I'd be surprised if that happened, honestly. Considering many needed suggestions on here are overlooked.
Hi, As you said, there is a reason for this thread. We understand the rule is vague, it always has been extremely controversial. Heck, it has been confused several times before the new rules and after. We surely see this as an issue. This thread would not be up is we were writing it off. We are asking the community what they think. And yes, we have gotten your answer. Though, I am slightly appalled by the tone. We are working to get this fixed. The thread explains what rate abuse currently is. Staff see 3+ as a rule as it has been stated in guides before. Those guides in which were approved by Cypriot. The community has always had a rough variation that around 3+ ratings per hour was rate abuse. At one point there was 4+ positives but that was before the newer rules and guides have come out. The thread above explains what rate abuse is now and how it should be changed. This thread was not only meant for ideas but for an explanation. It is still an issue. We are working to get it fixed, believe me. Abolishing it as a rule is not really an option at this point. I can't see how that would work out. I don't know, maybe others see otherwise. Again, we will talk about it. Also the explanations are no longer possible as forum reports are closed to public view. If a user was rate abusing, the staff has power to punish them for it. Though, if the rating reason was vague, a PM may as well happen. The predicament with Wolf as you stated, was victimized by the vagueness of the rule. That is one of the reasons it was even posted. We all had enough at that point. I am sorry if Wolf did not fully get it. She had a reason not to. I hope people get for now what this rule means. In the meantime, we will work to change it for the best. Yes, it is a super hard rule to construct but we will do it. Thanks for the suggestions. Happy Holidays! :sing:
The use of 3+ isn't clear, maybe use words rather than symbols like that because some people may misinterpret 3+ to mean more than three rather than 3 or more.
Will they ever be opened back up to public view? I think that if you reply to a forum report, and aren't directly involved, it is then that you may be punished. Personally, I think it'd make it more fair considering that the rate abuse could've been an accident and it will give the person a way to explain themselves. Of course, the staff would still be able to make the decision from there.
I see what you mean. For users who do not know, it is 3 or more ratings given in an hour or as stated, it goes into different bounds such as 2+ hourly or something like that. Thanks for the suggestion. I get where you are coming from. Though, I do not know about reports being opened to the public eye at the moment. If they are, it will surely provide a way to deal with accidental rate abuse. We will see.
My tone underlines the common frustrations many share of this rule. I agree, there should be a rule put into place. What I meant by scrapping it is, if you can't compose a rule that actually makes sense.. Then simply don't have a rule at all. Why create controversy and disagreements having a rule nobody really understands. If you want a rule in place, then at the very lease make it clear to the staff and players alike. That is what I meant.
I see. Wolf, be honest with yourself. A rate abuse rule truly needs to exist, at least at the moment. I told you, we are working something out. Not having a rule would cause a heap of new rising problems. Disagreement is good. We are trying to work out the best way to handle the situation. I do however understand your frustrations and I apologize for the vagueness from the start.
Not sure if this is off topic in the least, but- I find it amusing how some of you agree with not spamming it, such as WolfBane, Thor, and a few others. Yet, you are the ones who constantly like each other's posts. For example: Thor doesn't make it too obvious, but I noticed it. He 'likes' multiple of WolfWhispers status' every now and then. And it's a constant flow of them. He try's to post enough random things that will "cover-up" for him liking so many of her posts. Then you have WolfBane, who also, does it quietly. You "quietly" rate Thor's and Wolf's status' and posts. I almost forgot! TheChainPickAxe- you and your negatives. You're in love with them. You seem to slowly stack up the dislikes on people, js. Just please note, these things do not go unnoticed.
Man, only if it wasn't true. You, WolfWhispers, Thor, Javid, and occasionally Madi. It's the circle of ratings.
It's cute because I've never broken any rules by doing so :,) I like their posts, but never have liked no more than three per hour, hence no crime as been committed.. According to your rules that is. I guess that means everyone else secretly "rate abuses" according to you, right? xD
I honestly like the idea of moving removing the 3 in a hour towards a single user, to 3 in a day. Its the best thing to do as ratings just cause frustration anyway. Go back to when Pony was here. He was constantly disliked in his posts, but, people would 'bypass' the current set of rules and give him 2 dislikes every hour, just to avoid the ban - while still 'rate abusing'. Honestly, I would rather see an abolishment of the ratings system altogether rather than see people get banned for intentional and unintentional abuse (which hasn't fully been developed yet).
I have never seen a thread with an official definition of rate abuse. In the updated rules by Nana, it says that it is up to the moderator to decide whether a rating has been abused or not.
Don't know why I'm being blamed for it. I do not post random things to cover up what I do, and I do not break the rules.
This is exactly the reason the rule is so vague. There are some who try to find a way around the rules, and they do successfully. *NOTE* I stated 3+ ratings in a "short period of time* not one hour like you have stated. In regards to what you stated about @WolfWhispers most current ban for her ratings. I have no problem clarifying it. A member posted statuses stating "X" amount of ratings needed for his next trophy. She then liked 3 of his posts in under 1 minute to get him the amount he stated he needed and told him "You're welcome" showing that she only liked the posts to indeed gain him the trophy. She was aware that she was rating him for the purpose of gaining him the trophy, she just felt that she was breaking no rule. One of the many reasons I made this thread. To again clarify it better. Either way, this thread was made for me to have a conversation with the community about what rate abuse is and get feed back on ways we could better clarify the rule. This is in no way "the rules" but rather me reaching out to the community for help in the definition. This method is also used to give positive ratings while still 'rate abusing'.
I just stated a well known example. I'm aware it works either way. There is no easy way to clarify rate abuse as a whole. If it remains, it would have to be a manually/personal decision, but then could it be seen as bias? Of course it can. The topic of rate abuse will remain a mystery for a long time as there is no fair way to place a punishment for it, without official rules or the mod being bias about it, as it would happen more than once. And without a rule, what can we do?
