HighlanderAttack- ratings abuse[cleared]SN

[NoSurvivors]

Eagle, you go play 35,263 games and host 259 tourneys then tell me who you have time to give ratings to. You're just butthurt he gave you a bad rating. Lol. I know plenty of people who only rate those that deserve a bad rating. So they aren't gonna convict one because then they'd have to convict em all. Get over yourself.

[jgordon1111]

Ratings abuse or not, this arrogant, rude foul mouth should be given a chat ban... Jesus, he even said he would throw the game (suicide). Off to my foe list he goes.

And if you look at what he says,he said it in the chat he would suicide on red and apparentley did so if you look at the game log. thus giving the game to orange by default but insuring the lower ranked red player would not win.

I believe that is against the rules as well.

[Symmetry]

I've beat him before, never got a bad rating from him.

You've never had a rating from him. At all.

[DiM]

it's obviously an abuse. i just looked through the ratings and found out that most of the 1 star ratings he left were to players that beat him. but that's not really interesting as a lot of people are sore losers or in the heat of the game decide to "take revenge" and award 1 star.
what's really outstanding is that he gave 1 star ratings to people that he played 10-20-50 or even 150+ games.
wtf? why would you play somebody for 150 games if you consider him/her to be: Irrational, Sore Loser, Clueless, Poor Strategy and you give him 1 star for Fair Play, Gameplay and Attitude.
if i give somebody 1 star for everything i also foe that player cause he's clearly somebody i'd like to avoid.

[agentcom]

I've beat him before, never got a bad rating from him.

You've never had a rating from him. At all.

I didn't realize there was a way to check this. All I knew was that I would've remembered a bad rating from HA.

it's obviously an abuse. i just looked through the ratings and found out that most of the 1 star ratings he left were to players that beat him. but that's not really interesting as a lot of people are sore losers or in the heat of the game decide to "take revenge" and award 1 star.
what's really outstanding is that he gave 1 star ratings to people that he played 10-20-50 or even 150+ games.
wtf? why would you play somebody for 150 games if you consider him/her to be: Irrational, Sore Loser, Clueless, Poor Strategy and you give him 1 star for Fair Play, Gameplay and Attitude.
if i give somebody 1 star for everything i also foe that player cause he's clearly somebody i'd like to avoid.

I didn't do any research like you did. Just going with my experience with him. He can be rough around the edges, but I didn't expect to see what you're saying. Too bad. He's been getting a little overwhelmed with CC and RL. Not that that's an excuse for rules violations. Too bad.

I really hope he's not booted, though as I think I'm in 3 of his tourneys and REALLY, REALLY hoping one of them doesn't get delayed any longer than it already has.

Well, pretty much none of that post had anything to do with the actual C&A complaint. Sorry for the off topic post (but not sorry enough not to hit submit).

[Symmetry]

I've beat him before, never got a bad rating from him.

You've never had a rating from him. At all.

I didn't realize there was a way to check this. All I knew was that I would've remembered a bad rating from HA.

Your ratings are viewable for anyone who clicks on your profile, and clicks on the link to ratings left.

[Leehar]

Can anybody explain if this is a systematic ratings abuse to anyone and everyone?
I can understand that ha has a lot of 'recent' 1 stars given, but that needs to be relevant, as in last 100 games/30 days etc? ie if it is a few pages of 1 stars over a sample of 10000 games (quite possible) then it wouldn't be relevant any longer?

I can understand (and even forgive) the latter, because I know it can get tiring/and useless to keep rating people 5 stars after 1 or 2000 games, so can't imagine what it'd be like after 30/40000. So after a point you'd only rate the people who stick out (and unfortunately thats usually those who stick out in a bad way).

Also, with regards to DiM comments, I know I certainly don't go back through my ratings to change those who I no longer feel the same way about, mostly because it's just not worth the effort.
And liken this to my own relationship with HA, I know in the early days we didn't have the best of relationships (mostly due to my freemium), so I wouldn't have been surprised to see a bad rating for him, but I know that after 100's of games, we have a healthy level of mutual respect for each other, and indeed I was heartened to see he mentioned that in one of the GD threads.

And so I give that post a lot more consideration, and appreciate it much more than a random rating from aeons ago, because frankly, most of us hardly care about ratings, if at all, and certainly don't look at them with the level of detail some of you seem to give them

[Symmetry]

Can anybody explain if this is a systematic ratings abuse to anyone and everyone?
I can understand that ha has a lot of 'recent' 1 stars given, but that needs to be relevant, as in last 100 games/30 days etc? ie if it is a few pages of 1 stars over a sample of 10000 games (quite possible) then it wouldn't be relevant any longer?

I can understand (and even forgive) the latter, because I know it can get tiring/and useless to keep rating people 5 stars after 1 or 2000 games, so can't imagine what it'd be like after 30/40000. So after a point you'd only rate the people who stick out (and unfortunately thats usually those who stick out in a bad way).

Also, with regards to DiM comments, I know I certainly don't go back through my ratings to change those who I no longer feel the same way about, mostly because it's just not worth the effort.
And liken this to my own relationship with HA, I know in the early days we didn't have the best of relationships (mostly due to my freemium), so I wouldn't have been surprised to see a bad rating for him, but I know that after 100's of games, we have a healthy level of mutual respect for each other, and indeed I was heartened to see he mentioned that in one of the GD threads.

And so I give that post a lot more consideration, and appreciate it much more than a random rating from aeons ago, because frankly, most of us hardly care about ratings, if at all, and certainly don't look at them with the level of detail some of you seem to give them

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.

[Swifte]

wtf? why would you play somebody for 150 games if you consider him/her to be: Irrational, Sore Loser, Clueless, Poor Strategy and you give him 1 star for Fair Play, Gameplay and Attitude.
if i give somebody 1 star for everything i also foe that player cause he's clearly somebody i'd like to avoid.

Highlander plays (well... used to play) almost every tourney out there... most the time he bumps into those people again and again because they are in the same tournaments... you don't get to be picky about your opponents if you want to play every tourney.

[Leehar]

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?)

[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