Med all respekt, vi ?ndrar inte s?kerhetsindexet p? spelarens f?ruts?gelse.
Jag tror att jag redan f?rklarat att f?rst beh?ver vi n?gra bevis, i det h?r fallet troligen en upps?ttning ignorerade klagom?l.
(Inte ditt fall , s?vitt jag kan se.)
Baserat p? det kan po?ngen ?ndras baserat p? det omtvistade beloppet.
Det ?r inte perfekt, men i varje systematisk arkitektur samlas matematiskt ber?knade m?tt in retroaktivt. Det fungerar p? samma s?tt f?r oss.
F?rest?ll dig bara hur s?kerhetsklassificeringarna skulle se ut om vi str?vade efter att ?ndra dem f?r varje enskild "f?ruts?gelse" som n?mns p? forumet eller i e-postmeddelanden. ?ven om jag k?nner igen din po?ng ?r det om?jligt att reda ut det f?r tillf?llet.
With all due respect, we do not change the safety index on the player's prediction.
I believe I already explained that first, we need some proof, in this case, most likely a set of ignored complaints.
(Not your case, as far as I see.)
Based on that, the score may be altered based on the disputed amount.
It's not perfect, yet in every systematic architecture, mathematically calculated measures are gathered retroactively. It works the same way for us.
Just imagine how the safety ratings would look if we aimed to change them for every single "prediction" mentioned on the forum or in emails. Even though I recognize your point, it's impossible to work that out for now.
Automatiskt ?versatt: