Conquer Club

my first nomination goes to....

Kafka_c

So this guy joins one of my games, gets a great drop, shit dice on my end, unbeleivable on his end and finishes me off in a few rounds.
As I had a few of the same games opened, he joins 5 of them at the same time,and we start playing RT for many rounds... until it's pretty clear I'll win all of 5 them.
So he starts wating 23h+ each time on these 5 games, and does everything he can to make each game as long as possible when there is 0% chance he can come back. He is online half of the time I check his profile, with 20-30 active games and clearly does it on purpose. So I once walled him politely if we can finish our games as he is online.. of course he never answers, and continues to wait 23h or to miss turns. This guy has never replied to any game chat nor wall post.
I still have one of these 5 games unfinished, and he's been dragging it for weeks. hopefully I'm not freemium... but I was running for the powerscore last month and couldn't cash in his wins. I'm pretty sure he knew about it and did it on puropse because he was butthurt after my spanking.

I run into those all the time!!!!!

Foe and leave rating. Not that ratings means a rats ass

Which opens the question about how we can make ratings mean more. Generally if someone averages well below 4 you know you have a real nob end on your hands. Perhaps add it as a filter in game finder or have an option to auto-foe anyone below a certain average rating

xroads wrote:I run into those all the time!!!!!

Foe and leave rating. Not that ratings means a rats ass

obviously that's what I do. I just started this thread so that people can just leave their own stories against asshats.
And I still have my theory about ratings.... that they do mean something.

boberz wrote:Which opens the question about how we can make ratings mean more. Generally if someone averages well below 4 you know you have a real nob end on your hands. Perhaps add it as a filter in game finder or have an option to auto-foe anyone below a certain average rating

you don't understand ratings at all. ratings has nothing to do with being a noob.
Some guys can be quite clueless but really nice and good sports that everybody will leave them full 5 or won't bother rating them.
The rating has to be looked only as an attitude thing. For skills look at rank or medals or game played or whatever.

basically, ratings mean this:

5.0 : this guy is a true gentleman in any situation
4.9: still pretty much a gentleman in any situation, might have some slight little things that bother opponents.
4.8: what an averagely good sports person has. Sure, sometimes they might snap a bit, but it's not that often
4.7: borderline ok. can be a dick from time to time (I'm a 4.7)
4.6: starts havig quite some issues with opponents, complains a lot and insults much
4.5: a real dick. But it's possible that nothing happens this time
4.4: be sure something bad happens in game chat if you say something. You are playing against a real asshole
4.3 and less are either 12 year old or sociopaths. Or maybe they are new to the site and didn't receive enough ratings to show where they stand after someone gave a bad rating.

I didn't say noob I said nob.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nob+end

I actually broadly agree with your rating descriptions but the problem is that most people don't notice them until after they join the game very often.

boberz wrote:I actually broadly agree with your rating descriptions but the problem is that most people don't notice them until after they join the game very often.

I too agree with his descriptions. Pretty much my assessment as well. I would only add an caveat: * all these descriptions are subject to change if player is hammered.

I look at the rating number every time I join a game.

betiko wrote:

xroads wrote:I run into those all the time!!!!!

Foe and leave rating. Not that ratings means a rats ass

obviously that's what I do. I just started this thread so that people can just leave their own stories against asshats.
And I still have my theory about ratings.... that they do mean something.

------ .......ALTHOUGH DO YOU HAVE PROBLEM WITH WHAT HAPPENED AND IS STILL HAPPENING IN THE FEB. CHALLENGE???....
------THE HIGH COMMAND BASICALLY SAID....SCREW EVERYONE...WE ARE GOING TO DEFEND THE JACKASSES. ....
------FEEL THE SHAME HIGH COMMAND....BECAUSE,YOU SHOULD FEEL THE SHAME...
------View Feb. Challenge...I'm not writing all that again.If people want a look see. ...ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion).

betiko wrote:

boberz wrote:Which opens the question about how we can make ratings mean more. Generally if someone averages well below 4 you know you have a real nob end on your hands. Perhaps add it as a filter in game finder or have an option to auto-foe anyone below a certain average rating

you don't understand ratings at all. ratings has nothing to do with being a noob.
Some guys can be quite clueless but really nice and good sports that everybody will leave them full 5 or won't bother rating them.
The rating has to be looked only as an attitude thing. For skills look at rank or medals or game played or whatever.

basically, ratings mean this:

5.0 : this guy is a true gentleman in any situation
4.9: still pretty much a gentleman in any situation, might have some slight little things that bother opponents.
4.8: what an averagely good sports person has. Sure, sometimes they might snap a bit, but it's not that often
4.7: borderline ok. can be a dick from time to time (I'm a 4.7)
4.6: starts havig quite some issues with opponents, complains a lot and insults much
4.5: a real dick. But it's possible that nothing happens this time
4.4: be sure something bad happens in game chat if you say something. You are playing against a real asshole
4.3 and less are either 12 year old or sociopaths. Or maybe they are new to the site and didn't receive enough ratings to show where they stand after someone gave a bad rating.

This is a really great assessment.

cool... flame wars is back!!!-Jésus noir

god bless texas (it's a UT backpack)


get 'em, RonC!!

OS... get out of this thread and go answer some serious ass questions. Phfffftttt...

Now. Walking to work I thought about the ratings marker. There are anomalies. The sub 4.0's.

For example:

a. demonfork has a sub 4.0 rating. Asshat? No. He just needs a cookie and most likely a nap. I'll play against him or as a team mate any time. In fact we've done pretty well as dubs pards. He goes off at the other team like an autistic kid on a sugar high and I stab them in the back. Sweet.

b. ronc should be a sub 4.0 but isn't quite there. We'll make him an honorary one. Asshat? No, no, no. Hammered like as not. I'll play against him any time. I can't be his doubles partner anymore however. Not because of his rating. My blood pressure can't take it when he rejoices over taking out red from a no spoils game. And I was red. And? His team mate. Ham. Mered.

c.dildobaggins is a sub 4.0. Asshat? Oohh... this is a tough one. db is actually a solid opponent, or, at least one of his personalities is. The other couple of personalities? Ass hats.

d. risktaker80 has quickly become a sub 4.0 player. In six (6) months I bet he will be in db's rarified company as a sub 3.0. But we can't call him an ass hat because he is exempt under bigwhammer's "bring back a multi and put them in the witness protection program cause they have the cash program" program. Ass hat? Oh, fuckin-a yes. We just can't say it.

What conclusions can we draw?

The sub 4.0's... not necessarily just another ass hat.

Enob.

elfish_lad wrote:OS... get out of this thread and go answer some serious ass questions. Phfffftttt...

Now. Walking to work I thought about the ratings marker. There are anomalies. The sub 4.0's.

For example:

a. demonfork has a sub 4.0 rating. Asshat? No. He just needs a cookie and most likely a nap. I'll play against him or as a team mate any time. In fact we've done pretty well as dubs pards. He goes off at the other team like an autistic kid on a sugar high and I stab them in the back. Sweet.

b. ronc should be a sub 4.0 but isn't quite there. We'll make him an honorary one. Asshat? No, no, no. Hammered like as not. I'll play against him any time. I can't be his doubles partner anymore however. Not because of his rating. My blood pressure can't take it when he rejoices over taking out red from a no spoils game. And I was red. And? His team mate. Ham. Mered.

c.dildobaggins is a sub 4.0. Asshat? Oohh... this is a tough one. db is actually a solid opponent, or, at least one of his personalities is. The other couple of personalities? Ass hats.

d. risktaker80 has quickly become a sub 4.0 player. In six (6) months I bet he will be in db's rarified company as a sub 3.0. But we can't call him an ass hat because he is exempt under bigwhammer's "bring back a multi and put them in the witness protection program cause they have the cash program" program. Ass hat? Oh, fuckin-a yes. We just can't say it.

What conclusions can we draw?

The sub 4.0's... not necessarily just another ass hat.

Enob.

Conclusion: you actually have to put in a lot of effort in acting like a dick to even get a sub 4.0 score(unless you've barely played any games ofc.)

elfish_lad wrote:OS... get out of this thread and go answer some serious ass questions. Phfffftttt...

Now. Walking to work I thought about the ratings marker. There are anomalies. The sub 4.0's.

For example:

a. demonfork has a sub 4.0 rating. Asshat? No. He just needs a cookie and most likely a nap. I'll play against him or as a team mate any time. In fact we've done pretty well as dubs pards. He goes off at the other team like an autistic kid on a sugar high and I stab them in the back. Sweet.

b. ronc should be a sub 4.0 but isn't quite there. We'll make him an honorary one. Asshat? No, no, no. Hammered like as not. I'll play against him any time. I can't be his doubles partner anymore however. Not because of his rating. My blood pressure can't take it when he rejoices over taking out red from a no spoils game. And I was red. And? His team mate. Ham. Mered.

c.dildobaggins is a sub 4.0. Asshat? Oohh... this is a tough one. db is actually a solid opponent, or, at least one of his personalities is. The other couple of personalities? Ass hats.

d. risktaker80 has quickly become a sub 4.0 player. In six (6) months I bet he will be in db's rarified company as a sub 3.0. But we can't call him an ass hat because he is exempt under bigwhammer's "bring back a multi and put them in the witness protection program cause they have the cash program" program. Ass hat? Oh, fuckin-a yes. We just can't say it.

What conclusions can we draw?

The sub 4.0's... not necessarily just another ass hat.

Enob.

honestly, there aren't much sub 4 players... I doubt there are more than 10 active players with sub 4.0... and you've named all the ones we can think of immediately. As wauuw said... it really takes some effort to be sub 4.0.
Actually, I think it takes a lot of effort to be sub 4.4

dildobaggins is absolutely a horrible person. The kind of guy who needs a good old waterboarding in a dirty toilet. His rating is totally deserved!!!

I agree that one would really have to work to be a sub 4.0. What I look at even more closely if I am trying to decide if I want someone on a team or to play with is the ratings they give out. You might or might not be suprised to find that the people you least want to play with only rate someone when they want to trash them and hardly ever give out good ratings. So I find it very interesting to look at the ratings that people leave.

xroads wrote:

betiko wrote:

boberz wrote:Which opens the question about how we can make ratings mean more. Generally if someone averages well below 4 you know you have a real nob end on your hands. Perhaps add it as a filter in game finder or have an option to auto-foe anyone below a certain average rating

you don't understand ratings at all. ratings has nothing to do with being a noob.
Some guys can be quite clueless but really nice and good sports that everybody will leave them full 5 or won't bother rating them.
The rating has to be looked only as an attitude thing. For skills look at rank or medals or game played or whatever.

basically, ratings mean this:

5.0 : this guy is a true gentleman in any situation
4.9: still pretty much a gentleman in any situation, might have some slight little things that bother opponents.
4.8: what an averagely good sports person has. Sure, sometimes they might snap a bit, but it's not that often
4.7: borderline ok. can be a dick from time to time (I'm a 4.7)
4.6: starts havig quite some issues with opponents, complains a lot and insults much
4.5: a real dick. But it's possible that nothing happens this time
4.4: be sure something bad happens in game chat if you say something. You are playing against a real asshole
4.3 and less are either 12 year old or sociopaths. Or maybe they are new to the site and didn't receive enough ratings to show where they stand after someone gave a bad rating.

This is a really great assessment.

Yup and judging by the experience of the people who agree I'd say there is broad support.

Silly Knig-it wrote:I agree that one would really have to work to be a sub 4.0. What I look at even more closely if I am trying to decide if I want someone on a team or to play with is the ratings they give out. You might or might not be suprised to find that the people you least want to play with only rate someone when they want to trash them and hardly ever give out good ratings. So I find it very interesting to look at the ratings that people leave.

I only rate to give full 5s or full 1s.
I just rate people that have been particularly nice or particularly annoying. If I give 2 5s and a 4..... I m already screwing with the rating of someone who didn t deserve a 4.6 lowering his average... When I think he s a 4.8

Next nomination

--name of asshat removed--


So the player is a bit of an asshat - as you so eleganly put it in the OP - in my game and so I foed him. Normal enough to meet an occasional person who you don't want to play again. A bit later I get a message in my inbox from said player. He wants to join a speed game I am waiting for and wants me to unfoe him. I say no. He starts threatening to get his mate to foe me in retaliation. Wanker.

It does make me wonder why you can still inbox people that have foed you. Really if I foe someone it means i don't want anything to do with them. He could theoretically spam my inbox with insults until I unfoe or leave the site. I know this has been discussed before but I do think it should change.

boberz wrote:FLAME

seriously... this is why we need global mods again... this is just ridiculous... sorry, but this is a flame thread and should be locked... wow...-Jésus noir

p.s.-i bet boberz is so tough, he let the person he flamed, know he did it.

I have now. Wasn't aware that was the etiquette. Give me the history of this Owen. Why is this thread so out of order. If it is against the rules why were the rules implemented.

I think a name and shame thread is a great idea. Why is it not?

boberz wrote:I think a name and shame thread is a great idea. Why is it not?

well, you see, that isn't such a great idea, because that would be a flame thread. we used to have flame wars, but flame wars was removed and flaming was eradicated from the forum. here is the rule:

FORUM GUIDELINES: FLAMING SPECIFICS wrote:-It doesn't matter if another user rubs you the wrong way, that's not an excuse to flame or personally attack them.
-Attacking a person instead of the user is NOT ok - it's all fun and games until it becomes personal.
-Flaming will get your post edited/deleted and you will receive a disciplinary action from a mod.

sooo, putting up a users name, then declaring them an "ass hat opponent", is a direct flame. something that is not allowed within the forums. this is why the Global Mods need to be brought back to CC, because shit like this thread would not be allowed to hover about within the GD for this amount of time... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

Ok so that sounds like a correct ruling so I will go back and edit out the name and identifiable info from my post.

But my questions was why is a 'flame thread' such a bad idea if it is based around the conquer club etiquette/gameplay.

boberz wrote:Ok so that sounds like a correct ruling so I will go back and edit out the name and identifiable info from my post.

But my questions was why is a 'flame thread' such a bad idea if it is based around the conquer club etiquette/gameplay.

so, what part of "the site removed the flame wars forum", do you not understand? if you want flame wars back, go post in any of the multitude of threads in the suggestions forum, requesting such. i'm not a mod, because i actually frequent the forums and know the f'ing rules, so do what you want. but i'm telling you, it is just going to get you in trouble... good luck with this...-Jésus noir

No I understand the flame wars was removed from the forums you have told me that enough bloody times. I am intrigued what you don't understand in the simple question I have now asked three times:

why is a 'flame thread' such a bad idea

boberz wrote:No I understand the flame wars was removed from the forums you have told me that enough bloody times. I am intrigued what you don't understand in the simple question I have now asked three times:

why is a 'flame thread' such a bad idea

this is like talking to a 2 year old...



it IS a bad idea now and WAS a bad idea in the past, obviously, because they removed the FLAME WARS FORUM. FLAMING IS AGAINST THE RULES. i thought i made that clear when i posted the rule:

FORUM GUIDELINES: FLAMING SPECIFICS wrote:-It doesn't matter if another user rubs you the wrong way, that's not an excuse to flame or personally attack them.
-Attacking a person instead of the user is NOT ok - it's all fun and games until it becomes personal.
-Flaming will get your post edited/deleted and you will receive a disciplinary action from a mod.

you are obviously just trolling me now, because there is no way possible that someone could be that daft. good luck with this and sorry that you can't seem to comprehend that a flame thread is a bad idea, because they are not allowed on the site and the entire flame wars forum was removed from the site... i just don't see why that is so complicated... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

p.s.-yes, you must be trolling me.. have to be...

I can see it is against the rules. I have not seen a reasoning why a thread like this is a bad idea, aside from the fact it is against the rules.

Presumably when they made the rule they had reasoning. I remember there was a time when the forum was a pretty vicious place to be around. I think the rule has gone to far if we are no longer allowed to shame people for what they do in games. Perhaps we could just post game links with no comment attached instead.