caesarbaselius: ratings abuse [Warned]

[elfish_lad]

caesarbaselius

The accused are suspected of: Ratings Abuse

Game 6240889

Comments: Looses the game after dead beating. Never says a word as the game goes along. Gives all the players bad ratings after he he is an idiot and looses the game. Track record of this same behavior. Do whatever. I'll be a tattletale.

E.

[Snowgun]

Sorry Bro,

But the ratings abuse has to be a lot worse to really count, like, I dont' know,

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=106311

Even though the mods cant seem to put that one to rest either.

Yea, this is gonna have to be a foe and move on type of deal. The guy acted like an assclown, but shit happens.

I have gotten to the point where I won't join or play people with ratings under 4.4 ish, since there is a high probability of shit like this going down. That is how this rating and foe system is supposed to work, you put in by rating, and you should also try and use it.

BTW, Culs is fucking hilarious in the chat. Love playing with that guy. he
always
hits the
fucking
carrage return
constantly in
the chat
dialog
box
and it cracks me up!

[king sam]

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

[Snowgun]

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

Oh I wrote that while the other thread was still pending, your just catching up now.

And I thought that there was discussion before with people where either all 1's or 5's (with equal or more 5's) that that's how people were rating and that it was ok? Correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought you had to be dinging people almost all 1's to get a ratings infraction?

I know that people don't take advantage of the 5 point Likert scale because it takes to much time to think about it, and just go binary, where other people are like those teachers who don't think anyone is perfect and rate everyone 4 stars. Hell, that's almost more of an abuse because since everyone else rates 5 stars, you get rated down even when you had a good friendly game.

Oh, and I can't find any literature in the guidelines about rating, other than "use caution and good judgement" in the instructions....

[jefjef]

It has also been established that giving only 5 stars is abuse.

[Snowgun]

It has also been established that giving only 5 stars is abuse.

Oh, so 1's and 5's is DOUBLE abuse! Now it's all coming together for me...

[jefjef]

It has also been established that giving only 5 stars is abuse.

Oh, so 1's and 5's is DOUBLE abuse! Now it's all coming together for me...

How could there be no middle ground.

[Snowgun]

Ours is not to wonder why jefjef...

[king sam]

it is widely posted all over in C&A what guidelines we go by to determine if a user is in violation of ratings abuse.

Part of it is also on the rules page.
(ratings rule page link)

Once again though the system is like this:

• No Stars = Not Applicable
• 1 Star = The user was extremely poor in this area
• 2 Stars = The user was poor in this area
• 3 Stars = The user was average in this area
• 4 Stars = The user was above average in this area
• 5 Stars = The user was extremely well above average in this area

The 3 rating Attributes are:

• 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 behavior in chat, foul language, sore losers, gracious winners, "great chatters!", whining about luck, etc...

With tons of tags that can mean different meanings to different people.
i.e. the tag "Quitter"

• I could rate someone under the premises that during the game I noticed when the dice/territories/cards didn't go his way he no longer exhibited any strategical effort to try to win
• or Player X tagged him with this because he stopped taking turns

Tags and ratings are all subjective because they are your interpenetration on how the user essentially played the game. This is why we ask that the 1st step you take when you receive a rating that you think is unjust is to contact the user that gave it to you and try to work it out with them. Seeing as this is a measurement that is used as a guide as to how others feel you play/conduct yourself in a game it is ultimately your responsibility as to what you have been awarded.

With that of course will come abuse, which can be:

• Repeatedly giving out inaccurate Ratings with no evidence to back up the Rating because of vindication or what have you
• The attachment of inaccurate tags, such as "deadbeat" when the user didn't miss 3 consecutive turns

Obviously there has been a wide spread standard to rate others more generous then what the system dictates, and while this in itself is abuse because its not what the rating system was intended for, it for the most part is not reprimanded unless its definite gross abuse. For instance I believe 1 person on CC has been Warned for gross abuse of the Rating system by rating with all 5's and that was because that user had numerous pages of ratings he/she had left that was nothing but 5's across the board.

Most of the time the Ratings Abuse will come in the form of leaving Inaccurate Sub par Ratings on a vast majority of users. And can include misappropriated tags in there as well.

The way we dictate gross abuse is by the volume of this abuse and by the applicability of the ratings. If a user has Rated 1's across the board in all categories for players that were in games with them and we review those games and see no such measures to warrant this then its deemed abuse. Obviously because of the subjectivity of ratings we take into account much much more then just a few of the "suspected ratings/tags".

Seeing as the Ratings part of the site is a different beast all together then that of the games/forums it falls under a different category when it comes to punishments.

• 1st offense = Warning
• 2nd offense = 1 Month Ratings Vacation
• 3rd offense = Permanent Ratings Vacation

What can you do to abide by the rules and make sure you are not in violation here:

• Rate users justly based on the gaming experience you shared with them in the game
• Be fair in your opinion, do not "hate" rate
• Use appropriate tags
• Be able to justify if questioned

Hopefully this clears some of it up if you truly had questions and weren't just trying to mod hate here.
With all this in mind review over this user and you will see why he received the punishment he did.

KS

[Snowgun]

Thanks KS! This was helpful. Maybe you should add this good info to the link you gave since it only covered about 1/4 of what you posted.

Hopefully this clears some of it up if you truly had questions and weren't just trying to mod hate here.

KS

What! I would never mod hate!

I just like to encourage authority to keep it real(which you do KS) through the use of inquiries and light sarcasm.

Remember:

[king sam]

Absolutely