the game!

cant beleive you peoples still arguing about this!!

to funny how people have nothing to do with there lifes!!!