Conquer Club

Topfixer

The accused are suspected of: Ratings Abuse

Seems fairly cut and dry. This guy is brutal.

http://www.conquerclub.com/player.php?m ... e=topfixer

hahahahahahaha

And adds a fine, high quality retort....

56 out of 96 ratings left 1 stars across the board .What else could he say ??
BR

Barney Rubble wrote:56 out of 96 ratings 1700+ games left 1 stars across the board .What else could he say ??
BR

How do you know he isn't just predominantly rating players that deserve 1-star? This is why the C&A mods ask people to give a few examples of unjustified ratings, not just link to a persons ratings page. I'm not saying that's the case here, but someone has to do the actual research (and I don't think that should fall on the C&A mods).

Find one other person who agrees with you agent. All you need to do is compare the ratings he got (from any one player), and what he gave. Read the reactions. Like me, I was flabbergasted as to why he blindsided me with the rating he gave. Other reactions seem to echo this pattern of behavior.

Is there really any doubt?? lol

Reading ratings can be mighty fun. You just got to love this one:
Rating left for topfixer by David Staten

Tags: Rude
Response: "U R A FUCKING USELESS ARSEHOLE "
I'd say that's a very accurate tag lol.

It doesn't exactly look like he enjoys being rated low himself, yet he has no problem dishing out poor ratings.

You guys want an example of unjustified ratings? Take a look at this one:

"1 star's" Pixar 4.6 2012-05-26 16:19:27
Tags: Deadbeat, Rude, Coward

Topfixer and Pixar have played 36 games against each other. All of them speedgames (except for a BR), Pixar has won 12 games (these are on average 6 player games) and done very well. Much better than Topfixer who has only won 6 games. Yet according to topfixer, Pixar is such a poor player that he deserves 1's in rating and get tagged with "Deadbeat". He was also tagged with "Rude" and "Coward" but those are more subjective really.

I'm looking into this but just as what Agentcom said. There where 96 ratings left in over 1700 games.
I'll go by them one by one and we'll see what the outcome is.

sniff

agentcom wrote:

Barney Rubble wrote:56 out of 96 ratings 1700+ games left 1 stars across the board .What else could he say ??
BR

How do you know he isn't just predominantly rating players that deserve 1-star? This is why the C&A mods ask people to give a few examples of unjustified ratings, not just link to a persons ratings page. I'm not saying that's the case here, but someone has to do the actual research (and I don't think that should fall on the C&A mods).

Hmm, a casual look across this seems like the ratings are unfair. I can't see any reason for his rating the BobbyLama account as a 1 star deadbeat, given that the games played between them show no deadbeating.

That's just a random take though, so perhaps I stumbled across an obvious example.

Wizard2010 wrote:Find one other person who agrees with you agent. All you need to do is compare the ratings he got (from any one player), and what he gave. Read the reactions. Like me, I was flabbergasted as to why he blindsided me with the rating he gave. Other reactions seem to echo this pattern of behavior.

Is there really any doubt?? lol

I just don't understand why the C&A mods should be expected to go through the ratings "one by one" as sniffie says in order to figure this out. It sounds like they will because they're nice guys (or they have some extra time), but it's better if you can post information like Symmetry did that specify why certain ratings are unjustified.

I think if someone cares enough to make the complaint, they should be willing to find the evidence. You didn't even explain why your own tag was unjustified.

Agent, you seem to be an absolutist while I'm more pragmatic. Look at the small (2 pages worth of ratings given) albeit body of evidence. Are we to believe that Topfixer just happened to have such bad luck as to fall into games with such a bunch of bad hoodlums? Isn't it odd that many of the same players gave him good ratings for the same game were rewarded with lousy by him? Was everybody out to behave and play their worst just because Topfixer was in the game?

Statistically, the odds that such an occurrence would culminate all at once on this "unlucky" chap are highly unlikely. Look at some of the comments made. Like me, they felt blindsided by a player they felt was part of a spirited game. This is ratings abuse.

Looks like topfixer rated SimplyObsessed 1 star and gave him Clueless and Poor Strategy based on this 1-minute speed game: [game]11888330[/game]. However, SO won that game, and of the 3 games they've played in, SO won 2, and topfixer one 1.

[spoiler]2012-11-04 01:04:23 - SimplyObsessed: lmao gg green
2012-11-04 01:05:19 - SimplyObsessed:
2012-11-04 01:06:01 - SimplyObsessed: oh well i fucked that one up
2012-11-04 01:06:14 - SimplyObsessed: panic when lagged
2012-11-04 01:06:49 - topfixer: yes major f*ck up
2012-11-04 01:07:38 - caribbean soul: CRAP
2012-11-04 01:07:41 - caribbean soul: fk that
2012-11-04 01:07:56 - topfixer: you needed to protect me after f*ck up
2012-11-04 01:08:51 - caribbean soul: MY internet sucks!
2012-11-04 01:09:43 - SimplyObsessed: gg ive got set
2012-11-04 01:10:52 - nesta: GG yellow[/spoiler]

He rated Breal 1 star and gave him the Deadbeat, Rude, Coward, and Clueless tags. They've played twice, and Breal won one of those games.

The negative rating probably comes from 2-minute Speed [game]11729443[/game]:

[spoiler]2012-09-29 20:49:42 - Breal: yellow what is your fucking problem, gg red
2012-09-29 20:50:10 - Breal: I've let you pop stacks all game, now i've had it
2012-09-29 20:51:06 - Breal: you are one stupid f*ck yellow, and now you're foed
2012-09-29 20:55:33 - topfixer: dont swear at me you ignorant arsehole its just a game you must be one really sad f*ck to take it personally i feel really sorry for you
2012-09-29 20:57:26 - Breal: red pls end this soon
2012-09-29 20:57:43 - Breal: you've stacked almost the whole game
2012-09-29 20:58:39 - Lancelot du Lac: where is the fight ?
2012-09-29 21:18:31 - Lancelot du Lac: gg[/spoiler]

Just from looking at these two ratings, topfixer seems to get angry in a speed game and then leave all 1s as revenge, even when he's beaten by that player.

hmmmhes a good player.... surprising

Wizard2010 wrote:Agent, you seem to be an absolutist while I'm more pragmatic. Look at the small (2 pages worth of ratings given) albeit body of evidence. Are we to believe that Topfixer just happened to have such bad luck as to fall into games with such a bunch of bad hoodlums?

I don't think it takes that much bad luck to find several dozen bad opponents in 1700 games.

Isn't it odd that many of the same players gave him good ratings for the same game were rewarded with lousy by him? Was everybody out to behave and play their worst just because Topfixer was in the game?

Yes, that is odd. And it's evidence of ratings abuse. My point isn't that he's not abusing the ratings--I have no comment on that because I haven't seen the evidence. My point is that those clicks that it took you to figure that out are best done by the person making the complaint in order to summarize the evidence and present it to the C&A team. IF I was a C&A Mod, I would insist on this minimal level of effort before I started looking into ratings abuse. But that's just my opinion. If the C&A Mods are willing to look into it on their own, then that's great for you.

Something like what macbone posted a couple posts ago is more like what I'm talking about. That shows some actual evidence of ratings abuse (against the rules) as opposed to evidence of leaving 1-star ratings (not necessarily against the rules).

For the record, I only comment on this because it is a frequent issue with ratings abuse claims, and I take the same side every time it's brought up. It's nothing against you or in support of topfixer.

Given the "gravity" of the situation - he'll at most get a warning, some people don't have the time during the day (or night) to investigate as fully as you claim needs be. Sometimes good 'ol common sense ought to prevail. This isn't CSI for crissakes...

My last comment, didn't realize this would cause so much drama...

Wizard2010 wrote:Given the "gravity" of the situation - he'll at most get a warning, some people don't have the time during the day (or night) to investigate as fully as you claim needs be. Sometimes good 'ol common sense ought to prevail. This isn't CSI for crissakes...

My last comment, didn't realize this would cause so much drama...

No drama just a little exasperation at this point ... I'm certainly not asking for CSI to get on the scene. Just saying why not post the evidence that you have found if any? At this point, it's been posted by others, so there's probably not as much of a need for it.

Also, I don't think that it's "common sense" that someone who leaves 56 negative ratings in 1700 games is guilty of ratings abuse. I made two clicks to look at that. One was the link you provided and the other was to the player's page. I don't mind clicking the links that you provide, but I don't really want to go through a bunch of games and figure out which ratings are justified and which aren't. Again, you didn't even say that the rating that you received was unjustified and why that was so.

Topfixer has received his first and only warning for rating abuse.

Sniff