Review Answers 2.0

[Malachy]

READ THIS ENTIRE POST OR RISK GETTING BANNED.

READ THIS ENTIRE THREAD BEFORE POSTING OR RISK GETTING BANNED

READ THE ENTIRE FIRST THREAD BEFORE POSTING OR RISK GETTING BANNED

This thread is here as an "ask the experts" about reviews, the review guidelines, and review flagging.

Failure to follow these rules will result in your post being deleted:

1. You must read both the entire first thread and all of this thread before you ask a question.
We ran into problems where we were having repeat questions. If you do not read this thread and the original thread and post a repeated question, your post will be deleted and you may receive a BBS ban for it, so read both threads.

2. Only review moderators may answer questions posted in this thread.
There have been a lot of rumors running around about reviewing and flagging which simply are not true, so instead of letting them continue, here we are, to dispel them. And, who better than a review mod to answer your question about a deleted review?

3. If you have had a review deleted, please ask in a nice and mature manner and post the review.
If you haven't already done so, read the Review Guidelines again to make sure that your review may not simply be a word-for-word offense to them.

4. If you do not wish to show us the review you had deleted, ask a review moderator in a PM
We aren't mind readers, so we can't tell you what exactly you did wrong without seeing the actual review. If you don't wish to post it on the BBS, you can feel free to PM a review moderator. You can find a complete list of site moderators right here

5. If you have a question about flagging, do NOT post or link to specific reviews.
We do not want to this thread to become another abusive review thread. If you have questions about a specific review, you may PM a review moderator. Keep flagging related questions general. There's some gray area between simply "unhelpful" and "abusive" so if you're unsure whether a link to flashkit in a review is abusive (it's not) or not, you may ask here, but please keep the review you may have seen out of this.

6. Do not ask about the whistle system or whistling submissions.
Nobody can see your whistle points or what you have flagged, not even moderators. We have just as much knowledge about how the system works as you do. Since it was created, whistle points have not been viewable by users, moderators or administrators. So, asking how many flags it takes to get to whatever level or complaining about getting a garbage whistle is a moot point. What we do know, however, is that your flags have no expiration date and it is not an instant process. You may flag something the first day. Review moderators cannot do anything about a rule-breaking submission, so why would you ask us about the latest upload of a snuff film?

======================================

The primary purpose of this thread is to help answer questions for deleted reviews.Since you do not receive a message from a moderator for each review you have deleted, and you are still curious why it was removed, you can get just such an answer.

We will answer questions about flagging, as has been mentioned, but if I feel you are far too interested in the picture in your profile, you'll find that we won't answer your questions any further and that any new posts you make will disappear without an answer. Again, the primary mission is for reviews, not flagging.

======================================

So why version 2.0?

There has been some changes since the inception of the first thread, most notably the locking of Rages gift to you: Abusive reviews. Since originally that was where you typically asked about flagging reviews, the task moved to the first thread and now to this thread.

Repeat questions. Without an explicit warning to read the entire thread (although mentioned in the BBS rules) it is hard to ask people to read the thread before posting.

Losing the main objective. It seemed as soon as Rage's thread was closed, the thread became inundated with questions about flagging. I'm happy to answer your questions regarding flagging, but that's not the point of these threads. An abusive review should be jumping off the page screaming "I'M ABUSIVE" at you. If it takes you more than .12 seconds to decide, it's not worth it.

======================================

resources - Previously answered questions, The Review Guidelines, List of site moderators, A reminder.

Remember, read both threads and make sure it's an original question before asking. chances are if your question is "are copy/pasted reviews abusive?", "can I flag a review just because the author comment was abusive?" you'll find it answered, perhaps more than once. (protip: don't ask these questions)

[DiMono]

Could someone please tell me why this review of mine was removed as abusive? I indicated what I didn't like about the game and why I didn't like it, and suggested that the author didn't need to follow the original key mapping in a different media.

This message is to inform you that the following review, which you left for locoroco flash minigame on 11/24/08 at 11:08:30 PM, has been deleted:

===============
Score: 4 / 10
Summary: I hate the controls
Review: I stopped playing because hitting left and right at the same time is far too annoying, and the game was more frustrating than fun because of it. Just because it's how the controls were on a console designed for having multiple buttons pushed at once doesn't mean you have to emulate the controls in a media where you're expected to hit them one at a time.
===============

[Malachy]

At 4/5/09 10:03 PM, chris-marks wrote: Could someone please tell me why this review of mine was removed as abusive? I indicated what I didn't like about the game and why I didn't like it, and suggested that the author didn't need to follow the original key mapping in a different media.

This message is to inform you that the following review, which you left for locoroco flash minigame on 11/24/08 at 11:08:30 PM, has been deleted:

===============
Score: 4 / 10
Summary: I hate the controls
Review: I stopped playing because hitting left and right at the same time is far too annoying, and the game was more frustrating than fun because of it. Just because it's how the controls were on a console designed for having multiple buttons pushed at once doesn't mean you have to emulate the controls in a media where you're expected to hit them one at a time.
===============

I didn't personally delete this review and I may not have if I had been the moderator to see it.

However, I can see how it may have been deleted:

you stated you "stopped playing" typically, you need to view the entire submission. You don't leave a review for a movie on netflix if you didn't watch it, so why do the same to one of our authors? However with games it can be a little different. If you stopped playing at the end of the very last level, you probably could leave a review of it because you've basically seen all that the author had done.

And your review may have been seen as patronizing the author telling him at the end of your review that he was trying to emulate a console. I can think of at least one game where the author has specifically created controls to make it feel like an oldschool video game as the whole novelty of the game.

Again, I am only explaining what may have caused it to be deleted since that is not typically the type of review I would delete. That is a very good gray area review though and I am glad that you asked. I hope this answers your question.

If you would like to make a new review for that submission, I would recommend playing the whole game before leaving a new review and offering something beyond just the one thing that put you off. You can also tell him what you liked about his game.

[DiMono]

That was kind of the point though: in that specific case, the controls were so clunky I wasn't able to get very far, and I stopped trying when it stopped being fun. I played as much of the game as I could, and then I gave up. You don't have to finish a game to know whether you like it and the reason for that conclusion, you just need to give it the old college try.

[Malachy]

At 4/5/09 10:26 PM, chris-marks wrote: That was kind of the point though: in that specific case, the controls were so clunky I wasn't able to get very far, and I stopped trying when it stopped being fun. I played as much of the game as I could, and then I gave up. You don't have to finish a game to know whether you like it and the reason for that conclusion, you just need to give it the old college try.

As I said, I personally wouldn't have deleted it, but I could see why it was deleted.

although, the reviews aren't comments like on youtube where you explain how it makes you feel, the point of reviews on newgrounds is for authors to get some feedback in how they may improve on their next project. You did offer some very constructive criticism, his controls were clunky, but I think the presentation is where you had the problem. And the reason that I think it's important to finish a game or movie before reviewing is so that you are providing the author with a complete review of his work. Who knows, maybe on level 10 you found that the enemy was not actually a giant spider, but instead a bittmap of a VW bug...you wouldn't know about this if you didn't finish the game, and he will only fix his controls and not his poorly done boss.

[Malachy]

At 4/5/09 10:45 PM, JarrodK wrote: I have to read about 10,000 words before I have the right to ask a question? That's a bit much don't you think? I mean - you can't not expect repeat questions. Or are you wishing for these threads to be read only FAQs instead of actual Q&As?

Yes, you have to read 10,000 words. You're expected to read an entire thread before posting on the BBS already, clearly you're going to read WORDS.

If you don't like reading, you've picked the wrong medium to internet on.

For the most part, I'm not expecting the people this thread is really geared toward to have to make their eyes bleed for it, because they're going to be asking questions about a specific review, and obviously, you're going to be the first person asking about your own review. What I'm trying to curve is the number of questions about flagging, which really aren't the purpose of this thread, but I'll answer anyway. There were a ton of questions about flagging made in the last thread, and they covered pretty much all there is to flagging, so yes, if you want to get a hardon about your whistle level, you can use that thread and this thread as an FAQ.

[NEVR]

To those who are moaning that you have to read the previous version of this thread before posting in this one: STOP.

The point of reading the other thread first is to make sure your question hasn't already been answered. There have been quite a few common review questions answered there, so you're actually quite likely to find an answer to your question without even having to post here.

We don't want a load of repeat questions because that makes MORE reading for everyone else, and unnecessary reading at that.

Frankly I'm sick of seeing people complain when Mal is offering you all HELP. All he's asking in return is that you ensure you're not making him or other review mods waste time by repeating answers and thus elongating the reading material for others who haven't already read this thread or the last one.

If you don't like it, then leave the thread; it's that simple.

If anybody is still moaning after this point onwards, I will delete their post and maybe even ban them, depending on the circumstances.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS POST. DO NOT CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION. THIS THREAD WILL RESUME NORMAL SERVICE... NOW.

[Malachy]

At 4/6/09 11:55 AM, KevnSevn wrote: A while ago, a review of mine was deleted, said the NG log.

I never got a PM of my review deletion or a review ban.

So, what exactly happened?

A submission you had reviewed was deleted or taken off the site. If a submission is blammed, removed by the author or removed by the admins, all of the reviews for it will go away too.

Since a review moderator didn't take action against your review, M-bot didn't notify you.

There was nothing wrong with your review and it was not your fault, it was just the submission going away.

Needless to say, perhaps the people who need the most help are those who have their submissions blammed. Although your review number may not go up because of it, the help you provide to somebody who is new at flash will be better appreciated because the authors can read reviews after their submission is blammed and since so few people offer advice for under judgment flash, any constructive criticism or advice may be taken much more seriously and implemented in their next project. You could very well encourage the next Adam Phillips into keeping at it, and he'll always remember what YOU said to him on his first submission, even though it got blammed!

[twilightparadox]

In the first thread, you said

yes, reviews saying the game is stupid, shitty, crappy etc. are abusive.

Can I assume you were referring to flash movies as well? And "this game/flash is a piece of shit/crap/etc" is inclusive of what you meant, yes?

And will my review get deleted if I said something along the lines of: "stop submitting flash!" or insulting the whole group rather than the author himself? o_O

Thank you for answering! (:

[Malachy]

At 4/9/09 10:56 PM, twilightparadox wrote: In the first thread, you said

yes, reviews saying the game is stupid, shitty, crappy etc. are abusive.

Can I assume you were referring to flash movies as well? And "this game/flash is a piece of shit/crap/etc" is inclusive of what you meant, yes?

yeah, goes both ways. Sorry for the confusion.

And will my review get deleted if I said something along the lines of: "stop submitting flash!" or insulting the whole group rather than the author himself? o_O

Yes, of course you would. There's no reason to tell an author to stop submitting.

insulting groups would be the same as it's off topic from the submission. If you don't like emos or you don't like the clock crew, there's no reason to bring that into a review for emoclock's submission since he is the creator of his own flash and "clocks suck" or whatnot has nothing to do with his own inability at flash. Offering some advice will easily quell such a problem rather than making him mad at you and getting yourself a happy little vacation from reviewing.

[TheSongSalad]

a while ago i wrote a review towards a spam author saying to improve he could put more effort into his flash, and that i didn't not appreciate his spam, so i gave him a 0. i concluded with please grow up. it was deleted, and i wanted to know if it was the last part that got it deleted?

[NEVR]

At 4/10/09 12:25 AM, TheSongSalad wrote: a while ago i wrote a review towards a spam author saying to improve he could put more effort into his flash, and that i didn't not appreciate his spam, so i gave him a 0. i concluded with please grow up. it was deleted, and i wanted to know if it was the last part that got it deleted?

First off, saying to an author that "to improve you should put more effort into your flash" isn't really constructive criticism; that's just a given fact that everybody is already aware of... so that really doesn't absolve the rest of the review.

Secondly, telling an author to grow up is off topic of the submission. Don't bother putting negative personal comments like that in a review, as it's almost certain to get your review deleted. You CAN say "you're really talented at flash", but you CAN'T say "you really suck at flash". Seems unfair? Tough; we want to encourage our contributors, not drive them away.

[KrevZabijak]

Do the rules of reviewing apply exactly the same with spam submissions?

[Coop]

At 4/10/09 02:13 PM, KrevZabijak wrote: Do the rules of reviewing apply exactly the same with spam submissions?

Yes - If you insult the author, ask why it wasn't blammedor the like, you will have the review deleted and will be banned.

[Sheizenhammer]

At 4/10/09 01:17 AM, NEVR wrote: You CAN say "you're really talented at flash", but you CAN'T say "you really suck at flash". Seems unfair? Tough; we want to encourage our contributors, not drive them away.

Just to try and clarify this point a little: when it comes to reviews that leave a 10 and an "I like it" (or otherwise encouraging) kind of review, is there a line between 'encouragement' and 'squealing fanboyism'? If there is, where is it?
The old thread had a post that said something along the lines of: "as long as they're not being an idiot about it, it won't get deleted". I'm just curious as to what exactly counts as 'being an idiot about it' here (besides stuff that breaks rules anyway e.g. text-flooding etc.).

Sometimes a positive review will focus more on the whole series/author's work than on the particular flash it is supposed to be for (especially if it's a well-known series or author), e.g. "I like [insert series/author name here]", as opposed to "I like this flash", and will look very generic as a result. Are positive reviews, that don't necessarily talk about the flash they're written for in this manner, still counted as legitimate attempts at 'encouragement'?

Also: random questions.
Just to make sure (since it wasn't in the other thread): An audio review that complains about something being in the weekly top 5 is effectively the same as a flash review complaining about something being on the front page/top 50, right?

And for future reference: if I find a good example of something I'd like to ask about in the obituaries, is it OK to post a screenshot of it (since those reviews are beyond the reach of rabid stat-whoring anyway)?

[BetaOrionis]

Is there a level of uselessness that is lower than useless? I've seen reviews range from:

People think this is a useless review.
There's some debate, but overall people think this is a useless review.
No users have weighed in on this review.
People aren't in agreement over whether this is helpful or not.
There's some debate, but overall people think this review is helpful!
People find this review helpful!
Lot's of people find this review helpful!
This review is insanely well received!

I've never seen "Lot's of people think this is a useless review," or "This review is held in the utmost contempt," or anything like that. Do those levels exist?

===

Also, if a spam submission receives a great many "Epic." with 10's, is it fair to make those of who don't want awards stolen write out long, constructive reviews, even though the author is not looking to improve anyway? I mean, if the author isn't looking to improve, then a constructive review is actually equally useless to them as "that sucked ass." Since that spam submission is really just a number battle, what is the thinking behind making us write decent reviews, for indecent submission?

[Malachy]

At 4/10/09 06:18 PM, Sheizenhammer wrote:

At 4/10/09 01:17 AM, NEVR wrote: You CAN say "you're really talented at flash", but you CAN'T say "you really suck at flash". Seems unfair? Tough; we want to encourage our contributors, not drive them away.

Just to try and clarify this point a little: when it comes to reviews that leave a 10 and an "I like it" (or otherwise encouraging) kind of review, is there a line between 'encouragement' and 'squealing fanboyism'? If there is, where is it?
The old thread had a post that said something along the lines of: "as long as they're not being an idiot about it, it won't get deleted". I'm just curious as to what exactly counts as 'being an idiot about it' here (besides stuff that breaks rules anyway e.g. text-flooding etc.).

there's no level of squealing fanboyism that is going to get deleted. Everyone appreciates encouragement. If somebody is making a ton of single word, high scoring reviews, he may be deleted for making tons and tons of useless reviews in an attempt to get high in the rankings, but that is more something for a review moderator to check up on than for you to go flagging. If you see somebody doing this, be sure to PM a review moderator. Since we only deal with reviews one at a time, we might not notice that somebody is obviously just statwhoring and you may lose points if you flag reviews without first contacting somebody to let them know something is amiss.

Sometimes a positive review will focus more on the whole series/author's work than on the particular flash it is supposed to be for (especially if it's a well-known series or author), e.g. "I like [insert series/author name here]", as opposed to "I like this flash", and will look very generic as a result. Are positive reviews, that don't necessarily talk about the flash they're written for in this manner, still counted as legitimate attempts at 'encouragement'?

yes.

Also: random questions.
Just to make sure (since it wasn't in the other thread): An audio review that complains about something being in the weekly top 5 is effectively the same as a flash review complaining about something being on the front page/top 50, right?

of course. If they are complaining about things that the author has no control over, it's pretty much abusive.

And for future reference: if I find a good example of something I'd like to ask about in the obituaries, is it OK to post a screenshot of it (since those reviews are beyond the reach of rabid stat-whoring anyway)?

I'd say not. If you are confused about a specific review, you are always welcome to PM a review moderator, rather than wasting your time trying to locate one that is the same but in the obituaries.

At 4/11/09 06:42 PM, BetaOrionis wrote: Is there a level of uselessness that is lower than useless? I've seen reviews range from:

that has nothing to do with review moderating...so, I have no clue?

===

Also, if a spam submission receives a great many "Epic." with 10's, is it fair to make those of who don't want awards stolen write out long, constructive reviews, even though the author is not looking to improve anyway? I mean, if the author isn't looking to improve, then a constructive review is actually equally useless to them as "that sucked ass." Since that spam submission is really just a number battle, what is the thinking behind making us write decent reviews, for indecent submission?

if you see this, PM a review moderator. Chances are they are spam accounts and wade deletes them you won't gain (or lose) any whistle points anyway, so don't waste your time going through pages of a submission trying to flag every "douchmoron002, douchemoron003...etc" account you see. Just let us know and we'll handle it.

[X-TERRORIST-X]

Nice new thread, I haven't been here for a while and I used to be a frequent poster in Rage's thread before it got locked. I was stupid one day and flagged a few unabusive movies and got into garbage so now I'm committed to working back up to gold, maybe deity :)

Anyways, my question to you is if a review has the words "You suck", is it considered abusive? Before when I asked a few moderators said it did and some said it didn't.

Also, if I go hunting for abusive reviews and find a lot, and I have a garbage whistle, there not going to be noticed by moderators since not enough people flagged it. Before I would post in Rage's thread to get a group to flag it, but now it's just going to sit there.

Should I just PM a mod so they delete it? Or is there another way.

Thanks.

[Malachy]

At 4/13/09 07:37 PM, X-TERRORIST-X wrote: Anyways, my question to you is if a review has the words "You suck", is it considered abusive? Before when I asked a few moderators said it did and some said it didn't.

I don't know what review mod would tell you otherwise, it's word-for-word in the review guidelines:

Stay on the topic of the submission and do not make personal remarks or insults towards the author. This is a big offense. Telling artists "You suck!", "You should go kill yourself!", "You are gay!" etc., will get you banned and you may lose your account.

Also, if I go hunting for abusive reviews and find a lot, and I have a garbage whistle, there not going to be noticed by moderators since not enough people flagged it. Before I would post in Rage's thread to get a group to flag it, but now it's just going to sit there.

Should I just PM a mod so they delete it? Or is there another way.

abusive reviews are doing fine at being deleted. we are dealing with them in a timely manner without the need for rage's thread.

Although your garbage whistle does not do anything in regards to bringing a review to our attention, there are enough people out there with normal-deity whistles who will flag it. Real abusive reviews get noticed, believe me. We don't need to gang up on them and get 50 people to mark them abusive just to get them deleted. And, since your flags have no expiration date, even if it is an obscure review, chances are high it will eventually be found and deleted anyway.

I think there's a bit of confusion as to why we had rage's thread to begin with. When the thread was created the review rules and whistle system were new, and we had YEARS of abusive reviews that were on the site and needed to be dealt with. In that time, as is apparent by the quality of the thread, a lot of those reviews were dealt with and we were finally able to deal with current reviews. But, as the number of abusive reviews floating around on the site have gone down, people tried tiptoing far too close to the abusive/unhelpful line of reviews, and that's where the problem with rage's popped in. In reality, we didn't need the thread anymore because reviews not linked to in there were making it to review mods just as quickly after being posted as the ones that were linked in the thread.

So, as you can see, the reviews you find which truly are abusive are being dealt with in a timely manner even without the abusive review thread.

[KrevZabijak]

My -first- day here (I had read the FAQ before doing anything) I left a review with a score of 2.
I have read around here that a 'low' score must require 'constructive criticism' or it is abusive, can be flagged, and can be deleted. Does 2 count as low? Is 4 low, but not 5 and up with regards to "requires constructive criticism"?
I know 0 definitely applies, but where is the 1-10 line drawn where a review does not require constructive criticism?

Anyhow, my review, score of 2, was as follows:
"The movie moved much too quickly, I could not understand anything."
It was deleted, but I explained my reason of giving it such a low score. Was it not detailed enough? I didn't see anything clearly nor hear anything clearly, so there was nothing my mind could process either visually or audibly. Ergo, I could only state the obvious.

[NEVR]

At 4/19/09 08:57 PM, KrevZabijak wrote: It was deleted, but I explained my reason of giving it such a low score. Was it not detailed enough? I didn't see anything clearly nor hear anything clearly, so there was nothing my mind could process either visually or audibly. Ergo, I could only state the obvious.

You didn't give constructive criticism, you just said why you thought it was bad. If you'd have said that in order to improve, the artist could have slowed down the animation / reduced the FPS rate, or anything along those lines, then you would have justified your point AND provided something for the author to use to improve his / her next submission.

Always remember to provide clear points of constructive criticism when giving a submission a low score.

And to clear up your confusion on what constitutes a "low score", I'd say probably 4 and below. When in doubt, just provide some constructive criticism anyway, as it can never really go amiss.

[SpiffyMasta]

I have been flagging reviews that have low scores and no constructive criticism, which was established in this thread to be abusive. Why then has my whistle gone down from silver to bronze? Do some review moderators not consider those abusive? And I thought when the line between abusive and useless was murky, most review mods just unflagged and didn't take away whistle points.

Someone care to offer some words of wisdom here?

[Malachy]

At 4/21/09 05:58 PM, SpiffyMasta wrote: Someone care to offer some words of wisdom here?

stop flagging non-abusive reviews.

[SpiffyMasta]

At 4/21/09 06:57 PM, Malachy wrote:

At 4/21/09 05:58 PM, SpiffyMasta wrote: Someone care to offer some words of wisdom here?

stop flagging non-abusive reviews.

I thought it was established that reviews with a score below 3 points that offered no constructive criticism were abusive? That's what I needed to be clarified. I know I shouldn't flag non-abusive reviews, I want to know if that's what I was flagging....

[SpiffyMasta]

At 4/21/09 07:29 PM, deckheadtottie wrote:
Who said that and when?

This is what NEVR said earlier, I spared you some of it that wasn't pertaining, but you can read it 6-7 posts up.

At 4/19/09 09:14 PM, NEVR wrote:

At 4/19/09 08:57 PM, KrevZabijak wrote: It was deleted, but I explained my reason of giving it such a low score. Was it not detailed enough? I didn't see anything clearly nor hear anything clearly, so there was nothing my mind could process either visually or audibly. Ergo, I could only state the obvious.

You didn't give constructive criticism, you just said why you thought it was bad.

Always remember to provide clear points of constructive criticism when giving a submission a low score.

And to clear up your confusion on what constitutes a "low score", I'd say probably 4 and below. When in doubt, just provide some constructive criticism anyway, as it can never really go amiss.

Did I interpret this in the wrong way? What he seemed to be saying was that he deleted a review that did not offer constructive criticism and was scored a 4 or below (sorry, I put 3 or below earlier). Since you guys delete abusive review I viewed that as confirmation that because it was deleted, it was abusive.

[NEVR]

At 4/21/09 07:41 PM, SpiffyMasta wrote: Did I interpret this in the wrong way?

Um, yes. I was giving general advice for reviewing, not saying that it's SET IN STONE that if you give X score and no constructive criticism, your review is AUTOMATICALLY abusive. Also, explain WHERE in that post I said I deleted reviews like that? Oh, yeah... I didn't.

Jesus christ. Do any of you have the capacity to look beyond your black and white "abusive / not abusive" outlook on reviewing?

[KrevZabijak]

At 4/21/09 07:12 PM, deckheadtottie wrote: If I see a pattern in flagging, where a user (or two) are flagging reviews in the vain attempt they may gain a whistle point, I stop clearing flags without penalty and start to dish out deserved negative points.

Uh. So is the flagging system going to get removed, or is the whistle system going to be removed? ..... ooooor was that judy an unintentional undermining of the entire "allowing us access to this wonderful NG cleanup system that just happens to award people for utilizing said NG feature" thing you just did in one elegant sentence?

Should I tell my fellow officers in the EGB to stop flagging as well? I would like to warn them before anything landslides further.

Thank you for your time.

[Malachy]

At 4/22/09 10:19 PM, KrevZabijak wrote: Thank you for your time.

What joe was saying was that for the most part we are lenient on flaggers, however if we notice that there is a pattern of non-abusive reviews from the same submission/author and it's obvious that people were flagging incorrectly either on purpose or as a group without thinking, we are forced to penalize those flaggers.

In a black and white world, every review that is not deleted will penalize those who flagged. The curve is nasty, so we can also clear the flags without any penalty given. This is for reviews which aren't steller but certainly aren't abusing the review system, or ones which we could possibly understand why it could have been flagged, but it still doesn't merit deletion. Usually these are few and far between, especially since the abusive review thread has been locked. With users flagging things on their own rather than ganging up on reviews there is far less chance of a 'groupthink' moment where everyon may flag something incorrectly which brings an non-abusive review to our attention, and is rightly cleared with penalty.

But this is far too off topic from the purpose of this thread. If you would like to discuss this topic further please take it up in PM with a review moderator.

[The-Great-One]

SuperMarioBrosS has three news posts that talk about abusive reviews and practically offers the same thing as Rage's Abusive Reviews thread, however it seems a bit more organized.

Is marking these reviews as abusive a danger zone due to the moderator's frowning on Rig's thread or is it a better idea?

[absent]

At 5/3/09 01:24 AM, The-Great-One wrote: Is marking these reviews as abusive a danger zone due to the moderator's frowning on Rig's thread or is it a better idea?

As long as the reviews posted there are abusive, it doesn't matter.