At 5/28/04 05:00 PM, Suicidal-kid wrote: i really don't like this. No one really has freedome of speach. and this is proof of it. If the person can't take a little word like "Stupid" or "moron," then they should not be here on newgrounds. I mean what's next? Not being able to use curse words in movies. Look around links to porn every where. But you can't say "Moron" in a review?!...

Ok. Let me make something clear. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN. I am SO sick of people who whine about free speech on BBS's, online games, chat rooms, yada yada. Free speech is only given to you in public space. When you join someone else's forum, game, chat room, etc. it belongs to THEM. You play by THEIR rules. You can't piss in someone else's house. You can't post whatever you want in someone else's webspace, be it a review or a post, or anything. If Tom and Wade decided that EVERY review needed to have "The Fulps Are Awesome!" in the title and body or else be deleted, they have the right to do so. The Fulps own the bandwidth and disk space associated with Newgrounds- therefore they could fricking censor whatever the hell they want to. If you don't like it, you have the option of leaving. No one forced you to be here.

*breath*

That's a real pet peeve of mine.

So anyways, to answer the actual substance, which is why the rules are as they are: the reviews are there for constructive criticism. The porno ads aren't here because the Fulps have some kind of fetish for hentai (at least I don't think so O_o). They're here out of necessity. Maybe you had your head buried in the sand when there was an announcement a few days ago, but Tom's actually trying to PULL the ads out and get more mainstream ads. In any case, the comparison is irrelevant. Some people enjoy porno, but no one likes being flamed. If your review is just a flame then it has no point in being there. It's a waste of bandwidth/disk space. And as I already said, you don't own that so you don't have the right to waste it.

At 5/28/04 12:30 PM, gfoxcook wrote: OGM! Quadraton's only post... I've been tracking you so long for the Voting Power list, seeing people post after not posting for so long is always a trip... anywho.

Umm... okay. I really didn't think anyone was keeping track of these things, but yeah, sure, that's cool. :)

I know what you mean. It'd be nice if, while not necessarily being deleted, the reviews (or at least link spam reviews, which we review mods have a separate link for (General Ban / Spam Ban options)) would be hidden from public view while the ban is active but the posts/account haven't gotten deleted yet.

I heard someone suggest that, and I really like it. It gives the mods the power to remove the comment from the public's eye, but still puts in a safeguard to prevent the user's comment from being permanantly deleted.

What doesn't make sense about stopping him from spamming up more and more and more? I catch a lot of review spammers after they make 4 or 5 (and sometimes even just 1, if I'm lucky) link spam to popular top 50 flashes. If I didn't catch them, and no other review mod caught them, they'd soon have spammed up the entire top 50 and beyond. That's why banning makes sense, even if you can still the existing link spam.

You know, I reread my original comment, and realized it was written too fast, I said it doesn't make sense banning him, but what I meant to say was, while he should be banned, it doesn't make sense banning him, but leaving his comment behind. This way, he's able to get a 'one-shot' deal (or however many posts he can get in before he's banned), because right now, it seems like its;

Step 1) Spam
Step 2) Ban
Step 3) Profit
Wash, rinse, repeat

Yeah, he's banned, but all he has to do is create another user (and find another PC if his IP's also banned), and do the whole thing over. If his comment is removed as soon as he's banned, then it would be pointless to go in and waste his time making comments that will only last 5 minutes, and be seen by only a few people.

Like I said, I heard some other people taking from my comment, and make some excellent suggestions, so I'm glad I at least got the ball rolling.

Like I said, hiding them would make sense, at least. But we can't just automatically delete all reviews, because one review mod's judgement should not be absolute. Especially in the case of normal users and regular abusive/all-caps/etc. reviews, not link spam reviews.

Agreed.

If there is in fact such an existing system in place, then it's too slow. I've seen these comments days after they were supposedly banned.

SUPPOSEDLY banned? Oh, rest assured, if it says [BANNED] on a reviewer's review, he IS banned from further reviewing.

Again, that was my bad wording. I meant one thing, but typed something else.

Now, most of them just make a new account an hour later or maybe a day later if we get lucky, and try to go unnoticed again in the middle of the night or something. Most fail, but eh... the eternal struggle goes on.

Believe me, I can understand the frustration. Reminds me of a quote from Richard Cook

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

At 5/28/04 05:53 PM, Quadraton wrote: "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

I definatly agree with that quote. LOL

woaah!!!!!

i got banned from posting reveiws,i guess i deserved it because i violated the rules,i should be more carefull if it is lifted.

At 5/28/04 06:31 PM, markpaz455 wrote

woaah!!!!!

I can't even begin to comprehend how much that added to the thread.

I'm going to propose an idea here. Users that spam unrelated sites in reviews should be IP banned from writing them. This way they can make as many alternate accounts as they want when the one they were using gets deleted, and all the reviews written from them removed, and still not be able to do it again. Then they could always come to the BBS and bitch about how unfair the ban was, in some frail attempt to prove to everyone that it was unjust. Then we can all laugh at them for their pathetic grasp of the English language.

I don't know what everyone else thinks, but I think banning an Outwar spammer and deleting the account doesn't really help. Just about all the users I see do it are either vagrant, or signed up that day or a day later. They're just going to make another account and post the crap again. Surely enough they could get another computer and try it again, but eventually they're going to run out of computers.

i hear you

Well... Everyones mean on the crappie movie's review... what else can we do???

I also agree that more review mods would be a good idea. I try to mark alot every day and see a ton of abusives and I dont think that anyone notices them because there are just so many reviews. I also think that XwaynecoltX would make a good review mod, he of all people should know what a good review looks like.

At 5/28/04 04:57 PM, jonthomson wrote:

At 5/28/04 04:56 PM, Mysterio-619 wrote: Every week like 2 of my reviews are deleted. This sucks.

That's probably due to the actual flash you've reviewed being deleted, rather than just your review going.

Better than banned -- at least these reviews have some hope to be recovered if their authors want to. Maybe they can go to the graveyard and look for the deleted movie...

(P.S. I like your previous avatar more)

well if i were lifted or if its permanent ide like to know,i dont.im not going to go off topic though.well ne ways,you guyes are right.

...... i wonder if anyone is listening. you know you can cut the number of mods on NG if you just restrict it so only people at lvl 5 or higher review..... think about it.... they would have to get xp on their new acount before they can spam outwar crap. It would be too time consuming on their side and 9/10 chances say it might help just a tad.

At 5/29/04 01:38 AM, Fireblood wrote: ...... i wonder if anyone is listening. you know you can cut the number of mods on NG if you just restrict it so only people at lvl 5 or higher review..... think about it.... they would have to get xp on their new acount before they can spam outwar crap. It would be too time consuming on their side and 9/10 chances say it might help just a tad.

That's of no use! I've dealt with somebody with about 72 pages of abusive reviews! If someone wants to be abusive, he would do so even if he is the #1 (in any means).

At 5/29/04 01:38 AM, Fireblood wrote: ...... i wonder if anyone is listening. you know you can cut the number of mods on NG if you just restrict it so only people at lvl 5 or higher review..... think about it.... they would have to get xp on their new acount before they can spam outwar crap. It would be too time consuming on their side and 9/10 chances say it might help just a tad.

god, this has been said time and time again, but it is a bad idea. Noobs deserve their say too. And sometimes, those < lvl 5 people aren't noobs at all. You wouldn't want to deny Luis his right to review would you? Besides, limiting newcomers = less newcomers at all. Which would be bad for the future of the site.

Can't we just all be friends?

At 5/29/04 11:22 AM, Heshi wrote: Can't we just all be friends?

no actually, that is why there are so many wars in the world. but that is human nature, we like evil, mean things so taht is why ever submission on NG has to have death and fighting. and the reviews are so abusive. but it would be nice...

anyhow though, as i mentioned a few pages back, there should be ratings on the posts in the forums so that the creators and viewers can remove the spam and crap so that they can get back to the point. plus, it could add to the banning points as in the reviews. that would stop spam and get rid of these frigan n0ob posts.

Here is something that always confused me... What's determines weither a review be marked "No" or "Abusive"? I know the obvious ones like Outwar and blatant outlashings like, "Eat Shi*t you Co*khead Mofo." that don't say anything else count as abusive. But what's the difference between not being useful and being abusive? You know what I'm saying? When should I say a review is abusive and when should I say a reveiew is just not helpful to me? When you do either, it still says the review is helpful to less people. Any advice would be great, thanks.

damn,I'm gonna have to start being nicer in my reviews:(
I didn't know about these rules!!!!!

cant have to much control or else ppl aint gonna like ng any more

This just hit me but why dont we have it so you can flag reviews also or something like that.

New Portal Rule: Must include hentai.

Your Talking About The People That are Very Very HAteful with a lot of cuss words not just a few and as well as the people that include a website that is unrealating to newgrounds. People that do not follow the rulds are stupid. It says below in Bold Yellow
Do not Metion any unrealting website etc. etc.
By the way about the CD where can i buy One?

Don't You think if we actually took the time to sit down and flag all the reviews it would take
Time
Effort
More Staff so that possibly would be even heaiver on the newgrounds staff

isn't it a good thing if people are getting there accounts taken away, then the annoying reviewers (i.e. ROXORS, this SUXS, LOL, LMAO, PWNED, this is stupid because <insert author> made this, etc.) can't keep making crap reviews and voting ridiculously high/low.

I didnt see anyone metion this yet but i have been noticing that alot of people may read the rules but dont quite understand them.

Is it just me or has any one else noticed that "negative reviews" (reviews that scold the movie and author in a completly legal way, ex. "your movie was lame, really turd like animation and bad sound, I just didnt like it") are getting tagged as abusive, simply because they dont praise the movie. When it is completly possible to have an abusive "positive review" (review such as "i love this movie, everything is superb and flawlessly done, good job") can easily be abusive. an example would be "OMG THIS MUVIE IS TEH SEX!!1!! IT ARE GREATESTS EVER EVER EVER EVER ect ect" Abusive in that excessive caps and stupid reapeated words.

Just wondering why people are marking legal reviews as abusive simply becuase they dont agree with the movie.

At 5/29/04 11:35 PM, ornery_scotsman wrote::

Just wondering why people are marking legal reviews as abusive simply becuase they dont agree with the movie.

Let them. It hurts only themselves. Remember, you get negative whistle points for flagging things that really aren't abusive.

From the help section:
Upon review, if we decide the entry is in violation of our guidelines we will delete it and those who blew the whistle will receive positive whistle points. If we find it is not a violation of our guidelines we will release it back into the Portal and those users who blew the whistle will receive negative whistle points.

I try to leave alone reviews that say, "This sucks" and other useless comments. But if it's really excessive like, "OMG this is the worst piece of shit, you're so gay, etc. etc." then, yeah, I'll flag the review. I screw myself if I make the wrong call.

Is it just me or has any one else noticed that "negative reviews" (reviews that scold the movie and author in a completly legal way, ex. "your movie was lame, really turd like animation and bad sound, I just didnt like it") are getting tagged as abusive, simply because they dont praise the movie. When it is completly possible to have an abusive "positive review" (review such as "i love this movie, everything is superb and flawlessly done, good job") can easily be abusive. an example would be "OMG THIS MUVIE IS TEH SEX!!1!! IT ARE GREATESTS EVER EVER EVER EVER ect ect"

Maybe I wasn't totally clear on what I posted since this is elaborating on what I said earlier. But you do realize that you probably wouldn't care if someone was stroking you the right way. It's not the concern here since those kind of reviews would not be banned. It's the negative reviews that are causing people to get banned. I think it is unclear what should be marked unhelpful and what is marked abusive. There is nothing to cover that in the FAQ. Come on, you know there is constructive critcism, (You're animation suks, work on it DOOD.) and there is Useless criticism like, (WOW, THIS SuX HaRdCOrE, BLAM!!) The people writing the reviews know EXACTLY what they are writing. So it is their own damn fault that it happened. Everyone *Should* know the rules for submitting flash and posting on the BBS. Why should reviews be any different?

What we need is clarification on what can be marked as abusive and what can be marked as not helpful at all. Hell, maybe we should take off "No" as a possible answer and make "Abusive" that much more important, like blowing the whistle.

In my posting, I didn't agree with what you posted;
0/0 people found this post helpful. Did you? [Yes] [No] [Abusive]

I 2nd that. XwaynecoltX is insane when it comes to reviews. (in a good way) And if anyone was going to be a review mod, I would expect him to be it. But oddly enough, he's not. Come on Wade, everyone agrees that ~X~ deserves the spot, so why not give it to him already?

You think so? All he ever writes is ((COOL)), ((CUTE)) and other rubbish. I mean, making over 8000 reviews with that and the X thingy isn't very creative.

I FUKEN HATE HARRY POTTER! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

At 5/29/04 11:57 PM, MasterGehn wrote: At 5/29/04 11:35 PM, ornery_scotsman wrote::

Just wondering why people are marking legal reviews as abusive simply becuase they dont agree with the movie.

Let them. It hurts only themselves. Remember, you get negative whistle points for flagging things that really aren't abusive.

True but the problem is that im more concerned about that negative review getting deleted just because 32 people found it abusive. Im sure such a high number would alert who ever deletes the review and they would delete it simply because the majority says its abusive. I have seen this happen, although thankfully not often.