[These cases have been closed. If you would like to appeal the decision of the hunter please open a ticket on the help page and the case will be looked into by a second hunter.]
The rating he left for Big Whiskey is another example of ratings abuse from this player.
He played 2 games against the colonel, and in both games, Big Whiskey do not fit into the "Complainer", "Irrational", or "Poor Strategy" categories (neither does he deserves 3 one stars). If you don't believe me, just check this and this.
The rating he left for babagonosh is also ratings abuse. He tagged him as "Rude" and gave him two one stars, when babogonosh said nothing negative during the game (he was only attemtpting to call for an alliance against the strongest player). Game 4393358
hmm, as someone who received all 5s from orangeade and was invited to double with him, please allow me to play devil's advocate. is what he's doing any more of ratings abuse than my standard practice of leaving all 5s unless someone is rude/ridiculously inept at online world domination? obviously i see the difference in terms of harm, but both of us are screwing the curve by being extreme.
There is no fog rule and I am no gentleman.
Robinette wrote:
Kaskavel wrote:Seriously. Who is the female conqueror of CC?
Depends on what metric you use...
The coolest is squishyg
squishyg wrote:hmm, as someone who received all 5s from orangeade and was invited to double with him, please allow me to play devil's advocate. is what he's doing any more of ratings abuse than my standard practice of leaving all 5s unless someone is rude/ridiculously inept at online world domination? obviously i see the difference in terms of harm, but both of us are screwing the curve by being extreme.
I hear what you are saying, and would normally agree with you, however, I played him, and I have got to tell you that I found him to be totally irrational and explosive. All I did was say gl in a 6-man doubles game. And then his partner got kicked for cheating. I did not grill him on it. Well, the other team was low rankers, so I pointed out to him (after he kept attacking me), that if he lost to my team, he would loose 6 points, but if he lost to the other team, he would end up loosing 20 points. This is normal type chat that people use all of the time. And I only told him because I saw that he was a cook with something like 2 or 3 thousand games. Well, this guy went off like a grenade, saying things like I am trying to get him to throw the game. The conversation went down hill from there. After reading some of the chat in some of his games, I have found that he does indeed maintain a short fuse. I will have to go find the game, but he went off on a major I think it was, the same way. All the poor guy said was "good luck", and then something like "crazy dice lol". That was enough to set orange off like a maniac. He gave the guy 1 stars across the board with tags like coward complainer bad strat. etc.
I suggest that you go read some of the chat in his games. You will find the same thing over and over. If you beat the guy, or say anything about the dice he will explode. And he then will shit rate you with tags, that are nowhere near accurate.
I actually find myself feeling a bit lucky with the numbers on one of my lowest ratings, at this point. I received a 5 star in fair play, and only one in each of the others for game number 6180686. I'm currently checking this to make sure, but I foe'd him during the only game I've played with him because I was sick of reading his comments accusing me of various things during the game, and I think he's the only person I've ever foe'd. I also recieved tags of "Talkative, rude, complainer, and paranoid". I'm trying to remember the game chat, because I cannot see his words (he's foe'd, it happens...). There we go... yes, he's the only person I've ever become frustrated enough with to foe, and I have received a couple of other low ratings - for games I did play poorly in. I won this game, and still received a one star rating in both gameplay and attitude. And I did not accuse him of anything during the game, merely refused to be the one to eliminate him. I'm reading through the chat as I type this, excuse the narrative. He actually, in chat, refused to attack anyone else until I eliminated him. My encounter with him began because I chose to build up troops instead of attacking full out in the very beginning of the game, which turned out to be a good decision. I do not see any indications of paranoia, but I did talk quite a bit, offered him a couple of suggestions that I earnestly thought would help him, and defended my reasons for using a lot of my own strategies in the game, which I have not been forced to do in other games. I guess it could be construed as complaining that I gave him realistic and reasonable arguments for attacking someone other than me, and I guess foeing him because he refused to attack anyone else because he wanted me to kill him off when I had no borders with half of his territories could be construed as complaining. I will agree that I was talkative. I usually try to be, I've had some enjoyable conversations over games of Conquer Club, as I have over games of Risk, which is one of the reasons I sought this site out in the first place. I find it difficult to make sense of the paranioa charge, and I don't see how I won the game with as bad of gameplay as he claims I have, and no one else seems to have thought anything of me foeing him. I'm not sure if this is excelent proof, but I only have two or three other ratings this low, and it does bug me how much this brings down my averages when I don't feel it was deserved.
Pork - I do feel that it is necessary that any accuser provide evidence in any accusation. I support what you're doing, but I do have to say that I think it is a reasonable request. In addition, I wouldn't want to sort through five pages of ratings and decide solely from game chat and victories which were deserved and which were not. I think if you want this to go through, you should provide at least one game you had no part in that you can demonstrate poor use of ratings. Or at the very least, describe in detail why you didn't deserve the ratings he gave you. This way, it's easier for the mods to tell you you're right. I think that makes sense, is why I say it. Good luck, I probably won't be on much over the next month and a half, as I have not been over the past month and a half. Got a full-time job and CC is still blocked during my lunch break... so I probably won't see the results of this unless I have another Saturday morning free.
Is this even getting looked at? Doesn't seem like there's a ruling made yet? or is there going to be 1 made at all? Or do the mods need more proof? I'll surely be able to dig some more up, if needed.
afroaction wrote:Is this even getting looked at? Doesn't seem like there's a ruling made yet? or is there going to be 1 made at all? Or do the mods need more proof? I'll surely be able to dig some more up, if needed.
More than likely one of the MH's forgot to post that they are looking into this. My guess is they are going through the ratings and games he has left, trying to determine if this is indeed Rating Abuse. Takes longer than you think.
Game 1675072
2018-08-09 16:02:06 - Mageplunka69: its jamaica map and TFO that keep me on this site
i realize it takes time, but usually when the mods are looking into it you have "Pending" on the report, and there wasn't, so i was just wondering what was going?
afroaction wrote:i realize it takes time, but usually when the mods are looking into it you have "Pending" on the report, and there wasn't, so i was just wondering what was going?
Well ratings abuse are very low priority and the OP was not being very co-operative. I'd take my sweet time with it...
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
After review of the ratings that was left in almost all of them, orangeade somehow, had some exchange of words to these players, and it's usually not a nice game chat.
This is just another case with poor ratings that can be explained within reason because he manages to provoke or easily provoked into a heated game chat.
However given the trend of ths user and his rating technique I dont imagine he will soon be far of violating the standards so at this time we are going to Note this for future reference.
When this report shows up again at the C&A doorstep don't forget that we need ratings where the player did not do anything to deserve a questionable rating from orangeade.
