Conquer Club

Accused: apb23

The accused is suspected of:
Rating abuse
Other: The player have abused the rating system by giving very generous ratings.


Game number(s): Game 4648599
Comments to this game:
The only spoken chat by this player in 2 games are:
f*ck you and you lucky ass rolls - did you lose any?? - xi - i am in xi ffs
and he is given a 5-5-5 rating
Game 4191437
Comments: In this game the player gets a 5-5-5 rating after no communication.
Game 4561375
Gives the player a 5-4-5 rating after no communication from the other player.
Game 4351577
Gives the player a 5-5-5 rating after no communication from the other player.


Comments:
The accused has a rating avarage high above 3. Only gives out 5's and sometimes some 4's.
6 times out of 126 is below 3. I am aware this seems vindictive but i am interested in seeing how the rating system should be seen.

Well, dont look at mine

Its obviously silly, but at the same time, Id much rather see them spend their time nailing the ones sending out 1's all the time... the 5's dont do a lot of harm really. Its nice to know we have a guy with a 3 sending out 5's to counteract the 1's...lol

apb23: rt?
2009-04-10 08:36:12 - Darthvadar: f*ck you and you lucky ass rolls
2009-04-10 08:36:32 - Darthvadar: did you lose any??
2009-04-10 08:36:42 - apb23: a coupl
2009-04-10 08:36:45 - apb23: i got very lucky
2009-04-10 08:36:48 - apb23: unfair 4 u
2009-04-10 08:37:11 - Darthvadar: xi
2009-04-10 08:40:18 - Darthvadar: i am in xi ffs
2009-04-10 08:41:26 - apb23: gg...sry about the dice

I actually think I like the guy...he lets that all slide by without biting, and even throws in the 5 ratings.. I say keep spreading the love...Vader has made enough of a name for himself at this point anyways...

AAFitz wrote:Well, dont look at mine

I know Fitz.. You are to nice too.. But it is no crime =) I only want to see how i should rate from now on..

Wow...this is how you respond to your report...really respectable, eh?

Besides...just because you do not communicate with someone does not mean they do not have a great attitude. If someone gets horrible rolls and does not complain, but still nothing is said, they are being a great sport, hence deserving fives.

apb23 wrote:Wow...this is how you respond to your report...really respectable, eh?

I am just curious to see how we are supposed to rate people in here... It cant be the way it was intended to give out 4.8 in ratings..

and i said it myself... It might seem vindictive but the other one i know giving out 5's is too nice to be reported...

Obviously you haven't looked at all of my ratings tho...for example, against Pixar, I played him and beat him. He had great strategy and played fairly, so I gave him 5s for that, but he complained like crazy, so I gave him a 1 for attitude. You don't automatically rate someone 1s for attitude simply b/c they beat u.

apb23 wrote:Obviously you haven't looked at all of my ratings tho...for example, against Pixar, I played him and beat him. He had great strategy and played fairly, so I gave him 5s for that, but he complained like crazy, so I gave him a 1 for attitude. You don't automatically rate someone 1s for attitude simply b/c they beat u.

I have never given out just plain ratings. Every single one has a thought behind even if i cant remember them when time goes by. Goos you do it too but i am just eager to see how we are supposed to rate.

I think you give out fair to good ratings. Lets see if that is ok.

Ok...but listen...when I put up that thread, I just thought that you at points gave out harsh ratings...there was nothing personal...as you are a very respectable player.

apb23 wrote:Ok...but listen...when I put up that thread, I just thought that you at points gave out harsh ratings...there was nothing personal...as you are a very respectable player.

I dont mind. A warning is a warning and the punishment for further abuse is that one cannto rate anymore.. Not the worst punishment in the world.

I jsut want to see. I have an almost 3.0 avarage in my rating. That was abusing. I want to see if it is abuse to give out only 5's. I will then change my way of rating, indivually based in order to see every case by its own, to what ever fits.

You do not have to give all 5s, just simply have a solid reason for giving that rating. Like for my rating, why did I get a 3 and 2 1s when I played very well, beat you in 4 rounds, played rt even tho it was not brought up (game took 13 minutes), said gl, and took no double turns or anything that you could consider unfair.

apb23 wrote:You do not have to give all 5s, just simply have a solid reason for giving that rating. Like for my rating, why did I get a 3 and 2 1s when I played very well, beat you in 4 rounds, played rt even tho it was not brought up (game took 13 minutes), said gl, and took no double turns or anything that you could consider unfair.

That is besides the point here. But i will see how this ruling will be. i set a 1 rating for people with clickble maps on gameplay because i think it becomes a very boring game. I usually set a 1 rating if the player waits 4 min to start the turn after a rt is agreed.

I am just interested to see if it is ok to set all 5's after a "normal" quite game. People usually set high ratings in order not to get bad ones back. That is an abuse of the system. I try and set normal ratings.

Well, if rating with 5s is an abuse of the system, I declare myself guilty...

They way I see it, most players have an above 4 average, wich means, most of our ratings have been 5s, and only a few lower, wich means, most players would be abusing the system...

When I rate someone, I ussually give them 5s, even if there was no comunication, I only give lower ratings if the person is rude, a complainer or if I suspect foul play...

Honestly, if I see someone with an average below 4, I try to avoid playing against them, cause I foresee not having a good time playing them, for wichever reason they got that average...

And I'm quite curious, how do the clickable maps affect the gameplay? I just started using them, because I don't think It will make any difference, but if you can tell me how that affects the gameplay, I might stop using them in order to keep things fun and clean...

xoxo

Tezu wrote:Honestly, if I see someone with an average below 4, I try to avoid playing against them, cause I foresee not having a good time playing them, for wichever reason they got that average...

I would suggest you raise that to anyone with a 4.4 or lower...which of course goes to show even more just how inflated the rating system is.

Tezu wrote:And I'm quite curious, how do the clickable maps affect the gameplay? I just started using them, because I don't think It will make any difference, but if you can tell me how that affects the gameplay, I might stop using them in order to keep things fun and clean...
xoxo

Clickable maps don't affect sequential games in any way, other than making moves a bit easier (in some folks' opinion). For freestyle games, however, they provide a tremendous advantage in how quickly one can make their moves.

juventino wrote:Accused: apb23

The accused is suspected of:
Rating abuse
Other: The player have abused the rating system by giving very generous ratings.


Game number(s): Game 4648599
Comments to this game:
The only spoken chat by this player in 2 games are:
f*ck you and you lucky ass rolls - did you lose any?? - xi - i am in xi ffs
and he is given a 5-5-5 rating
Game 4191437
Comments: In this game the player gets a 5-5-5 rating after no communication.
Game 4561375
Gives the player a 5-4-5 rating after no communication from the other player.
Game 4351577
Gives the player a 5-5-5 rating after no communication from the other player.


Comments:
The accused has a rating avarage high above 3. Only gives out 5's and sometimes some 4's.
6 times out of 126 is below 3. I am aware this seems vindictive but i am interested in seeing how the rating system should be seen.

Well mate, you know I like you and all and we've had many fun games together. However, seeing the C&A-report on you re rating abuse, I can't help but draw the conclusion that you only rate when something bad occurs (i.e. you don't really rate people you had a good game with). Is that abuse? Well, dunno. I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to use the rating system that way.

You could have made a response in that thread. This report of yours though it's, and I'm sorry to say that, just silly.

alstergren wrote:

juventino wrote:Accused: apb23

The accused is suspected of:
Rating abuse
Other: The player have abused the rating system by giving very generous ratings.


Game number(s): Game 4648599
Comments to this game:
The only spoken chat by this player in 2 games are:
f*ck you and you lucky ass rolls - did you lose any?? - xi - i am in xi ffs
and he is given a 5-5-5 rating
Game 4191437
Comments: In this game the player gets a 5-5-5 rating after no communication.
Game 4561375
Gives the player a 5-4-5 rating after no communication from the other player.
Game 4351577
Gives the player a 5-5-5 rating after no communication from the other player.


Comments:
The accused has a rating avarage high above 3. Only gives out 5's and sometimes some 4's.
6 times out of 126 is below 3. I am aware this seems vindictive but i am interested in seeing how the rating system should be seen.

Well mate, you know I like you and all and we've had many fun games together. However, seeing the C&A-report on you re rating abuse, I can't help but draw the conclusion that you only rate when something bad occurs (i.e. you don't really rate people you had a good game with). Is that abuse? Well, dunno. I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to use the rating system that way.

You could have made a response in that thread. This report of yours though it's, and I'm sorry to say that, just silly.

Hi =) I actually agree with you that it is silly and, sorry to say, vindictive too. I am to lazy to rate people in every game hence the "normal games" becomes unrated. That is true (but dont come and say i didnt rate you fair... . I agree it might have been smarter to address this in the other thread but the ruling was made. And that is another issue. How come someone can be ruled abusive without beeing heard? Puedo apelar?

And yes. The silliness. True. I had a 18 hour workshift with nothing to do. (i hope i dont see you at my work alstergren..). But i am actually genuine question here that i want to know the answer to. How are we supposed to rate? All 5's?



I just want to see if we are supposed to rate people. And i am aware they will most likely rule "this is not abuse". This is afterall CC.

I still think that you do not understand the point. You do not have to give out all 5s, but just have a good reason for giving the rating that you have given. Once again, can you please explain why you give me a 3 for fair play, a 1 for gameplay, and a 1 for attitude. I would really like to know your reasoning.

apb23 wrote:I still think that you do not understand the point. You do not have to give out all 5s, but just have a good reason for giving the rating that you have given. Once again, can you please explain why you give me a 3 for fair play, a 1 for gameplay, and a 1 for attitude. I would really like to know your reasoning.

Ok. I cant say we have talked before in the chat. It happens. But I dont remember all of them. So lets say we didnt.

3 for fair play: Avarage for our 2 games together. Nothing great but nothing horrible neither.

1 for gameplay. I really dont like the gameplay of sitting and waiting in our second game. In our first game I think you showed lack of abbility to give a enjoyable game. The strategy and teamwork lacked big time. Perhaps due to the gametype. But these 2 games put together made it for me.

1 for attitude. Perhaps a bit harsh i agree to this. I should rate a 0 or perhaps a 2. I said gl and got nothing back until the game was over, a little bit rude but nothing extreme. In our first game you didnt way a word. I do agree a 1 was perhaps a bit low. a 2 should be more relevant.

Ok. Could you explain my 2-5-5 rating?
I honestly dont have anything against you. Sorry if it seems like this. I just think the ratings and the "abusive use" is a big joke. I want to see how we are supposed to rate and a ruling for this.

Ok...first of all...to give me a 1 for gameplay when I finished the game in 13 minutes!!!! I knew that you were freemium, so tried to take my turns as quick as possible. Also, we never agreed to Rt. In our first doubles game, I was eliminated before I could take my turn because you and your partner joined when we weren't on (or at least this is how I remember it), so that is also a little bit silly. I said Gl as well in our second game, so that doesn't make any sense. In regards to your rating, I thought that your fair play was a little less than average, as in our doubles game you obviously took advantage of us not being online while you and ur partner were (as you should), but still gave you 5s in regard to gameplay because you played very well and attitude because you did not complain.

apb23 wrote:Ok...first of all...to give me a 1 for gameplay when I finished the game in 13 minutes!!!! I knew that you were freemium, so tried to take my turns as quick as possible. Also, we never agreed to Rt. In our first doubles game, I was eliminated before I could take my turn because you and your partner joined when we weren't on (or at least this is how I remember it), so that is also a little bit silly. I said Gl as well in our second game, so that doesn't make any sense. In regards to your rating, I thought that your fair play was a little less than average, as in our doubles game you obviously took advantage of us not being online while you and ur partner were (as you should), but still gave you 5s in regard to gameplay because you played very well and attitude because you did not complain.

What should I complain about? Me and my partner winning? We should brign this down to this but you didnt say good luck, although this is not a dealbreaker. A lower rating becasue we started to play?

I only said. Based on the two games. your: Gameplay: Measures the player's ability to play an enjoyable game (not the player's ability to win). Covers strategy, diplomacy, teamwork, etc...

Taken from the rules. I think it lacked. I have played 2 games and i havent enjoyed them one very much and hence your abbility to play an enjoyable game
is not very good. (From my point of viem. i think you have palyed other games well deserving 5's)
Attitude: Covers behaviour in chat, foul language, sore losers, gracious winners, "great chatters!", whining about luck, etc...

I dont think i deserved a 5. Perhaps a 3 from you. You deserved a 0 or 2. From my point of view.

You give me a 2 fives well above avarage for my silence. How come this is ok and not giving 1's?

I give ratings. Sometimes lows and sometimes highs. I know this will lead to a lower rating for me in the long run.

I think it is more abusive to the system to give 5's since that often leads to a higher rating for the one who gives out 5's.

Ratings

To encourage good sportsmanship, members can rate other members they have played with. Each rating consists of measurements from 1 to 5 stars on any of the following attributes:

Rating Attributes

* Fair Play: Covers suiciding, secret alliance suspicion, breaking or respecting alliances, chivalry, etc...
* Gameplay: Measures the player's ability to play an enjoyable game (not the player's ability to win). Covers strategy, diplomacy, teamwork, etc...
* Attitude: Covers behaviour in chat, foul language, sore losers, gracious winners, "great chatters!", whining about luck, etc...

The number of stars given should be based on this scale: 1 = Bad, 2 = Below Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Above Average, 5 = Excellent.

You make a good point. Ratings has become just another "competitive" part of CC, now most people view an overall ranking of 3.8 as a player they wouldn't want to play against, when according to guidelines that player would be closer to above average than average. It is true some people abuse the system by only leaving 1star, and I strongly agree with you that leaving all 5stars is abuse as well.

Well thought out arguement.

Leaving 5 stars is by no means an abuse......... Fair play -Game play-Attitude........... You earn 5 star fair play by not useing cheap tactics....... you earn 5 star game play by useing good strategy (win or lose)..... you earn 5 star attitude but not being silent or an arse......... I give a lot of 5 stars... but not for silence or poor sportsmanship.... and bad play is bad play..... and cheating is cheating............... 3 stars to ya!

jefjef wrote:Leaving 5 stars is by no means an abuse......... Fair play -Game play-Attitude........... You earn 5 star fair play by not useing cheap tactics....... you earn 5 star game play by useing good strategy (win or lose)..... you earn 5 star attitude but not being silent or an arse......... I give a lot of 5 stars... but not for silence or poor sportsmanship.... and bad play is bad play..... and cheating is cheating............... 3 stars to ya!

How is not been silent excellent? Good stategy is excellent? If good=excellent, I would have been a professional rugby player......

Well I consider not Good lucking & Good Gaming an opponent as poor sportsmanship(attitude)........ and if it was an enjoyable challenging game (a players ability to play an enjoyable-competitive game) then game play would be 5 stars........ If its BAD game play then it gets ranked accordingly......Your analogy blows ................... 2 stars to ya!