THORNHEART severe ratings abuse [Warned] ks

[THORNHEART]

well if he posted in french i could read that...idk he is a decent guy i guess. but still he overlooked that point i keep raising

off the rating rules have been recently instated..so i dont see how i can be in trouble for rating left before the rules are made...also as i have point out again and again

i am not abusing the ratings system...i have stated that i only bother to rate extremely bad players...hence why most of my ratings left are bad. also out of 3000 plus games i have only rte about 100 players badly...so its retarded (but we are talking jefjef here) to say that i abuse the system. abusing would be to leave 1000-2000 bad ratings...

[jefjef]

well if he posted in french i could read that...idk he is a decent guy i guess. but still he overlooked that point i keep raising

off the rating rules have been recently instated..so i dont see how i can be in trouble for rating left before the rules are made...also as i have point out again and again

i am not abusing the ratings system...i have stated that i only bother to rate extremely bad players...hence why most of my ratings left are bad. also out of 3000 plus games i have only rte about 100 players badly...so its retarded (but we are talking jefjef here) to say that i abuse the system. abusing would be to leave 1000-2000 bad ratings...

Evidence for coming forum ban

[THORNHEART]

lmfao

btw according to your warped view of things isnt all this posting about me getting banned ect posting fasle threads about me...wouldnt that be called baiting? just trying to get me to lash out at you while you remain protected in your little cocoon? yeah pretty sure your baiting

[BoganGod]

lmfao...haha this is getting rich.

need i leave a defense? well i guess i shall leave a token defense...I pretty much only rate the players I get mad at...I rarely rate good players just because I cant be bothered and because of the lack of truely remarkable players on this site...so it comes down to i dont really leave someone a rating unless they really piss me off...

at jefjef this is getting a bit childish...and is part of my point that so many of you tools just look for someone to catch doing something because you have nothing better to do with you time see my thread

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5&t=108094

The LT that feels there are a lack of truly remarkable players..... be still my beating heart. You state here that you mainly rate "mad" so people might view that as revenge ratings.... Have a look at the anger management issues before you rate, then you might avoid been put in here about such a petty thing.

Oh and JefJef, ratings abuse is now old hat, even colton is posting accusations about ratings abuse..... Your much better at multi sniffing, why waste your time on the small potatoes?

[king sam]

off the rating rules have been recently instated..so i dont see how i can be in trouble for rating left before the rules are made...also as i have point out again and again

As I already said to you in the JP thread, there has been no change of the rules. The ratings standard has been the same since the day it was implemented to replace the feedback function. Meaning every rating you have left under your "ratings left" tab is under those rules.

i am not abusing the ratings system...i have stated that i only bother to rate extremely bad players...hence why most of my ratings left are bad. also out of 3000 plus games i have only rte about 100 players badly...

You are abusing the system and while you may not care, I do. There are rules on this site for a reason, and that is to protect the integrity of the system that is in place so all that come can have an enjoyable gaming experience. Sure you will run into characters along the way that will make it less enjoyable, hence why we have the addition of the foe system, and even the rating system when used correctly. When players misuse this system it gives an unfair and inaccurate assessment of others and can skew them in a negative way in which deterring them from an enjoyable experience while they are here. Hence why we moderate gross abuse of this.

And the reason you are receiving a Warning here is for the fact that 80% of the people you rate are people who you think are worth a 1 star. The rating system isn't there to just rate the people that you feel didn't play good, its there to be used to accurately access others that you came into contact with via a game. Use the foe system like your using the ratings system and you will be fine. Or PM me or King A if you really don't care about the ratings system and I'm sure we can revoke your ability to leave ratings upon your request.

One last time for all. Rating Moderation, Abuse & Punishment
Subject: caesarbaselius: ratings abuse [Warned]

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

KS

[THORNHEART]

hmmm....ok

but as i have posted i think close to like 6 times now...i dont rate enough players for me to forsee any future problems with rating lmfao since it took 2 years for me to be reported i got another 2 years before i leave enough ratings to get a second warning...

anyways premi ends in like april so i wouldnt worry i wont be bothering the site much longer...

[Snowgun]

Don't want to shake the bee's nest again here, but just want to make an observation:

BESIDES the TAGS, which can be easily addressed by looking at the game, it seems like the stars are subjective. Taking from KS's manifesto:

1 Star = The user was extremely poor in this area

The 3 rating Attributes are:

* Fair Play: chivalry, etc...
* Gameplay: player's ability to play an enjoyable game
* Attitude: Covers behavior in chat, foul language, sore losers, gracious winners, "great chatters!", whining about luck, etc...

So taking these into account, I could rate someone all 1's and you would be hard pressed to prove I wasn't right in doing so (we are not talking bout tags here).

So, it all comes down to volume, like KS said. So why don't we make a volume cutoff?

What if I rate all 1's and 5's, but my 1's are only 1% of my ratings? Am I abusing? As much as I hate to admit it, thorny has a point in which people don't give a shit to rate unless it was a good experience or a fucking BAD one.

My point is that with all these rating issues there should be some objectivity and less subjectivity. Unless you mods want people to keep throwing these c&A threads up here.... Just sayin to help out.. personally I think all ratings complaints should be ignored unless the 1's outnumber the other ratings.

[THORNHEART]

"As much as I hate to admit it, thorny has a point in which people don't give a shit to rate unless it was a good experience or a fucking BAD one." ---so true but obviously cc now feels they should tell you how and when to rate....CC=communist club??? lol jk

as to your other comments---well i see a problem there my friend because my 1s do outweigh my other ratings namely for the fact i keep bringing up that i pretty much only rate when i have had a very bad experiance

so whats ur point....i got a warning for rating how i feel people deserved...who cares ill be depressed at work tomorrow...NOT.

[king sam]

I really would like to see this crap go away, we are arguing over ratings people. But in accordance with the rules as they stand now this is a violation because of the way he has rated and tagged other users, and its enough abuse that deemed worthy of his 1st punishment on the escalation of punishments.

While I don't feel ratings abuse is detrimental to the overall site enjoyment as secret diplomacy and multis are it is still a minuet factor in it. We don't purposely run checks or go our looking for ratings abuse, we encourage you to try to work it out with the other user, and we don't step in unless its gross abuse, which we defined. So really if you want these things to exit stage right out of C&A then the few in the public that are reporting users for the sake of thinking they got something on them are the ones you will need to convince.

I understand in this case Thorns defense is he has only rated players he didn't like, which is why the volume of his poor ratings that he has given is high, but that's not what the system was made for. The system was made to rate any and everyone to give a subjective view on them to others. The way he is using the rating system is the way to use the Foe system. And the overuse of inappropriate tags helped deem this case necessary for the punishment.

KS

[rutherfoo]

Way to post and not know what the hell your saying.

Its already been decided very recently that rating all 5 stars is an abuse. Also rating all 5 and all 1. I won't show it to ya but if you look you will find it.

I guess the way to weasel out of that though is to throw in a 3 or 4 in a category every 25 ratings or so.

It has clearly been defined soo many times what abuse is and isn't about this rating nonsense.

Rating someone with all 5's is commonly done, and while it is abuse we will very very rarely ever step in and punish this unless its gross abuse. Out of the whole site and all the accusations that have came into CC 1 person, count them 1 person has been punished for leaving all 5's. The reason behind that punishment was he had nothing but 5 stars across the board for 9 pages worth of people.

People this is just as much abuse as it is by leaving all 1's across the board for 9 pages worth. Sure it may not look as bad to you cause you assume the guy leaving the all 1's is a poor sport, and your probably right, but it still does just as much detriment to the system.

[king sam]

I guess the way to weasel out of that though is to throw in a 3 or 4 in a category every 25 ratings or so.

The way to do it is to not try to weasel around the bounds of the rules and follow the simple directions that govern the ratings system. Try rating the way you suggested and it will be found out and you will be held accountable.

Its simple, just follow the rules instead of looking for loopholes

[karel]

I guess the way to weasel out of that though is to throw in a 3 or 4 in a category every 25 ratings or so.

The way to do it is to not try to weasel around the bounds of the rules and follow the simple directions that govern the ratings system. Try rating the way you suggested and it will be found out and you will be held accountable.

Its simple, just follow the rules instead of looking for loopholes

unjust was given to thornheart...

[THORNHEART]

[Snowgun]

I guess the way to weasel out of that though is to throw in a 3 or 4 in a category every 25 ratings or so.

1-1-2 is the new 1-1-1

[THORNHEART]

nah 2-3-2

looks cooler...

[rutherfoo]

I guess the way to weasel out of that though is to throw in a 3 or 4 in a category every 25 ratings or so.

The way to do it is to not try to weasel around the bounds of the rules and follow the simple directions that govern the ratings system. Try rating the way you suggested and it will be found out and you will be held accountable.

Its simple, just follow the rules instead of looking for loopholes

I was referring to the result of jefjef's ratings abuse thread, where he was cleared because they weren't 100% all 5's, but still overwhelmingly 5's... Did anyone read what I actually quoted?

[THORNHEART]

lmfao...

not true he was cleared it seems because my report was vindictive....

and also cause he didnt add much tags...


and also cause he is jefjef...

[king sam]

I was referring to the result of jefjef's ratings abuse thread, where he was cleared because they weren't 100% all 5's, but still overwhelmingly 5's... Did anyone read what I actually quoted?

Maybe you should bone up on your reading in the ratings abuse threads then so you can be more educated about it, cause it clearly states in at least 2 of them what is and isn't abuse, I know cause I have taken the time to write it all out myself.

lmfao...
not true he was cleared it seems because my report was vindictive....
and also cause he didnt add much tags...
and also cause he is jefjef...

You should do the same as well, its pretty cut and dry the 2 reports that you made last week were spurious in nature. Their is no favoritism towards anyone on this site when it comes to a violation of a rule. If someone violates the standards that are set then they are handled accordingly. Jefjef's ratings were not above the standards that were outlined for gross abuse period, no ifs ands or buts about it.

If you have a problem with the ruling then open up an E-Ticket so we can waste more of our time explaining it to you or quit bothering to show up in C&A to piss and moan about it.

LOCKED