Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:51 am**

Accused: zackspack

The accused are suspected of: Rating Abuse

Game number(s):

Game 16952834
Game 17236555
Game 15950532
Game 17210968

Comments:
Honestly, got bored, looked at my ratings and remembered this as something I wanted to do.
Anywho, you can just look at the ratings this guy leaves, it's almost across the board 1 to no stars for most, I shouldn't even have to include any of the games here.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:29 am**

I think you have to provide s minimum of 5 ratings he left that you think are unjustified, not just your own

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:41 am**

I'm pretty most of those are unjustified.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:57 pm**

I looked at the games you linked, but it's not like you won them and he rated you poorly still. Giving out 1 stars etc isn't against the rules, and if he ignores rating people unless he thinks they play poorly even all 1 star ratings can be legitimate.

So what is it about him rating you 1 stars that makes it rating abuse?

You need to explain why it's abusice or underserved, and same with the 5 examples etc. you've shown a page of low ratings but how were those not justified?

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:16 pm**

I think you should ask for a different mod to look @ this, DDS. kinda looks like they're related or some shit.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:21 pm**

riskllama wrote:I think you should ask for a different mod to look @ this, DDS. kinda looks like they're related or some shit.

Haha I don't plan to be the one to review the C&A case. I'm sticking mostly with MH here, you'll find. But I'm just trying to raise some points that I know they are going to want / look for before making their ruling (whoever it maybe). As you see, I haven't tagged it w/ [IP] that I'm taking the case or anything.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:14 pm**

I shouldn't need to be in those games to begin with to see that this is an abuse of ratings. This was the same argument brought forth months ago when the private chat discussion was happening and people finding multi's only by searching other games. So are you telling me there are exceptions here or do I need to play against him 4 more times to justify my rating?

Here's the thing Ice, I don't honestly care about my rating, I hate douche bags though, and this guy is a douche bag. You're more than welcome to check the previous feedback system where I invited people to give me negatives for giggles. I just want people to identify what is and isn't acceptable. If he's going to rate everyone that he plays with 1 to 0 stars because he doesn't agree with how they played the game to their best ability, then why even have a rating system?

Point is, I shouldn't have to be in any of the other games with him to know that he's simply abusing a system when players are not even doing anything. Mine set's a perfect example because I'm a "complainer" for saying one thing, and that I'm "clueless" for attempting a game winning turn. Either identify the problem with the rating system, or identify the problem with the player.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:17 pm**

I'm not saying you have to be in 5 games vs him.

I'm saying you need to show 5 cases where he rated someone (anyone) poorly where that player did not deserve a low rating and justify / explain why.

Not just:
Here are 25 times he rated people low.

That doesn't prove he rated them low without justification or with abuse.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:26 pm**

I can't do that with "clueless" and "poor strategy".

That's asking me to repaint the Mona Lisa stroke by stroke. I'd have better luck picking up fly shit with boxing gloves.

Both terms are incredibly broad.
What you may think is the greatest idea in the world, could be the dumbest thing I've ever witnessed. It's like listening to Kayne West.
Poor strategy fit's the same damn bill as clueless, but at least it's somewhat narrower.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:28 pm**

If that's the case, then I'll leave a 1 star rating for everyone I play against for clueless and poor strategy. How dare they not follow my tactical whims.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:38 pm**

DirtyDishSoap wrote:If that's the case, then I'll leave a 1 star rating for everyone I play against for clueless and poor strategy. How dare they not follow my tactical whims.

There's a big difference between rating everyone 1 star, and only rating people 1 stars.

Rating every single person you play 1 star you clearly are abusing it and whether they are good are not, are rating them 1 star. Someone might defeat you every time and still rate 1 star.

Rating only 1 stars, is different. There's no rule that says you must rate the good people along with the bad. So if someone only rates people poorly when he feels they have poor play, there's no rule that says you have to balance those ratings with equal amounts of 5 stars.

That's why if you feel you were rated 1 star wrongly, and feel that the user does so on a abusive level, you need to point to a handful of examples and give explanations for why you think they were not deserved or they were abusive. (Example, guy said nothing in chat, beat player A, yet gets rated as poor strategy or complainer or something even tho he said nothing and got beat).

Then once you have those examples, they'll take a look to see if he is indeed abusing it. Saying "I think most of these are unjustified" based on no justification is just as subjective as his ratings.

Posted: **Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:26 pm**

IcePack wrote:I looked at the games you linked, but it's not like you won them and he rated you poorly still. Giving out 1 stars etc isn't against the rules, and if he ignores rating people unless he thinks they play poorly even all 1 star ratings can be legitimate.

So what is it about him rating you 1 stars that makes it rating abuse?

You need to explain why it's abusice or underserved, and same with the 5 examples etc. you've shown a page of low ratings but how were those not justified?

probably one of the dumbest fucking responses i have ever seen....let KA, or someone else look at this. is this guy even a c and a mod? never heard of him.

Posted: **Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:53 am**

- Gotta say, this dude Zackspack leaving ratings like this and reading the people's responses to his ratings looks very suspect that his mother in law lives with him? Seems from a lot of those responses to his ratings that the majority are being rated unfair.

Posted: **Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:29 am**

That is how you should do it DirtyDishSoap

show

For example in the case above he gave one star several times to people that beat him.
You can also find example of people that were tagged deadbeater/quitter while they didn't deadbeat a game.

You take 5 examples ( it is better if the accused only played once against the guy, because otherwise the rating could come from another game, if the accused played 2 or more against one guy then you should check everygame so it can be quite tedious, because if in only one game the opponent was a douche bag then the rating is deserved).

And yeah, you have to do the job, because C&A mods are volunteer and they can't be checking hundreds of chat and gameplay of past games of the accused every time someone is accused of ratings abuse.
So find at least 5 solid example of ratings abuse, put the game link and player name, those 5 will be checked by the mods and then if you are right he'll be warned.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:00 am**

DirtyDishSoap wrote:Both terms are incredibly broad.
What you may think is the greatest idea in the world, could be the dumbest thing I've ever witnessed.
Poor strategy fit's the same damn bill as clueless, but at least it's somewhat narrower.

Just quoting myself since people are skimming past this.

Once again, the guy is leaving poor ratings for people who don't fit to his playstyle or his way of thinking. What I'm saying is that "Poor Strategy" & "Clueless" is just as bad. I could critique more of the reasons for bad terms/feedback to give to someone, but for now, let's just focus on these two alone.

Game 17278896
I'll use this for an example right now, maybe to give everyone here a clearer picture. Hopefully no one will take a turn in the next 24 hours otherwise the argument will be muddled. Edit: Assume orange didn't have 32 in SA and had 10 instead. He took his turn.

Let's say instead of me having two cards, I now have five and it's my turn. I think a pretty good move would be me trying to eliminate orange and taking his cards, and then blue and then teal, so on and so forth. I take my turn but I get incredibly horrible dice, and instead, possibly have cost me the game for attempting a game winning or at least, securing an incredibly large lead. It's escalating, stuff like that happens all the time.

So now I have a butt hurt player who thinks that what I attempted is poor strategy to him, because he didn't like what I attempted, or it didn't fit with his meta, so he gives me a negative feedback of clueless and poor strategy (and complainer). Nevermind the fact that he was eliminated in the game, not by me, but by someone else, or the fact that for a good chunk of the game, we were trading territories for cards.

Long story short. I don't understand why we have a feedback system that includes "Poor Strategy" or "Clueless".
Again, to beat an already dead horse, is that what may have looked like a great idea to me (which ended up badly), was a bad idea to him. Maybe it looked like a great idea to someone else, maybe someone else assumed I should have erred on the side of caution. I don't know what people think, but I rather identify a problem with either the feedback system, which to me, is in a poor state to begin with, or identify the problem with the player leaving these feedbacks because he "doesn't like how you're playing".

So no, I won't take the time out of my day to find five different games where I sit and reconstruct them piece by piece, to find and justify what is great strategy and to make the player on the receiving end of that feedback look not clueless.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:15 am**

In any event, if this doesnt get resolved with the player in question, I'll simply take the argument to a different sub section where I'll be told that it's too hard to code a feedback system.

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:08 am**

DirtyDishSoap wrote:
DirtyDishSoap wrote:Both terms are incredibly broad.
What you may think is the greatest idea in the world, could be the dumbest thing I've ever witnessed.
Poor strategy fit's the same damn bill as clueless, but at least it's somewhat narrower.

Just quoting myself since people are skimming past this.

Once again, the guy is leaving poor ratings for people who don't fit to his playstyle or his way of thinking. What I'm saying is that "Poor Strategy" & "Clueless" is just as bad. I could critique more of the reasons for bad terms/feedback to give to someone, but for now, let's just focus on these two alone.

Game 17278896
I'll use this for an example right now, maybe to give everyone here a clearer picture. Hopefully no one will take a turn in the next 24 hours otherwise the argument will be muddled. Edit: Assume orange didn't have 32 in SA and had 10 instead. He took his turn.

Let's say instead of me having two cards, I now have five and it's my turn. I think a pretty good move would be me trying to eliminate orange and taking his cards, and then blue and then teal, so on and so forth. I take my turn but I get incredibly horrible dice, and instead, possibly have cost me the game for attempting a game winning or at least, securing an incredibly large lead. It's escalating, stuff like that happens all the time.

So now I have a butt hurt player who thinks that what I attempted is poor strategy to him, because he didn't like what I attempted, or it didn't fit with his meta, so he gives me a negative feedback of clueless and poor strategy (and complainer). Nevermind the fact that he was eliminated in the game, not by me, but by someone else, or the fact that for a good chunk of the game, we were trading territories for cards.

Long story short. I don't understand why we have a feedback system that includes "Poor Strategy" or "Clueless".
Again, to beat an already dead horse, is that what may have looked like a great idea to me (which ended up badly), was a bad idea to him. Maybe it looked like a great idea to someone else, maybe someone else assumed I should have erred on the side of caution. I don't know what people think, but I rather identify a problem with either the feedback system, which to me, is in a poor state to begin with, or identify the problem with the player leaving these feedbacks because he "doesn't like how you're playing".

So no, I won't take the time out of my day to find five different games where I sit and reconstruct them piece by piece, to find and justify what is great strategy and to make the player on the receiving end of that feedback look not clueless.

Well, you totally skimmed my post as well.

It is not about you explaining what is good or bad strategy.

For example : accused rated someone secret diplomacy in a 1v1 game. accused rated someone deadbeater while he didn't.

Or, and it work as well, accused systematically rated people 1 in gameplay and strategy while he lost the game.

Got it ?

In the example I quoted in my previous post, never is someone trying to explain what is bad or good strategy.
So you don't have to do it either.

You are making accusation that this player is abusing the rating system, you need to build your case.
Now if you don't want this case to be taken care of, then don't do anything.

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:20 am**

I didn't skim past it. I'm asking you how you want me to prove something that what is essentially to you is great strategy where to me it would look stupid, or vice versa. I would have to reconstruct five different games, turn for turn, and to try and prove what MIGHT be great strategy or to give you a clear picture as to why most of the turns of the player receiving the feedback made reasonable decisions. For you. Not for me or the community at large, but for you. Are you following yet? Proving things in chat is one thing, that's hunky dory, but you're asking me to prove it in game, and the only way to do that, is what I basically said earlier. Again, before you respond to that, what you may think is a great idea, would look different in the eyes of others.
So I'm not sure why you're deflecting it.

I want you to look at the majority of his ratings left, is it that hard to do? I even gave you a screen shot of the first page, but I guess we'll skim that too, so I'll break it down barney style.

Across the board it includes poor strategy. Half of which is clueless, the other half can still be justified, like irrational or vindictive or suicidal. I could rate new players clueless and probably get away with it. Or players who are new to a certain map or settings and give them clueless and get away with it. I could rate everyone that I play against with poor strategy because I think they're playing stupidly and I'm the CC version of Jesus, my strategy is law. Are you seeing where I'm going with this yet?
So exactly what do you want me to do? Focus on the terms that aren't vague and see if those players really were or were not suicidal/irrational/vindictive? I can't prove clueless. If you think you can, I welcome you to try. Or would you like me to go to every page, reconstruct those five games and try and prove peoples different strategies? Again for the final time, I'm asking you, a community leader, to see if there is a legitimate problem with either the player leaving the feedback, (you have a picture it isn't hard to look at), or see if there is a legitimate problem with the feedback system.

Or I could just do nothing, as you said. Either way, I don't care.

Edit: I actually want to break it down for you even further. Let's say I don't have an issue with the feedback system.

Here are the three categories for rating people.
FairPlay Gameplay Attitude.

Can you tell me how poor strategy fits into attitude? How about fairplay? Gameplay, sure, it fits, but what about the others? Do you think the player in question rated everyone fairly based on these three categories?

How about clueless? How does that fit into fairplay and gameplay and attitude? Can you make a reasonable argument that he rated everyone fairly based off that? Hell, can he make a reasonable argument to justify his rating habits?

Did he play against people that have room temp IQs and thus the rating was justified, or did he play against competent players that he just didn't agree with? Just look at the screen shot and tell me that every player on there deserves 1 to 0 stars across the board. I mean all of them, every single one of them. If you can tell me that 0-1 stars for poor strategy factors into attitude, or if clueless fits into, honestly, any of these three categories, I'll concede. I truly don't think half or even 3/4ths of the players on that screen shot deserve a 0-1 rating simply because this doucher didn't agree with their playstyle.

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:40 am**

ronc8649 wrote:
IcePack wrote:I looked at the games you linked, but it's not like you won them and he rated you poorly still. Giving out 1 stars etc isn't against the rules, and if he ignores rating people unless he thinks they play poorly even all 1 star ratings can be legitimate.

So what is it about him rating you 1 stars that makes it rating abuse?

You need to explain why it's abusice or underserved, and same with the 5 examples etc. you've shown a page of low ratings but how were those not justified?

probably one of the dumbest fucking responses i have ever seen....let KA, or someone else look at this. is this guy even a c and a mod? never heard of him.

hang on there, buddy... let's not jump to conclusions!! after all, Mrwdk has not weighed in yet...-Jésus noir

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:41 pm**

I will consider this as a duplicate report from the same case you filed about him last March 12. He has not given any new ratings since the 25th of February and I would like to see any new questionable ratings he has given since then.

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:04 pm**

My mistake, I had forgotten I had made the case earlier

Posted: **Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:12 am**

DirtyDishSoap wrote:Comments:
Honestly, got bored, looked at my ratings and remembered this as something I wanted to do.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:My mistake, I had forgotten I had made the case earlier

Funny man, brain kinda like no work.

- Mamiko [^._.^]ﾉ彡

Conquer Club

zackspack Ratings Abuse [ka]

zackspack Ratings Abuse [ka]

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse [ka]

Re: zackspack Ratings Abuse [ka]