Barney Rubble wrote:56 out of 96 ratings 1700+ games left 1 stars across the board .What else could he say ??
agentcom wrote:Barney Rubble wrote:56 out of 96 ratings 1700+ games left 1 stars across the board .What else could he say ??
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).
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 don't think it takes that much bad luck to find several dozen bad opponents in 1700 games.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?
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.
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?
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...
Users browsing this forum: djelebert