HighlanderAttack- ratings abuse[cleared]SN

[EagleofGreenErth]

Accused:

HighlanderAttack




The accused are suspected of:

Ratings Abuse


Game number(s):

Game 10954512



Comments:

He left all seven opponents all 1 star ratings. In addition, he seems to only give all 1 star ratings.

[ad10r3tr0]

Accused:

HighlanderAttack




The accused are suspected of:

Ratings Abuse


Game number(s):

Game 10954512



Comments:

He left all seven opponents all 1 star ratings. In addition, he seems to only give all 1 star ratings.

You need atleast 5 examples of where he abused the ratings.. describe the situation or mods wont even look at it

[agentcom]

There is a reason that there is an option to leave 1 star. Until you show a few (usually 5) ratings that were unjustified, then HA has only engaged in rating (as opposed to ratings abuse) of other players.

[jgordon1111]

short question did HA win the game,if he did then he is justified in the ratings,If he lost then probably not. how can you give someone who beats you a 1 star.

But he is HA and you will probably get hit with filing a spurious report here.

[Symmetry]

short question did HA win the game,if he did then he is justified in the ratings,If he lost then probably not. how can you give someone who beats you a 1 star.

But he is HA and you will probably get hit with filing a spurious report here.

He didn't win, and the OP is correct, he gave everyone who beat him a one star rating. I guess it wasn't ok for him to lose the points, he had to grind down others.

The OP is incorrect though- he does give five star ratings, but seemingly only to players he regularly plays 1v1 against, or teammates.

Beat this dude and he will screw around with your ratings:

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?mode=ratings2&username=HighlanderAttack

He should come with a warning.

[Dibbun]

Read the game chat on that game... I think about every player pissed him off lol

[sirgermaine]

I find it particularly interesting that up until September of 2009, he left almost exclusively 5 star ratings, then suddenly starting giving almost exclusively 1 star.

[jltile1]

Show 10000 examples then they go to work instead of just looking at the ratings left I think you very rarely can leave one stars a cost the board unless it's only out of anger

[Jdsizzleslice]

You realize that HA has played probably the most amount of games on this site... He probably has somewhat a right to rate how he desires because of his experience and because he has been around a long time.

[agentcom]

Beat this dude and he will screw around with your ratings:

Simply not true. I've beat him before, never got a bad rating from him.

[afroaction]

Here we go again another "ratting abuse" report, Really unless the accused has 5+ pages or more worth of 1 star ratings, then you might have something to complain about. Honestly, looking over the game in questioned, i would of rated exactly the same as Highlander. Looks like it was a classic terminator game where low rank dumb-ass players team-up on a higher rank, committing suicide over a lousy fixation for a bonus other then getting cards....

But in the long run, it all backfired on them like it always does.

[sniffie]

Eagle, do you have some more ratings that you find unjustified except those from the game you where in?

sniffie

[DJPatrick]

Wow...Jsizzledizzle...can't believe you said HA prob has a right to rate how he desires because of his experience and because he has been around a long time...what utter bullshyte!!! I've played him a few times and never had a prob even when a raw recruit and screwing around everyone and everything BUT...looking at the last few pages of his ratings left he's been piling one stars left right and centre on ALL opponents (maybe even a coupla team-mates as well by the look of it). Maybe he only rate BAD for pps who piss him off and not at all for anyone else (his right) but he appears to have retreated so far into his own ego that he considers all non-HA entities as corrupt and not worthy. Seems like he really does NEED a vacation from CC (I know the most for this report would be noted/warning) but I mean vacation as not so much a "BAN" as a "REST"...He just seems to be losing the plot of this being a Game site.(.albeit a blood sport war site) rather than a vehicle for his disillusionment.

[Chewie1]

So who hasnt got pissed off after losing a game and out of petulance given a 1 star rating?

HA like a lot of players has bad games and out of frustration leaves bad ratings, get over it and stop wasting the Mods time.

[SlayerQC]

Ratings abuse or not, this arrogant, rude foul mouth should be given a chat ban... Jesus, he even said he would throw the game (suicide). Off to my foe list he goes.

[NoSurvivors]

Eagle, you go play 35,263 games and host 259 tourneys then tell me who you have time to give ratings to. You're just butthurt he gave you a bad rating. Lol. I know plenty of people who only rate those that deserve a bad rating. So they aren't gonna convict one because then they'd have to convict em all. Get over yourself.

[jgordon1111]

Ratings abuse or not, this arrogant, rude foul mouth should be given a chat ban... Jesus, he even said he would throw the game (suicide). Off to my foe list he goes.

And if you look at what he says,he said it in the chat he would suicide on red and apparentley did so if you look at the game log. thus giving the game to orange by default but insuring the lower ranked red player would not win.

I believe that is against the rules as well.

[Symmetry]

I've beat him before, never got a bad rating from him.

You've never had a rating from him. At all.

[DiM]

it's obviously an abuse. i just looked through the ratings and found out that most of the 1 star ratings he left were to players that beat him. but that's not really interesting as a lot of people are sore losers or in the heat of the game decide to "take revenge" and award 1 star.
what's really outstanding is that he gave 1 star ratings to people that he played 10-20-50 or even 150+ games.
wtf? why would you play somebody for 150 games if you consider him/her to be: Irrational, Sore Loser, Clueless, Poor Strategy and you give him 1 star for Fair Play, Gameplay and Attitude.
if i give somebody 1 star for everything i also foe that player cause he's clearly somebody i'd like to avoid.

[agentcom]

I've beat him before, never got a bad rating from him.

You've never had a rating from him. At all.

I didn't realize there was a way to check this. All I knew was that I would've remembered a bad rating from HA.

it's obviously an abuse. i just looked through the ratings and found out that most of the 1 star ratings he left were to players that beat him. but that's not really interesting as a lot of people are sore losers or in the heat of the game decide to "take revenge" and award 1 star.
what's really outstanding is that he gave 1 star ratings to people that he played 10-20-50 or even 150+ games.
wtf? why would you play somebody for 150 games if you consider him/her to be: Irrational, Sore Loser, Clueless, Poor Strategy and you give him 1 star for Fair Play, Gameplay and Attitude.
if i give somebody 1 star for everything i also foe that player cause he's clearly somebody i'd like to avoid.

I didn't do any research like you did. Just going with my experience with him. He can be rough around the edges, but I didn't expect to see what you're saying. Too bad. He's been getting a little overwhelmed with CC and RL. Not that that's an excuse for rules violations. Too bad.

I really hope he's not booted, though as I think I'm in 3 of his tourneys and REALLY, REALLY hoping one of them doesn't get delayed any longer than it already has.

Well, pretty much none of that post had anything to do with the actual C&A complaint. Sorry for the off topic post (but not sorry enough not to hit submit).

[Symmetry]

I've beat him before, never got a bad rating from him.

You've never had a rating from him. At all.

I didn't realize there was a way to check this. All I knew was that I would've remembered a bad rating from HA.

Your ratings are viewable for anyone who clicks on your profile, and clicks on the link to ratings left.

[Leehar]

Can anybody explain if this is a systematic ratings abuse to anyone and everyone?
I can understand that ha has a lot of 'recent' 1 stars given, but that needs to be relevant, as in last 100 games/30 days etc? ie if it is a few pages of 1 stars over a sample of 10000 games (quite possible) then it wouldn't be relevant any longer?

I can understand (and even forgive) the latter, because I know it can get tiring/and useless to keep rating people 5 stars after 1 or 2000 games, so can't imagine what it'd be like after 30/40000. So after a point you'd only rate the people who stick out (and unfortunately thats usually those who stick out in a bad way).

Also, with regards to DiM comments, I know I certainly don't go back through my ratings to change those who I no longer feel the same way about, mostly because it's just not worth the effort.
And liken this to my own relationship with HA, I know in the early days we didn't have the best of relationships (mostly due to my freemium), so I wouldn't have been surprised to see a bad rating for him, but I know that after 100's of games, we have a healthy level of mutual respect for each other, and indeed I was heartened to see he mentioned that in one of the GD threads.

And so I give that post a lot more consideration, and appreciate it much more than a random rating from aeons ago, because frankly, most of us hardly care about ratings, if at all, and certainly don't look at them with the level of detail some of you seem to give them

[Symmetry]

Can anybody explain if this is a systematic ratings abuse to anyone and everyone?
I can understand that ha has a lot of 'recent' 1 stars given, but that needs to be relevant, as in last 100 games/30 days etc? ie if it is a few pages of 1 stars over a sample of 10000 games (quite possible) then it wouldn't be relevant any longer?

I can understand (and even forgive) the latter, because I know it can get tiring/and useless to keep rating people 5 stars after 1 or 2000 games, so can't imagine what it'd be like after 30/40000. So after a point you'd only rate the people who stick out (and unfortunately thats usually those who stick out in a bad way).

Also, with regards to DiM comments, I know I certainly don't go back through my ratings to change those who I no longer feel the same way about, mostly because it's just not worth the effort.
And liken this to my own relationship with HA, I know in the early days we didn't have the best of relationships (mostly due to my freemium), so I wouldn't have been surprised to see a bad rating for him, but I know that after 100's of games, we have a healthy level of mutual respect for each other, and indeed I was heartened to see he mentioned that in one of the GD threads.

And so I give that post a lot more consideration, and appreciate it much more than a random rating from aeons ago, because frankly, most of us hardly care about ratings, if at all, and certainly don't look at them with the level of detail some of you seem to give them

The usual method, as far as I know, is to only look at recent behaviour. I think 6 months is usually the cut off before things are too old to be taken into account.

If he's been doing this reasonably consistently (which he has) over a recent period of time (which he has) to a bunch of people (which he has), unfairly (which he has), then appeals to what he's done in the past probably won't be taken into account.

[Swifte]

wtf? why would you play somebody for 150 games if you consider him/her to be: Irrational, Sore Loser, Clueless, Poor Strategy and you give him 1 star for Fair Play, Gameplay and Attitude.
if i give somebody 1 star for everything i also foe that player cause he's clearly somebody i'd like to avoid.

Highlander plays (well... used to play) almost every tourney out there... most the time he bumps into those people again and again because they are in the same tournaments... you don't get to be picky about your opponents if you want to play every tourney.

[Leehar]

The usual method, as far as I know, is to only look at recent behaviour. I think 6 months is usually the cut off before things are too old to be taken into account.

If he's been doing this reasonably consistently (which he has) over a recent period of time (which he has) to a bunch of people (which he has), unfairly (which he has), then appeals to what he's done in the past probably won't be taken into account.

Thats the thing, the first rating on the first page (of his ratings left) relates to Game 10954512, 2012-07-05 13:41:16
The last rating on the page 2011-01-12 10:10:12 and relates to one of the games on Agressivo games with HA

There's over 18 months, and 3 million+ games between just the first and last ratings on that first page?
And looking further, it seems from page 3 onwards (late 2009), he left mostly 5's like the rest of us. (and whereupon he got tired leaving the same old ratings like a lot of us have)

So we only have about 1 and a half pages of mostly 1 reports (about 75~ ratings) which relate to a period of just under 3 years, and I'd hazard as much as 20 000 games? (indeed Game 5599333 one of the last of his mostly 5 ratings, comes midway through Page 254 of his 353 pages/35 275 games) so actually about 25 000 games ago.

Approximately 75 ratings of 1 star in 25 000 games, in just under 3 years?
Hardly seems to be evidence of systematic ratings abuse...
(And then of course those 75 are less than 20% (1/5) of his total 600+ ratings left?)