Conquer Club

Accused:

ijeffe


The accused are suspected of:

Other: Ratings abuse


Comments: Most of his ratings are all 1 stars for no reason..

iamkoolerthanu could you be a little more detailed about which rating is abuse. Saying most of his ratings are all one's might be true, but which one's are abuse. You filed the report. please give me about 5 that I can check that are abuse and I will move forward with this.

Oh, I'm sorry, this is my first thing filed in this section of the forum, didnt know exactly how it worked.. here they are:
Game 6584252 against battlemania, seems unwarranted
Game 6584114 against KING KONQUER, he did not seem to be complaining at all..
Game 6584114 against pinkflaminko, he doesnt seem clueless, he specifically told people that he hasnt played the game in a year and was a bit rusty
Game 6584246 against bernmeister, his strategy seems fine to me..
Game 6477340 against dyrtydog, didnt complain once, just stated some facts about the game
Game 6560399(as well as a few others) against donkeymile, his 'complaining' was followed by lmao's and lol's, and in 2 games actually said sorry about the way the game was turning out for ijeffe
Game 5862057 against Kaulus7, his strategy seemed to be fine..

I just skimmed through them, if you need more, let me know, I will search a little harder

Hows that?

Evil Semp wrote:iamkoolerthanu could you be a little more detailed about which rating is abuse. Saying most of his ratings are all one's might be true, but which one's are abuse. You filed the report. please give me about 5 that I can check that are abuse and I will move forward with this.

ES - Seeing this statement I wonder why you're handling this differently than what has previously been done. The mere fact that a player leaves a substantial amount of 1's (with or without tags) have been held to be a rating abuse without any further need to dig into it. Assumingly one could rebut this rating abuse presumption, but I have never seen it be done (juventino gave it a shoot with a decent explanation, but didn't do him much good).

An example (but there are many more):

there is enough there to warrant a Warning. if you look back through you will see the ratings given are either all 1's across the board with questionable tags or all 5's...

I'm not quite sure what scale your going by or how that thread didn't get put to rest Snowgun but as per the guidelines this is a ratings abuse infraction and caesarbaselius has received a Warning for it, which is the appropriate level of disciplinary action for this (this being his first offense for it)

KS

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=106692#p2408452

I believe that consistency as to what you mods have said in the past may be a good thing.

I'm getting very little response to this and I don't know why..

It takes a while to judge these Kooler. Low priority case.

The rating against donkeymile is all 1's. Donkey won 8 of 11 against ijeffe.

Ohkay

alstergren wrote:

there is enough there to warrant a Warning. if you look back through you will see the ratings given are either all 1's across the board with questionable tags or all 5's...

I'm not quite sure what scale your going by or how that thread didn't get put to rest Snowgun but as per the guidelines this is a ratings abuse infraction and caesarbaselius has received a Warning for it, which is the appropriate level of disciplinary action for this (this being his first offense for it)

KS

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=106692#p2408452

I believe that consistency as to what you mods have said in the past may be a good thing.

Someone has invoked my name!

I have a feeling that Ijeffe just rates people he doesn't like or has had a bad experience with. Unfortunately that is an abuse of the ratings system, as previously laid out by KS (which was quoted and linked by alster).

Snowgun wrote:Someone has invoked my name!

I have a feeling that Ijeffe just rates people he doesn't like or has had a bad experience with. Unfortunately that is an abuse of the ratings system, as previously laid out by KS (which was quoted and linked by alster).

LOL, sorry about that mate (just grabbed a thread randomly). But as noted, I feel the ES is leaning towards checking individual ratings rather than looking at the whole picture (which has previously been considered "ratings abuse"). I mean, if ES walks down this road, the mods are back at reviewing single-issue complaints which the star rating-system was supposed to get rid of. Not only is this a bad idea, it's also a complete shift in policy.

this is abuse and he has been Warned for it.. But for the record just becuase their is a majority of ratings that are low or high doesnt determine if it is abuse.. The ratings and tags that are left that can be viewed as completly inaccurate and spiteful determines that.

Warned.

KS