Funkyterrance Abuse of Rating System [Cleared]KRK

[Metsfanmax]

Accused:

Funkyterrance


The accused are suspected of:

Other: Abuse of Ratings System



Game number(s):

Any game he wins.


Comments: Looking at Funkyterrance's ratings record, he has a clear pattern of giving 5/5/5 to people he has won against. This is a clear abuse of the ratings system. Surely he cannot think that nearly every person he beats is "Excellent" in all three categories. For example, how can you say someone has excellent attitude if there is no chat during the game? It's pretty statistically unlikely that every person he plays is truly an excellent player in all categories. I believe he deserves a 1 month ban from the ratings system so he can think about his actions and hopefully give more accurate ratings in the future.

[GeneralAnestetic]

*bump*

[donkeylove]

Is this a joke?

[Metsfanmax]

Is this a joke?

Not at all. If people can be punished for constantly giving out 1/1/1's when it's not an accurate rating, people should be punished for constantly giving out 5/5/5's when that's not an accurate rating. If Funkyterrance is not given a ratings ban for 1 month, then the C&A mods will be promoting a double standard on ratings abuse.

[Woodruff]

Is this a joke?

Not at all. If people can be punished for constantly giving out 1/1/1's when it's not an accurate rating, people should be punished for constantly giving out 5/5/5's when that's not an accurate rating. If Funkyterrance is not given a ratings ban for 1 month, then the C&A mods will be promoting a double standard on ratings abuse.

It seems to me that you'll have to provide evidence of damage to the individual by rating them with all 5s in order for this not to be considered a completely frivolous complaint.

[Metsfanmax]

Allow me to remind you of the definition of Ratings Abuse, as per the guidelines:

If you are found guilty of Ratings Abuse---that is, rating your opponents unjustifiably, haphazardly, and systematically in a destructive or inappropriate manner (such as repeatedly giving out inaccurate ratings without evidence to justify your ratings), you will find yourself escalating on Ratings Vacation scale.

This player is quite obviously guilty of inaccurately rating his opponents without evidence to justify those ratings; he is furthermore doing this systematically, as shown by the string of 5/5/5's. So, no, I don't need to provide evidence of "damage to the individual." I have no problem arguing that such ratings destroy the meaning of the ratings system, though, and therefore indirectly harm such players.

[tec805]

This coming from a guy who hasn't left a single rating to a single person from a single game

Maybe you should try a little harder to help the people and the system on CC instead of trying to be an armchair lawyer without a cause

[Metsfanmax]

This coming from a guy who hasn't left a single rating to a single person from a single game

Maybe you should try a little harder to help the people and the system on CC instead of trying to be an armchair lawyer without a cause

I am trying to help the people and help the system, by pointing out the problems with the ratings system and hoping that people will start to use it correctly.

I no longer leave ratings, because I do not want to take part in a system that punishes people for having a 4.5 rating, where a 4.5 is halfway between "good" and "excellent." Someone who is in that ratings range should not be rejected from tournaments because of it.

[sunshining]

when is this going to stop

[Dibbun]

I have given people 5's who are silent during a game, because I consider it more polite than saying "gg." I don't consider the Attitude rating necessarily to mean just whether or not they talk in a game.

I'm not sure about the ratings being punishment thing.. I frequently (sometimes) come into conflict with people during games which is why I have a 4.4 rating at the moment, but that's fine, doesn't mean there was abuse or that my life is any less fulfilled due to being ineligible for whatever tournaments are out there that won't accept me due to my rating.

[MichelSableheart]

I agree that consistently giving out all 5's is harmful for the rating system at large (because of ratings inflation) and belief that technically it could be considered abuse. However, if you're going to make the accusation, you would have to accuse every single person who consistently rates all 5's. Accusing only a single player of ratings abuse for leaving all 5's is untenable.

In other words: C&A isn't the right place for this discussion. You would stand a much better chance in suggestions, and even there, you have a tough battle to fight.

[SirSebstar]

I disagree MS,
I come here to play a game. Any game that i like is an excellent waste of my time. i'd be nuts to spent time with people i wholeheartly dislike, or even just barely can stand... So i give all players 5 stars, because i like the game and my opponants that much. obvioulsy i also give some people a different rating, but that is because I intensly dislike something they did or did not do.
However I do not lower my ratings of somebody, I only up them.. If i dont like anybody anymore, ill just have to foe them

[Metsfanmax]

I agree that consistently giving out all 5's is harmful for the rating system at large (because of ratings inflation) and belief that technically it could be considered abuse. However, if you're going to make the accusation, you would have to accuse every single person who consistently rates all 5's. Accusing only a single player of ratings abuse for leaving all 5's is untenable.

In other words: C&A isn't the right place for this discussion. You would stand a much better chance in suggestions, and even there, you have a tough battle to fight.

I'm not just going to accuse only this guy. He seemed like a convenient place to start, because of the way he treated GA in the other thread. If the proper punishment is given, I will begin to report others. I already did bring this up in Suggestions, to no real avail. This is a slightly stronger way to make a point.

Of course, I would also be satisfied if GA's ban were lifted, as at least then there would be consistency.

At any rate, I didn't mean to have a "discussion" here. The rules are very black and white on this issue: the accused constantly gives people unjustified ratings in a systematic manner. There's no wiggle room. If you ban people for giving 1/1/1's, you must ban people for constantly giving 5/5/5's. Anything else is an incredible double standard.

[Funkyterrance]

Actually my ratings are very justified When I play people who are rude and childish (won't name any names), they raise the bar for any other player that I play. Therefore your theory/argument is rubbish and should be completely disregarded since the absence of bad behavior equates to good behavior in my opinion, no thanks to some people.

[Metsfanmax]

Actually my ratings are very justified When I play people who are rude and childish (won't name any names), they raise the bar for any other player that I play. Therefore your theory/argument is rubbish and should be completely disregarded since the absence of bad behavior equates to good behavior in my opinion, no thanks to some people.

Good behavior? I can buy that. "Excellent" behavior, corresponding to all 5s, nearly every single time? I really don't buy that.

[IcePack]

i say all players are excellent, and their actions and words can only reduce my opinion of someone.

Essentially, a attitude of "innocent until they prove themselves guilty" by acting differently.

Its highly subjective to have any numerical rating system at all, but its a lot easier to prove someone was
acting poorly, then someone didnt' deserve a 5 star. If they are silent, play a good game, and wish you well at the end or even are silent - if thats all the original person wants it could very well be excellent in all catagories.

And if you dont rate the 3's or 4's, but only the players you enjoy (the 5's) and the players you hate (the 2's and 1's), thats not saying htere are no average players, its saying you dont rate them.

Just like, if you are always giving 1/1/1 but they are ALL deserved, i dont see a problem with this either.

IcePack

[Funkyterrance]

First of all Mets, others here have found many obvious holes in your "argument". Your reverse logic doesn't work in this case. Face it. Also, I don't see why you are defending GA? My treatment of him was just. He is a miserable player and he had to pay a consequence for his actions. And yes, I consider someone who is at least civil in their games (silence is better than bad attitude), plays accordingly, and doesn't cheat to deserve an excellent rating. This, as I said before, is possible since there are players in this game who are so outrageously rude, childish, and abusive that they make an otherwise average player an excellent player. I'm sorry if you are having a hard time wrapping your mind around this concept but there it is.

[Metsfanmax]

First of all Mets, others here have found many obvious holes in your "argument". Your reverse logic doesn't work in this case. Face it. Also, I don't see why you are defending GA? My treatment of him was just. He is a miserable player and he had to pay a consequence for his actions. And yes, I consider someone who is at least civil in their games (silence is better than bad attitude), plays accordingly, and doesn't cheat to deserve an excellent rating. This, as I said before, is possible since there are players in this game who are so outrageously rude, childish, and abusive that they make an otherwise average player an excellent player. I'm sorry if you are having a hard time wrapping your mind around this concept but there it is.

I am not defending GA. I just don't think your rating habits are any better than his.

As for your statement that people with bad attitudes make other players seem excellent - this is logically incorrect. There are indeed a few bad apples, so to speak, who consistently give out vindictive ratings and are verbally abusive to their opponents. People who don't do this are average players. They are not necessarily excellent players. You should not be giving people perfect ratings simply because they don't act childish or rude.

[Funkyterrance]

I didn't say people with bad attitudes make other players seem excellent. Please read someone else's post CAREFULLY before you reply. And you implied that I treated GA unfairly and that is defending him. Icepack did a very good job of explaining how a bad rating can be proven as abuse while a good rating is much more debatable. Therefore, YOUR logic is the weak link in this business, not everyone else's lol.

[Metsfanmax]

I didn't say people with bad attitudes make other players seem excellent.

Oh yes you did:

...When I play people who are rude and childish (won't name any names), they raise the bar for any other player that I play...the absence of bad behavior equates to good behavior in my opinion

This is coupled with your other post:

And yes, I consider someone who is at least civil in their games (silence is better than bad attitude), plays accordingly, and doesn't cheat to deserve an excellent rating.

This logic is why you are guilty of rating system abuse. I consider this to be unjustified, as basically 95% of players fall under the description here. So you're systematically giving unjustified ratings to nearly every person you play. This makes you guilty, as per the rules in the forum guidelines.

[Funkyterrance]

There is no fault in my logic, maybe you should read a book on logic perhaps...
I find that most of the people that I play deserve and excellent rating and I rate them accordingly.
It is very possible that 95% of the people I play deserve and excellent rating. What you fail to understand is that I can justifiably give someone a good rating for just playing the game as a decent human being while I can't justifiably give that same person a poor rating for doing so. Do you finally understand this basic concept???
You can write anything else here but I am no longer going to read this thread or reply since you obviously don't even have a basic grasp of the subject. Later.

[Metsfanmax]

It is very possible that 95% of the people I play deserve and excellent rating.

No, by definition, it is not possible. Consider the dictionary definition of excellent: "possessing outstanding quality or superior merit; remarkably good." Your argument is akin to saying that it is possible for 95% of the people you play to stand out or be remarkable. The problem is that these are necessarily defined with respect to some standard of average; an excellent player is remarkably good or stands out compared to some other player. But if you are rating everyone excellent, then there are no average players to base your judgment of excellence on. So it is impossible for 95% of the people you play to deserve an excellent rating.

Essentially, you should only give out a 5 for game play if you thought that your opponent was perhaps in the top 20% of all the players you play in terms of their skill. You should only give out a 5 for fair play if you thought that your opponent was in the top 20% of those who make sure to play honorably, and honor their statements in game chat (is this hard to quantify? Yes, but I guess that's just a problem with ratings for Fair Play. Nevertheless, you should at least reserve this for people who did stand out in some way, and you should be prepared to justify why you thought this person played more fair than others). You should only give out a 5 for attitude if you thought your opponent was much more pleasant and carried themselves better than 80% of the people you play (again, hard to do, but the same rule applies - if you cannot convince yourself that this person's attitude was actually better than most of the people you play, you shouldn't click on that fifth star).

[jeraado]

OK, wading past all the sniping, I don't think this case really stacks up. The ratings system is known to be a murky area, hence why the mod hunters only follow up on cases of obvious abuse. Ratings are highly subjective and so sanctions for rating abuse are only applied to blantant misrating, e.g. giving someone a 1,1,1 rating because they won. I can't think of any examples of ratings abuse being upheld where there was debate as to the degree of impact an action should have on rating (such as whether it is acceptable to give a 1 rating for swearing or other behaviour which the rater found inappropriate). In my opinion this report falls into the latter of these two examples.

Generally for a ratings abuse case to even be considered, the mod hunters require 5 cases specifically outlining rating abuse. Rating abuse reports have been lodged before where the OP has simply given a list of 1,1,1 ratings, and the mod hunters have clearly stated that for a case to be considered, specific ratings must be listed with a clear indication as to why each of those ratings was obviously unfair. If you're serious about this report metsfanmax, it might be worth following this requirement up front.

It does seem however that this report is vindictive in nature. You said earlier that you were targetting funkyterrance because of his report on GA, and that you'd tried lodging a suggestion but this was a better way to make a stand. I really hope this isn't the case, and if it is then you may be putting yourself in the firing line for lodging a frivolous report.

From a practical standpoint I do not believe that it is realistic to make each rating subject to a fairness review, nor do I think that creating hard rules governing ratings is feasible. Of course if you disagree or have a better suggestion you should raise it in the suggestions forum for the forum community to discuss. If it doesn't get the support there then perhaps the community either disagrees, or is happy with the current system. Regardless, filing C&A reports about people who you disagree with is not the way to facilitate a change.

I would respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath and consider whether this course of action is appropriate and whether you really wish to pursue it.

[Metsfanmax]

It does seem however that this report is vindictive in nature. You said earlier that you were targetting funkyterrance because of his report on GA, and that you'd tried lodging a suggestion but this was a better way to make a stand. I really hope this isn't the case, and if it is then you may be putting yourself in the firing line for lodging a frivolous report.

From a practical standpoint I do not believe that it is realistic to make each rating subject to a fairness review, nor do I think that creating hard rules governing ratings is feasible. Of course if you disagree or have a better suggestion you should raise it in the suggestions forum for the forum community to discuss. If it doesn't get the support there then perhaps the community either disagrees, or is happy with the current system. Regardless, filing C&A reports about people who you disagree with is not the way to facilitate a change.

I would respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath and consider whether this course of action is appropriate and whether you really wish to pursue it.

I'm perfectly aware of what I'm saying. My point is perfectly logical, and there's nothing vindictive about it. I didn't choose Funkyterrance because of what happened to GA; I don't really care about GA per se. I chose this situation as a place to start because it's a good example of consistency requiring similar punishments. The rules on this issue are very black and white, despite what you may like to think about whether they ought to be in the first place. The accused is indeed guilty of giving unjustified ratings in a systematic fashion. He has admitted multiple times in this thread that he will give an opponent ratings of "excellent" simply for not acting childish. This demeans the rating system and is an excellent example of what shouldn't be allowed. If the C&A mods need to see "evidence," I can provide links to games where, for example, there was no justification for giving someone a rating of "excellent" for their attitude.

If the mods do not consider this to be a violation of the rules as stated on the site guidelines, it would be an incredible double standard. The bottom line is that if people would look past their internal biases, they would see that there is qualitatively nothing different between systematically giving 1/1/1's to people and systematically giving 5/5/5's to people. The only reason it hasn't been pursued until now is that people don't usually complain when they get a good rating. But since no one has complained, we've ended up with a broken ratings system. It's true that part of my intent here is to fix the ratings system. But it doesn't really matter what my intent is, when the rules on this are explicit.

[jefjef]

I only see a lack of ratings abuse. 5 pages of non vindictive ratings is not a problem. I'm surprised he has not played anyone that deserved a 1 in at least one category but maybe he hasn't experienced any cheating/multi/outlandish chat or horrid gameplay.

But for him to give out a lot of 5-5-5 is not an abuse especially considering that he also gives out several fours and twos.

This is gonna be cleared as it should be.