But the target person who received the likes posted 100 posts in this case. 3 likes is only a small amount compared to hundred.
The figure 3+ indicates that more than three likes is abuse, I suggest you make it clearer by stating 3 or more instead of 3+
I think that the topic itself is one in which it is almost impossible to come to a sweeping ruling. It would almost appear to need to be done on a case by case basis. The downside to that approach would be the amount of time staff would need to spend potentially tracking down whether something is rate abuse or not. If I were to recommend any guidelines around what may help classify something as rate abuse or not, it would be below. More than 3 likes/dislikes in an hour If someone wishes to rate something more than that frequently, perhaps have a "neutral" rating that has positive connotations. If the person has a history of blindly downvoting a given player and there is no obvious reason for the negative rating. This one is tough as it is both subjective to the staff member reviewing, but also requires them to have a really good grasp on the toxic relationships some members have on the forums. Not sure if Xenforo offers anyway to comment with ratings, but that would be an interesting method to potentially better understand why a rating was offered. Perhaps only staff can view it, but if I dislike someone's idea and post why in the rating comments, it should hopefully protect me a bit from being considered abusing. This one relies heavily on which addons are available for Xenforo and is offered more as a "wish" than anything. Wish I had more ideas, but it's early here so I may circle back later if I think of anything extra to add. Just trying to toss out some ideas to see if it can foster more discussion on criteria in such a way that makes it fair for players, while not overtaxing the staff. Cheers, Melgrath
If any of those formulas end up to equal 5 or more than the player is a rate abuser. I'll edit my first post, hold on bby
It's easier to do with my formulas since I have tweaked the amount of ratings needed in the 2nd and 3rd formulas. And it is not bias. I will explained it more later, but it's 2am here.
What if someone posts on your profile 4 times in a total of 2 days, and you like all of the posts within different hours? Is that rate abuse, according to the formula?
Omg yes ive been banned like 4 times for disliking ponyknights posts and, well they were all very unnecisary, or just straight up dumb in my eyes. they should probably ask why you disliked the posts b4 they ban you
In my opinion, a formula isn't needed. A ratio will be fine. Also, I think the staff should be able to tell when someone is rate abusing and when they aren't. There's a difference between giving someone three positives because you like/agree with what they said, and then just giving someone three positives since they're your friend. Also, I feel like it's not fair when someone unintentionally gives a friend three positives (in an hour) because they simply weren't keeping track with what they were liking.
"Do not abuse the ratings system given. Explanation: Rate abuse can get confusing. If the staff feel like you have abused the rating system, you will be punished accordingly. There is no set amount of ratings that you have to get to be called rate abuse. We all know what abuse is. Rating things old when they aren't, disliking for no reason, or abusing any other rating. When reported, you are obliged to provide a reasoning for the rating(s) given. If a staff abuses this, it will be up to the head mod/Nana to determine whether the actions of said moderator were justified." No wonder this thread was created. This "rate abuse" rule that's been implemented is so unclear, and so controversial to the point of where it has lead to multiple misunderstandings. "Rate abuse can get confusing." If that's the case, then why is it even a rule? Why is there a need for complications and confusion? "We all know what rate abuse is." No, not everyone does because of the lack of a clear rate abuse ratio of sorts, etc. Why should players be banned for not understanding an unclear and mess of a rule. Every other forums site I've been on that has ratings does not have this issue. They either have removed negative ratings all together, or just retain the "like" rating only. If you guys want to have such a vast rating system, then it requires a clear and straight forward rule put into place. This all needs to be refined, that or scrapped entirely. @WolfWhispers was banned a few days ago solely because of her lack of understanding of this very misunderstood rule. I know Sav personally, and I know she'd never purposely go out of her way to break any of the rules on here. It doesn't stop there though. In this excuse of a rule, it also states players are given an explanation to their rate abuses. Many players are given no such opportunity, and are promptly ejected from Mineverse with a cute little temp ban. How is it all their fault for not following a rule that has confused most of this community? Like myself and many others, they believed that rating one person three times or less per hour was allowed. But no. What many staff and players have told me was not allowed, all of a sudden. That rating three times an hour was suddenly an offense. Why is it that even the staff members are confused of this rule? Doesn't this all say something clear to any of you? Either come up with a rule that is actually clear to everyone, or get rid of it entirely. Do something, because what happened a few days ago and beyond proved the flaws in this "rate abuse rule." @Pile_of_Butts @Nanurz
As thorraks previously mentioned, @WolfBane I believe you are looking for freedom of rates, how great that would be :P
I'm looking for them to actually put a clear rule in place that people actually understand., that or scrap it entirely. There's no need for a rule that just creates controversy and disagreements. How sad is it that some of the staff personally told me they thought the same as me, and many others. That giving three ratings or less per hour was allowed..
