HighlanderAttack- ratings abuse[cleared]SN

[agentcom]

Time to lock this .
Heres a question ...Ifyou dont care about any of it and have given up on C C anyway why bother rating at all ?? Just saying .
Heres a thought .....Is your current disallusionment with CC directly co-related to your assessment of recent opponents ?
If your answer to Door#2 is Yes ...Believe me I can sympathize in some respects
However ..as far as ratings go its kinda like "The kettle calling the Pot Black "....if you know what I mean ...you do Right ? .........oh yeh You Do ?
BR

Always an entertaining assessment from you BR.

disillusionment They do make spell check.

feel free to get you buddies to rate me ones--my 4.8 has not changed since my first month--ratings in the just do not have the impact some of you think they do.

Although I usually do not rate--when I play a bad player as stated before they will get ones --some will care--some will not--really it does not matter anyway.

Enjoy all

Out of all the atrocious spelling, capitalization, grammar, etc. why did you pick "disillusionment" to call out? lol

[sniffie]

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

[Symmetry]

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

Given that the OP provided 7 examples of players given terrible ratings, how many ratings would have been enough?

[patrickaa317]

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

Given that the OP provided 7 examples of players given terrible ratings, how many ratings would have been enough?

It's probably based on games played count. Given the fact that you have only played 1 person this year, it is quite different than HA who has probably played over 250 people this year.

Why are you such an instigator on a site that you use as for mainly forum purposes? Do you enjoy seeing people get banned? Does it bring some sort of odd pleasure to you?

[Symmetry]

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

Given that the OP provided 7 examples of players given terrible ratings, how many ratings would have been enough?

It's probably based on games played count. Given the fact that you have only played 1 person this year, it is quite different than HA who has probably played over 250 people this year.

Why are you such an instigator on a site that you use as for mainly forum purposes? Do you enjoy seeing people get banned? Does it bring some sort of odd pleasure to you?

Ad Hominem much? If you want to discuss the complaint, and how it has been dealt with, we're cool. If you want to complain about me, this is the right forum, but the wrong thread.

[patrickaa317]

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

Given that the OP provided 7 examples of players given terrible ratings, how many ratings would have been enough?

It's probably based on games played count. Given the fact that you have only played 1 person this year, it is quite different than HA who has probably played over 250 people this year.

Why are you such an instigator on a site that you use as for mainly forum purposes? Do you enjoy seeing people get banned? Does it bring some sort of odd pleasure to you?

Ad Hominem much? If you want to discuss the complaint, and how it has been dealt with, we're cool. If you want to complain about me, this is the right forum, but the wrong thread.

You are correct that this may be the wrong thread but seriously.

[Symmetry]

But seriously what? Ad hom is a standard phrase to use to describe the rhetorical fallacy of attacking the character of the arguer rather than the argument itself.

Would my question:

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

Given that the OP provided 7 examples of players given terrible ratings, how many ratings would have been enough?

be less legitimate, or more, depending on who asked it?

[patrickaa317]

But seriously what? Ad hom is a standard phrase to use to describe the rhetorical fallacy of attacking the character of the arguer rather than the argument itself.

Would my question:

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

Given that the OP provided 7 examples of players given terrible ratings, how many ratings would have been enough?

be less legitimate, or more, depending on who asked it?

I would see it as more legitimate if it came from someone who does more on the site than only post in OT & C&A forums, usually in C&A only on the more high profile cases from what I have seen. Does your instigation in the C&A thread depend on who the accused is?

Plus, according to sniffie there was 'no/not enough' ratings for even a warning. Thus sniffie didn't show agreement that the 7 provided in the OP were ratings abuse.

[Symmetry]

But seriously what? Ad hom is a standard phrase to use to describe the rhetorical fallacy of attacking the character of the arguer rather than the argument itself.

Would my question:

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

Given that the OP provided 7 examples of players given terrible ratings, how many ratings would have been enough?

be less legitimate, or more, depending on who asked it?

I would see it as more legitimate if it came from someone who does more on the site than only post in OT & C&A forums, usually in C&A only on the more high profile cases from what I have seen. Does your instigation in the C&A thread depend on who the accused is?

Plus, according to sniffie there was 'no/not enough' ratings for even a warning. Thus sniffie didn't show agreement that the 7 provided in the OP were ratings abuse.

Hence it's a logical fallacy, you're bothered by the source of the argument rather than its validity.

I merely asked Sniffle how many examples would be needed.

One would hope that saying there was no abuse/not enough abuse, would be recognised as a more than a little ambiguous.

[patrickaa317]

But seriously what? Ad hom is a standard phrase to use to describe the rhetorical fallacy of attacking the character of the arguer rather than the argument itself.

Would my question:

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

Given that the OP provided 7 examples of players given terrible ratings, how many ratings would have been enough?

be less legitimate, or more, depending on who asked it?

I would see it as more legitimate if it came from someone who does more on the site than only post in OT & C&A forums, usually in C&A only on the more high profile cases from what I have seen. Does your instigation in the C&A thread depend on who the accused is?

Plus, according to sniffie there was 'no/not enough' ratings for even a warning. Thus sniffie didn't show agreement that the 7 provided in the OP were ratings abuse.

Hence it's a logical fallacy, you're bothered by the source of the argument rather than its validity.

I merely asked Sniffle how many examples would be needed.

One would hope that saying there was no abuse/not enough abuse, would be recognised as a more than a little ambiguous.

No, the instigation behind your question bothers me.

[agentcom]

Ad Hominem much? If you want to discuss the complaint, and how it has been dealt with, we're cool. If you want to complain about me, this is the right forum, but the wrong thread.

Look who learned a new word.

But seriously what? Ad hom is a standard phrase to use to describe the rhetorical fallacy of attacking the character of the arguer rather than the argument itself.

Would my question:

I merely asked Sniffle how many examples would be needed.

For someone who spends so much time around here, you don't seem to pick up on much do you? I don't know if there's a hard and fast rule, but 5 is usually the number that they look for.

Here there were 7 alleged and 0 that upon further investigation looked like abuse.

[Symmetry]

But seriously what? Ad hom is a standard phrase to use to describe the rhetorical fallacy of attacking the character of the arguer rather than the argument itself.

Would my question:

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

Given that the OP provided 7 examples of players given terrible ratings, how many ratings would have been enough?

be less legitimate, or more, depending on who asked it?

I would see it as more legitimate if it came from someone who does more on the site than only post in OT & C&A forums, usually in C&A only on the more high profile cases from what I have seen. Does your instigation in the C&A thread depend on who the accused is?

Plus, according to sniffie there was 'no/not enough' ratings for even a warning. Thus sniffie didn't show agreement that the 7 provided in the OP were ratings abuse.

Hence it's a logical fallacy, you're bothered by the source of the argument rather than its validity.

I merely asked Sniffle how many examples would be needed.

One would hope that saying there was no abuse/not enough abuse, would be recognised as a more than a little ambiguous.

No, the instigation behind your question bothers me.

Which is a logical fallacy, as I pointed out. It's called an ad hominem, traditionally.

[Symmetry]

Ad Hominem much? If you want to discuss the complaint, and how it has been dealt with, we're cool. If you want to complain about me, this is the right forum, but the wrong thread.

Look who learned a new word.

But seriously what? Ad hom is a standard phrase to use to describe the rhetorical fallacy of attacking the character of the arguer rather than the argument itself.

Would my question:

I merely asked Sniffle how many examples would be needed.

For someone who spends so much time around here, you don't seem to pick up on much do you? I don't know if there's a hard and fast rule, but 5 is usually the number that they look for.

Here there were 7 alleged and 0 that upon further investigation looked like abuse.

Baffling, I merely asked Sniffle how many examples would be enough when he says that the examples provided were not enough.

Apparently you're being harsher than me. I though Sniffle was a bit ambiguous, and asked for clarification.

You're saying that he lied, and by saying "not enough" he meant "none".

I'd ask for a clarification before going your route. He's generally a pretty good mod, and does good work here.

[patrickaa317]

But seriously what? Ad hom is a standard phrase to use to describe the rhetorical fallacy of attacking the character of the arguer rather than the argument itself.

Would my question:

Given that the OP provided 7 examples of players given terrible ratings, how many ratings would have been enough?

be less legitimate, or more, depending on who asked it?

I would see it as more legitimate if it came from someone who does more on the site than only post in OT & C&A forums, usually in C&A only on the more high profile cases from what I have seen. Does your instigation in the C&A thread depend on who the accused is?

Plus, according to sniffie there was 'no/not enough' ratings for even a warning. Thus sniffie didn't show agreement that the 7 provided in the OP were ratings abuse.

Hence it's a logical fallacy, you're bothered by the source of the argument rather than its validity.

I merely asked Sniffle how many examples would be needed.

One would hope that saying there was no abuse/not enough abuse, would be recognised as a more than a little ambiguous.

No, the instigation behind your question bothers me.

Which is a logical fallacy, as I pointed out. It's called an ad hominem, traditionally.

And your post would traditionally be called instigation.

in·sti·gate
1. To urge on; goad.
2. To stir up; foment.

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure asking how many examples of rating abuse constitute ratings abuse constitutes a bad question when the OP gives seven, and the mod says that there's not enough.

[Symmetry]

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

Again, I ask, how many ratings would be enough?

[shoop76]

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

Again, I ask, how many ratings would be enough?

I don't think it is the number of ratings. A pattern needs to be established in multiple games. This rating system sucks anyway. Too many people who don't rate according to players abilities and too many people that use different methods of rating. Unfortunately people rate, in most cases, to games and gameplay they have seen most recently and not according to the whole body of work.

HA may be an ass sometime, but I don't think he is unfair.

[Symmetry]

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

Again, I ask, how many ratings would be enough?

I don't think it is the number of ratings. A pattern needs to be established in multiple games. This rating system sucks anyway. Too many people who don't rate according to players abilities and too many people that use different methods of rating. Unfortunately people rate, in most cases, to games and gameplay they have seen most recently and not according to the whole body of work.

HA may be an ass sometime, but I don't think he is unfair.

That's kind of tough for peeps to judge abuse of the ratings system. If we go by number of games, rather than how often the ratings systems has been abused, is there even a point to the mods looking at how players treat the ratings system?

Plus I guess there's the problem of Sniffle saying that there weren't enough ratings for him. Which would suggest that there is a number of ratings. Kind of waiting on Sniffle for that number.

[Frox333]

eagles of green earth, u sicken me that u accuse him. i can name 10 players or more on this site that deserve to be banned in this category more than highlander attack

[Symmetry]

eagles of green earth, u sicken me that u accuse him. i can name 10 players or more on this site that deserve to be banned in this category more than highlander attack

That there are ten people you'd like to see banned before Highlander Attack is simply ten examples of people that your weakness have caused to fail your secret list. A modicum of bravery might have caused you to mention them, but alas, that ten, and the evidence for them, are just BS, right?

McCarthy much?

[NoSurvivors]

Lol youre leading the witch hunt for HA arent you symmetry?

[hmsps]

nope i think the Guidelines are flawed and Symmetry is just pointing it out. Sadly no one seems to be able to look at the guidelines and apply them properly to a case

[patrickaa317]

nope i think the Guidelines are flawed and Symmetry is just pointing it out. Sadly no one seems to be able to look at the guidelines and apply them properly to a case

Ah, that's why he also posted in the Afroaction thread. Oh wait.

[Leehar]

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

Again, I ask, how many ratings would be enough?

The 7 ratings relate to 1 game, thats not enough.

All you need to do is apply a modicum of sense. I'm sure C&A can make a hard & fast rule to say 50% or greater games played with negative rating or some such, but this isn't the place for such a discussion, and it's not really the best course of action either

[Symmetry]

If you guys want to talk about ratings and things related, please take it somewhere else. HA is cleared because there where no/not enough ratings for even a warning.

sniffie

p.s. "our own" are treated just the same as anyone else.

Again, I ask, how many ratings would be enough?

The 7 ratings relate to 1 game, thats not enough.

All you need to do is apply a modicum of sense. I'm sure C&A can make a hard & fast rule to say 50% or greater games played with negative rating or some such, but this isn't the place for such a discussion, and it's not really the best course of action either

What does number of games have to do with ratings abuse?

Surely the number of abusive ratings are the things to be judged in a charge of ratings abuse.

Where else can this discussion be had?