HighlanderAttack- ratings abuse[cleared]SN

[Symmetry]

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?)

Dude, I see what you're trying to say, but an accusation of ratings abuse should be judged by ratings left. Either he's abusing the ratings system, or he isn't. If you feel, in spite of looking at the way he's been using the system, that he hasn't been abusing it, then that's fine, but I will have to disagree with you.

That he hasn't left ratings in a lot of games seems rather irrelevant to the accusation that he's been abusing the rating system when he has used it. And past good behaviour may well be taken into account for the punishment, but it's not really a good defence against the accusation.

[Bones2484]

Dude, I see what you're trying to say, but an accusation of ratings abuse should be judged by ratings left. Either he's abusing the ratings system, or he isn't. If you feel, in spite of looking at the way he's been using the system, that he hasn't been abusing it, then that's fine, but I will have to disagree with you.

That he hasn't left ratings in a lot of games seems rather irrelevant to the accusation that he's been abusing the rating system when he has used it. And past good behaviour may well be taken into account for the punishment, but it's not really a good defence against the accusation.

Couldn't it be argued that HA is only bothering to leave ratings for people he has negative experiences with? Since he leaves so few ratings overall in the past 18 months, I don't see that as abuse. We aren't required to leave ratings for everyone we play with.

[codierose]

Dude, I see what you're trying to say, but an accusation of ratings abuse should be judged by ratings left. Either he's abusing the ratings system, or he isn't. If you feel, in spite of looking at the way he's been using the system, that he hasn't been abusing it, then that's fine, but I will have to disagree with you.

That he hasn't left ratings in a lot of games seems rather irrelevant to the accusation that he's been abusing the rating system when he has used it. And past good behaviour may well be taken into account for the punishment, but it's not really a good defence against the accusation.

Couldn't it be argued that HA is only bothering to leave ratings for people he has negative experiences with? Since he leaves so few ratings overall in the past 18 months, I don't see that as abuse. We aren't required to leave ratings for everyone we play with.

hit nail on the head totally agree would you actually notice the negatives if he had left all th positives i dought it. But i would like to see his points reset on arms race and 2 weeks vacation so he can have a well deserved break

[jgordon1111]

Dude, I see what you're trying to say, but an accusation of ratings abuse should be judged by ratings left. Either he's abusing the ratings system, or he isn't. If you feel, in spite of looking at the way he's been using the system, that he hasn't been abusing it, then that's fine, but I will have to disagree with you.

That he hasn't left ratings in a lot of games seems rather irrelevant to the accusation that he's been abusing the rating system when he has used it. And past good behaviour may well be taken into account for the punishment, but it's not really a good defence against the accusation.

Couldn't it be argued that HA is only bothering to leave ratings for people he has negative experiences with? Since he leaves so few ratings overall in the past 18 months, I don't see that as abuse. We aren't required to leave ratings for everyone we play with.

An old saying if you dont have anything good to say then dont say anything at all,if he is not going to leave good ratings why bother to leave the bad ones.

And to leave a 1 star rating for a player in a game were they beat you for whatever reason is in itself a bad rating therefore abuse.

Is it possible that all the players who have gotten these one star ratings are bad at the game and just got a lucky win,if so then hell its all dice luck anyway and no one deserves above a 1 star rating.

[Qwert]

im to lazy to investigate this case

[Symmetry]

Dude, I see what you're trying to say, but an accusation of ratings abuse should be judged by ratings left. Either he's abusing the ratings system, or he isn't. If you feel, in spite of looking at the way he's been using the system, that he hasn't been abusing it, then that's fine, but I will have to disagree with you.

That he hasn't left ratings in a lot of games seems rather irrelevant to the accusation that he's been abusing the rating system when he has used it. And past good behaviour may well be taken into account for the punishment, but it's not really a good defence against the accusation.

Couldn't it be argued that HA is only bothering to leave ratings for people he has negative experiences with? Since he leaves so few ratings overall in the past 18 months, I don't see that as abuse. We aren't required to leave ratings for everyone we play with.

It could be argued, sure, but if you're only using the rating system for that purpose, that could easily be considered abuse. Plus there's the OP, where he's clearly abused the rating system by giving everyone a 1 star rating across the board.

Even players like Hun1 (Link), who he congratulated for a well deserved win in chat:

2012-07-02 13:19:58 - HighlanderAttack: gg orange--well deserved--lol (Game 10954512)

But then left 1 star ratings for his fair play, gameplay and attitude, while tagging him as "clueless".

[Woodruff]

Eagle, you go play 35,263 games and host 259 tourneys then tell me who you have time to give ratings to.

You say this as if it's not HA's own fault that he plays that many games and hosts that many tournaments, resulting in his alleged "not having time to give ratings". That's really not a very good excuse.

Now, that doesn't necessarily apply to the idea of whether he's just rating those who he feels warrant the negative rating. However, if it is primarily just people who are beating him, then I think it must be considered abuse.

[agentcom]

Dude, I see what you're trying to say, but an accusation of ratings abuse should be judged by ratings left. Either he's abusing the ratings system, or he isn't. If you feel, in spite of looking at the way he's been using the system, that he hasn't been abusing it, then that's fine, but I will have to disagree with you.

That he hasn't left ratings in a lot of games seems rather irrelevant to the accusation that he's been abusing the rating system when he has used it. And past good behaviour may well be taken into account for the punishment, but it's not really a good defence against the accusation.

Couldn't it be argued that HA is only bothering to leave ratings for people he has negative experiences with? Since he leaves so few ratings overall in the past 18 months, I don't see that as abuse. We aren't required to leave ratings for everyone we play with.

It could be argued, sure, but if you're only using the rating system for that purpose, that could easily be considered abuse. Plus there's the OP, where he's clearly abused the rating system by giving everyone a 1 star rating across the board.

Even players like Hun1 (Link), who he congratulated for a well deserved win in chat:

2012-07-02 13:19:58 - HighlanderAttack: gg orange--well deserved--lol (Game 10954512)

Is that his only game against that player? Or could this have been an earlier rating?

But then left 1 star ratings for his fair play, gameplay and attitude, while tagging him as "clueless".

[Symmetry]

Dude, I see what you're trying to say, but an accusation of ratings abuse should be judged by ratings left. Either he's abusing the ratings system, or he isn't. If you feel, in spite of looking at the way he's been using the system, that he hasn't been abusing it, then that's fine, but I will have to disagree with you.

That he hasn't left ratings in a lot of games seems rather irrelevant to the accusation that he's been abusing the rating system when he has used it. And past good behaviour may well be taken into account for the punishment, but it's not really a good defence against the accusation.

Couldn't it be argued that HA is only bothering to leave ratings for people he has negative experiences with? Since he leaves so few ratings overall in the past 18 months, I don't see that as abuse. We aren't required to leave ratings for everyone we play with.

It could be argued, sure, but if you're only using the rating system for that purpose, that could easily be considered abuse. Plus there's the OP, where he's clearly abused the rating system by giving everyone a 1 star rating across the board.

Even players like Hun1 (Link), who he congratulated for a well deserved win in chat:

2012-07-02 13:19:58 - HighlanderAttack: gg orange--well deserved--lol (Game 10954512)

But then left 1 star ratings for his fair play, gameplay and attitude, while tagging him as "clueless".

Is that his only game against that player? Or could this have been an earlier rating?

It's his only game against the player, so it could not have been an earlier rating. Plus, as the OP points out, he gave everyone in that game one star ratings across the board. Hun1 I used merely as a good example.

[Swifte]

you guys realize HA was being sarcastic when he said "gg orange - well deserved" right? hence the "lol" at the end...

[Symmetry]

you guys realize HA was being sarcastic when he said "gg orange - well deserved" right? hence the "lol" at the end...

Was the one star rating for all the players in the game across the board also an example of his sarcasm? And the clueless tag?

[Leehar]

you guys realize HA was being sarcastic when he said "gg orange - well deserved" right? hence the "lol" at the end...

Was the one star rating for all the players in the game across the board also an example of his sarcasm? And the clueless tag?

probably.
From my understanding, it seems they played noobishly and gave away the game. So the win for the victor wasn't necessarily deserved (hence the sarcasm), and the others who played nonsensically were also essentially clueless in handing the game away.

But hey, you've played 66 games, so what do we know

[Swifte]

you guys realize HA was being sarcastic when he said "gg orange - well deserved" right? hence the "lol" at the end...

Was the one star rating for all the players in the game across the board also an example of his sarcasm? And the clueless tag?

My point was this: don't take the fact that he said "well deserved" and then gave 1 star rating as 'proof' of abuse - it was clearly a sarcastic remark... as he had previously stated
2012-06-29 19:40:20 - HighlanderAttack: damn orange--your a dumb ass too--you gave the game to slate
2012-06-29 19:40:55 - HighlanderAttack: all slate has to do is take green out and then me

I think HA stated for himself why he gave everybody 1s and clueless tags:
2012-06-30 10:16:28 - HighlanderAttack: lol slate missed his turn--what a fucking joke--this is the worst bunch of players I have ever seen in a game

[Symmetry]

you guys realize HA was being sarcastic when he said "gg orange - well deserved" right? hence the "lol" at the end...

Was the one star rating for all the players in the game across the board also an example of his sarcasm? And the clueless tag?

probably.
From my understanding, it seems they played noobishly and gave away the game. So the win for the victor wasn't necessarily deserved (hence the sarcasm), and the others who played nonsensically were also essentially clueless in handing the game away.

But hey, you've played 66 games, so what do we know

Apparently that the ratings system is not abused if you say that posting only 1 star ratings is sarcasm. I defer to your superior judgement on this. I'm off to farm some new players and claim that it was done in the spirit of irony. Or perhaps I'll dump a load of racial abuse on some poor sod and claim that I was just joking. Maybe create a few multis, spurred by pure whimsy?

Who knows what the limits are if abusing the ratings system sarcastically isn't an offence?

But anyway, did you even look at the links to see the ranks of the "noobishly" playing players? Or see that the winner received a one star rating across the board too?

All those silly, high ranked, premium noobs.

[Symmetry]

And that, people, is how you do sarcasm, without abusing the ratings system.

[Leehar]

Apparently, you're confusing some things, the sarcasm was the comment in game chat, and the rating was his actual opinion on their play?...

[Symmetry]

you guys realize HA was being sarcastic when he said "gg orange - well deserved" right? hence the "lol" at the end...

Was the one star rating for all the players in the game across the board also an example of his sarcasm? And the clueless tag?

My point was this: don't take the fact that he said "well deserved" and then gave 1 star rating as 'proof' of abuse - it was clearly a sarcastic remark... as he had previously stated
2012-06-29 19:40:20 - HighlanderAttack: damn orange--your a dumb ass too--you gave the game to slate
2012-06-29 19:40:55 - HighlanderAttack: all slate has to do is take green out and then me

I think HA stated for himself why he gave everybody 1s and clueless tags:
2012-06-30 10:16:28 - HighlanderAttack: lol slate missed his turn--what a fucking joke--this is the worst bunch of players I have ever seen in a game

He gave everyone a 1 star rating for every aspect available to him. His ratings left are available to see in one of the above links if you'd like to see how many players he considers to be the worst of late.

Terrible run of bad luck, perhaps, to meet so many terrible players, so often, and for them all to be equally bad in all of their aspects.

Or perhaps ratings abuse?

[Symmetry]

Apparently, you're confusing some things, the sarcasm was the comment in game chat, and the rating was his actual opinion on their play?...

Confusing what? You said that the ratings were "probably" examples of his sarcasm.

you guys realize HA was being sarcastic when he said "gg orange - well deserved" right? hence the "lol" at the end...

Was the one star rating for all the players in the game across the board also an example of his sarcasm? And the clueless tag?

probably.

If you want to walk back that statement, I'm fine with that. I thought it was fairly daft to even consider the ratings abuse as sarcastic in the first place, let alone to use sarcasm as an excuse.

[Leehar]

you guys realize HA was being sarcastic when he said "gg orange - well deserved" right? hence the "lol" at the end...

Was the one star rating for all the players in the game across the board also an example of his sarcasm? And the clueless tag?

My point was this: don't take the fact that he said "well deserved" and then gave 1 star rating as 'proof' of abuse - it was clearly a sarcastic remark... as he had previously stated
2012-06-29 19:40:20 - HighlanderAttack: damn orange--your a dumb ass too--you gave the game to slate
2012-06-29 19:40:55 - HighlanderAttack: all slate has to do is take green out and then me

I think HA stated for himself why he gave everybody 1s and clueless tags:
2012-06-30 10:16:28 - HighlanderAttack: lol slate missed his turn--what a fucking joke--this is the worst bunch of players I have ever seen in a game

He gave everyone a 1 star rating for every aspect available to him. His ratings left are available to see in one of the above links if you'd like to see how many players he considers to be the worst of late.

Terrible run of bad luck, perhaps, to meet so many terrible players, so often, and for them all to be equally bad in all of their aspects.

Or perhaps ratings abuse?

Thats the thing, why are you calling it often, when these ratings are among 18 000 of his games? Thats far from often in my estimation...
(On the other hand, if you're talking about just the 1 game, then thats not indicative of systematic abuse either)

My probably was that they're examples that give light to the sarcasm. ie he was being sarcastic with his comment as you can see by him actually rating them negatively

[Symmetry]

you guys realize HA was being sarcastic when he said "gg orange - well deserved" right? hence the "lol" at the end...

Was the one star rating for all the players in the game across the board also an example of his sarcasm? And the clueless tag?

My point was this: don't take the fact that he said "well deserved" and then gave 1 star rating as 'proof' of abuse - it was clearly a sarcastic remark... as he had previously stated
2012-06-29 19:40:20 - HighlanderAttack: damn orange--your a dumb ass too--you gave the game to slate
2012-06-29 19:40:55 - HighlanderAttack: all slate has to do is take green out and then me

I think HA stated for himself why he gave everybody 1s and clueless tags:
2012-06-30 10:16:28 - HighlanderAttack: lol slate missed his turn--what a fucking joke--this is the worst bunch of players I have ever seen in a game

He gave everyone a 1 star rating for every aspect available to him. His ratings left are available to see in one of the above links if you'd like to see how many players he considers to be the worst of late.

Terrible run of bad luck, perhaps, to meet so many terrible players, so often, and for them all to be equally bad in all of their aspects.

Or perhaps ratings abuse?

Thats the thing, why are you calling it often, when these ratings are among 18 000 of his games? Thats far from often in my estimation...
(On the other hand, if you're talking about just the 1 game, then thats not indicative of systematic abuse either)

My probably was that they're examples that give light to the sarcasm. ie he was being sarcastic with his comment as you can see by him actually rating them negatively

I have no idea what your position is, you say that his ratings were probably sarcastic, then say that they weren't and accuse me of making a mistake, then try to find some sort of middle ground? I don't get what you're trying to say. It's fairly clear that you're ignoring my advice to look at the links to his ratings left.

Then you do this, replying not to my actual response to you, but to my response to another poster.

A less cynical man than me might think you were muddying the waters.

How many games have you played with this dude Leehar?

Just for transparencies sake, in case anyone else finds your attitude a little bit suspicious and might perform the same search I just did.

[agentcom]

I haven't done much research on this, but I've read everything from the people who have looked into it. It looks like the rating in the multiplayer game was justified. You can rate people how you want as long as you have some justification for it. There, he called people out in game chat that it was some of the worst play he'd seen. I might rate everyone 1 star even the winner if the winner didn't deserve the win, played as poorly as the others, and got lucky.

Also, as others have pointed out, you have too look at the amount of total games that he's played over that period of time. A page of 1 star ratings in let's say 6 months would be a lot for me, but for someone who has twice as many games going on (and more 1v1 or otherwise quicker types of games), then it is not.

Finally, I think that most users who have been on the site forever generally stop rating as frequently and are more likely to rate only if someone does something really good or really bad. I used to rate almost everyone. Now I pretty much only rate teammates whether I had a good or bad game with them or complete idiots or jerks. I had someone call me out for leaving them 4-stars across the board when I was new. I thought it was an above average rating for that user's above average play. I got an angry response from him and have since stopped rating middling players.

So, it sounds like there's a justifiable basis for that multiplayer game. Do you see any ratings that aren't justifiable? If so, you should list them. Don't just say "Look at his page. It speaks for itself." Because it does not. There are lots of reasons to rate people 1-star. If you can't find ratings that aren't justifiable, then this will probably quickly be closed.

[Symmetry]

I haven't done much research on this, but I've read everything from the people who have looked into it. It looks like the rating in the multiplayer game was justified. You can rate people how you want as long as you have some justification for it. There, he called people out in game chat that it was some of the worst play he'd seen. I might rate everyone 1 star even the winner if the winner didn't deserve the win, played as poorly as the others, and got lucky.

Also, as others have pointed out, you have too look at the amount of total games that he's played over that period of time. A page of 1 star ratings in let's say 6 months would be a lot for me, but for someone who has twice as many games going on (and more 1v1 or otherwise quicker types of games), then it is not.

Finally, I think that most users who have been on the site forever generally stop rating as frequently and are more likely to rate only if someone does something really good or really bad. I used to rate almost everyone. Now I pretty much only rate teammates whether I had a good or bad game with them or complete idiots or jerks. I had someone call me out for leaving them 4-stars across the board when I was new. I thought it was an above average rating for that user's above average play. I got an angry response from him and have since stopped rating middling players.

So, it sounds like there's a justifiable basis for that multiplayer game. Do you see any ratings that aren't justifiable? If so, you should list them. Don't just say "Look at his page. It speaks for itself." Because it does not. There are lots of reasons to rate people 1-star. If you can't find ratings that aren't justifiable, then this will probably quickly be closed.

No you don't have to look at the entirety of his career- that would be an exception, the standard is to look at recent cases. 6 months seems to be that standard. That he was behaving decently before he started abusing the system is neither here nor there, it's entirely irrelevant. As it is for everyone else when it comes to breaking the rules.

As I've said, there's a decent argument in there to mitigate punishment, but it's pretty clear at this point that he did what he has been accused of.

[agentcom]

I haven't done much research on this, but I've read everything from the people who have looked into it. It looks like the rating in the multiplayer game was justified. You can rate people how you want as long as you have some justification for it. There, he called people out in game chat that it was some of the worst play he'd seen. I might rate everyone 1 star even the winner if the winner didn't deserve the win, played as poorly as the others, and got lucky.

Also, as others have pointed out, you have too look at the amount of total games that he's played over that period of time. A page of 1 star ratings in let's say 6 months would be a lot for me, but for someone who has twice as many games going on (and more 1v1 or otherwise quicker types of games), then it is not.

Finally, I think that most users who have been on the site forever generally stop rating as frequently and are more likely to rate only if someone does something really good or really bad. I used to rate almost everyone. Now I pretty much only rate teammates whether I had a good or bad game with them or complete idiots or jerks. I had someone call me out for leaving them 4-stars across the board when I was new. I thought it was an above average rating for that user's above average play. I got an angry response from him and have since stopped rating middling players.

So, it sounds like there's a justifiable basis for that multiplayer game. Do you see any ratings that aren't justifiable? If so, you should list them. Don't just say "Look at his page. It speaks for itself." Because it does not. There are lots of reasons to rate people 1-star. If you can't find ratings that aren't justifiable, then this will probably quickly be closed.

No you don't have to look at the entirety of his career- that would be an exception, the standard is to look at recent cases. 6 months seems to be that standard. That he was behaving decently before he started abusing the system is neither here nor there, it's entirely irrelevant. As it is for everyone else when it comes to breaking the rules.

As I've said, there's a decent argument in there to mitigate punishment, but it's pretty clear at this point that he did what he has been accused of.

I'm not saying look at his entire career. I'm saying look at the ratings "over that period of time" i.e. the 6 months or whatever they want. There are very few ratings and a hell of a lot of games over that period of time. If anything, he's probably more judicious than many players in how often he rates people. In the last 6 months are their other examples of abusive ratings? We've already taken care of the one multiplayer game. He didn't like how anybody played and rated them accordingly. So, I think we're still waiting on some more examples.

If there are only a couple examples of abusive ratings, then this will probably just be noted. If there aren't any, then nothing should be done except close this.

[Symmetry]

I haven't done much research on this, but I've read everything from the people who have looked into it. It looks like the rating in the multiplayer game was justified. You can rate people how you want as long as you have some justification for it. There, he called people out in game chat that it was some of the worst play he'd seen. I might rate everyone 1 star even the winner if the winner didn't deserve the win, played as poorly as the others, and got lucky.

Also, as others have pointed out, you have too look at the amount of total games that he's played over that period of time. A page of 1 star ratings in let's say 6 months would be a lot for me, but for someone who has twice as many games going on (and more 1v1 or otherwise quicker types of games), then it is not.

Finally, I think that most users who have been on the site forever generally stop rating as frequently and are more likely to rate only if someone does something really good or really bad. I used to rate almost everyone. Now I pretty much only rate teammates whether I had a good or bad game with them or complete idiots or jerks. I had someone call me out for leaving them 4-stars across the board when I was new. I thought it was an above average rating for that user's above average play. I got an angry response from him and have since stopped rating middling players.

So, it sounds like there's a justifiable basis for that multiplayer game. Do you see any ratings that aren't justifiable? If so, you should list them. Don't just say "Look at his page. It speaks for itself." Because it does not. There are lots of reasons to rate people 1-star. If you can't find ratings that aren't justifiable, then this will probably quickly be closed.

No you don't have to look at the entirety of his career- that would be an exception, the standard is to look at recent cases. 6 months seems to be that standard. That he was behaving decently before he started abusing the system is neither here nor there, it's entirely irrelevant. As it is for everyone else when it comes to breaking the rules.

As I've said, there's a decent argument in there to mitigate punishment, but it's pretty clear at this point that he did what he has been accused of.

I'm not saying look at his entire career. I'm saying look at the ratings "over that period of time" i.e. the 6 months or whatever they want. There are very few ratings and a hell of a lot of games over that period of time. If anything, he's probably more judicious than many players in how often he rates people. In the last 6 months are their other examples of abusive ratings? We've already taken care of the one multiplayer game. He didn't like how anybody played and rated them accordingly. So, I think we're still waiting on some more examples.

If there are only a couple examples of abusive ratings, then this will probably just be noted. If there aren't any, then nothing should be done except close this.

i don't know what you mean, there are 7 examples in the OP alone, rather than "a couple", and if you feel like clicking on his ratings left, you'll find many more examples.

[HighlanderAttack]

I have not read through this as it is a waste of time to do so--all I am going to say is that was the worst bunch of players I have ever played with in all my games--If I could have given worse ratings I would have.

I have something to say to all of them:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iubog28_KBI&NR=1