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.