by ustus on Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:30 am
I actually find myself feeling a bit lucky with the numbers on one of my lowest ratings, at this point. I received a 5 star in fair play, and only one in each of the others for game number 6180686. I'm currently checking this to make sure, but I foe'd him during the only game I've played with him because I was sick of reading his comments accusing me of various things during the game, and I think he's the only person I've ever foe'd. I also recieved tags of "Talkative, rude, complainer, and paranoid". I'm trying to remember the game chat, because I cannot see his words (he's foe'd, it happens...). There we go... yes, he's the only person I've ever become frustrated enough with to foe, and I have received a couple of other low ratings - for games I did play poorly in. I won this game, and still received a one star rating in both gameplay and attitude. And I did not accuse him of anything during the game, merely refused to be the one to eliminate him. I'm reading through the chat as I type this, excuse the narrative. He actually, in chat, refused to attack anyone else until I eliminated him. My encounter with him began because I chose to build up troops instead of attacking full out in the very beginning of the game, which turned out to be a good decision. I do not see any indications of paranoia, but I did talk quite a bit, offered him a couple of suggestions that I earnestly thought would help him, and defended my reasons for using a lot of my own strategies in the game, which I have not been forced to do in other games. I guess it could be construed as complaining that I gave him realistic and reasonable arguments for attacking someone other than me, and I guess foeing him because he refused to attack anyone else because he wanted me to kill him off when I had no borders with half of his territories could be construed as complaining. I will agree that I was talkative. I usually try to be, I've had some enjoyable conversations over games of Conquer Club, as I have over games of Risk, which is one of the reasons I sought this site out in the first place. I find it difficult to make sense of the paranioa charge, and I don't see how I won the game with as bad of gameplay as he claims I have, and no one else seems to have thought anything of me foeing him. I'm not sure if this is excelent proof, but I only have two or three other ratings this low, and it does bug me how much this brings down my averages when I don't feel it was deserved.
Pork - I do feel that it is necessary that any accuser provide evidence in any accusation. I support what you're doing, but I do have to say that I think it is a reasonable request. In addition, I wouldn't want to sort through five pages of ratings and decide solely from game chat and victories which were deserved and which were not. I think if you want this to go through, you should provide at least one game you had no part in that you can demonstrate poor use of ratings. Or at the very least, describe in detail why you didn't deserve the ratings he gave you. This way, it's easier for the mods to tell you you're right. I think that makes sense, is why I say it. Good luck, I probably won't be on much over the next month and a half, as I have not been over the past month and a half. Got a full-time job and CC is still blocked during my lunch break... so I probably won't see the results of this unless I have another Saturday morning free.