Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/9/04 05:39 PM, TheJoe324 wrote: You were banned for review spamming, just repeating the same basic review over and over and over. Try putting some thought into your reviews and you won't be banned.

Thanks for clearing this up thejoe.

I couldn't really understand why he was banned earlier because his reviews were abusive but not as much as the abusive reviews that I usually see. I saw some worst abusers that aren't banned even if their id was posted in the abusive reviews thread but without access to all his reviews, I wouldn't be able to guess the spamming.

At 12/9/04 05:28 PM, FatherVenom wrote: It's not just my own profile. Using an alt still won't let me see any of the reviews.

Only review mods and admins can see your reviews when you are banned. I don't know WHY we can't have access to your reviews when you are banned but I know that we can't view them unless we search into the reviews of the submission.

At 12/9/04 05:49 PM, FatherVenom wrote: You know they really should post the reasons for bans, even if they don't post who did the banning.

heh, most people will learn the rules like that. Some will never listen, others will. It might be a good idea.

At 12/9/04 06:39 PM, EKRegulus wrote: Only review mods and admins can see your reviews when you are banned. I don't know WHY we can't have access to your reviews when you are banned but I know that we can't view them unless we search into the reviews of the submission.

It's probably so that more people aren't clicking the review ratings on reviews that may not be staying.

heh, most people will learn the rules like that. Some will never listen, others will. It might be a good idea.

I may bring it up. I know they're very busy right now and they really don't need another project, but it's not going to hurt to put it forth as a suggestion.

At 12/9/04 06:39 PM, EKRegulus wrote: but I know that we can't view them unless we search into the reviews of the submission.

You shouldn't be able to see them at ALL, so please explain what you mean by that.

One of the main reasons that hiding the reviews of banned users was implemented was because of malicious links and such that would still be seen after they are banned.

If we banned someone that was spamming links to their outwar type game or a link to some kind of virus or other malicious program, people would still click the link. (The people that actually believe the "OMG IF YOU LIKED THIS GAME, GO SEE THE SEQUEL HERE!!!!")

By hiding the reviews, the quicker someone is banned, the less time the review has a chance to be seen and the link clicked. (Since it would sometimes take Wade months to go through all of the banned reviewers, a review mod catching it 5 minutes after it was made just meant the reviewer couldn't make any more on that account, it didn't remove the threat.)

Review mods are able to see the reviews because it's obvious we wouldn't be tricked by "OMG THIS VERSION IS BETTER CLICK HERE" (If we were, we shouldn't be mods) and we could tell others what they were banned for.

At 12/9/04 11:32 PM, TheJoe324 wrote: You shouldn't be able to see them at ALL, so please explain what you mean by that.

oh you are right. I browsed the reviews of some submissions that he reviewed and I didn't find his review.

I guess that the links that he gave me on the previous page confused me.

At 12/9/04 11:32 PM, TheJoe324 wrote: If we banned someone that was spamming links to their outwar type game or a link to some kind of virus or other malicious program, people would still click the link. (The people that actually believe the "OMG IF YOU LIKED THIS GAME, GO SEE THE SEQUEL HERE!!!!")

so.. does this mean you're a review mod too? i guess i learn something new everyday. And it does make sense that a review should be invisible if that user was banned.

At 12/9/04 11:40 PM, YoinK_VineS wrote: so.. does this mean you're a review mod too? i guess i learn something new everyday. And it does make sense that a review should be invisible if that user was banned.

I've been a review mod since about a month or two after the whole review modding thing was implemented, before I was a BBS mod...

At 12/9/04 11:32 PM, TheJoe324 wrote: You shouldn't be able to see them at ALL, so please explain what you mean by that.

You can see them if they are the most recent review.

By hiding the reviews, the quicker someone is banned, the less time the review has a chance to be seen and the link clicked.

Maybe we ought to give review mods more control?

I hope I get my review power back soon. It's unfair to have a personal attack be posted as a front page flash and not be able to defend yourself. Check out the credits on the Piconjo flash if you don't know what I'm talking about.

At 12/10/04 12:59 AM, FatherVenom wrote: You can see them if they are the most recent review.

ummm.. yeah I can but I can't see it when I click on "view all reviews".

Maybe we ought to give review mods more control?

Is that necessary?

I hope I get my review power back soon. It's unfair to have a personal attack be posted as a front page flash and not be able to defend yourself. Check out the credits on the Piconjo flash if you don't know what I'm talking about.

....... since your reviewed all his flashes with zeros, I'm not surprised that he mentionned you in the credits. Anyway, the credits weren't suppose to be serious. Wade didn't think that Piconjo personnaly attacked him and he was the target during the whole movie. You judge his stuff too seriously.

At 12/10/04 01:21 AM, EKRegulus wrote: ....... since your reviewed all his flashes with zeros, I'm not surprised that he mentionned you in the credits.

Honestly, I probably would have done the same thing...

When someone reviews 20+ of your submissions with the same basic thing about you having no talent and giving straight 0's, you tend not to like them very much.

At 12/10/04 01:21 AM, EKRegulus wrote:

Maybe we ought to give review mods more control?

Is that necessary?

It would be easier on Wade and faster for users if the review mods had powers similar to those of the BBS mods.

....... since your reviewed all his flashes with zeros, I'm not surprised that he mentionned you in the credits.

That doesn't make me special. I didn't even touch his confessions. Besides I did give him credit for his good flashes, nor did I make a dent in any review scores. The reason he doesn't like me is that we have conversations in which I openly oppose what he's doing. For that he thinks I'm an LF fan when in actuality I just don't think anyone deserves popularity for ragging on someone else.

Anyway, the credits weren't suppose to be serious. Wade didn't think that Piconjo personnaly attacked him and he was the target during the whole movie. You judge his stuff too seriously.

You wouldn't know because you haven't read our correspondence, but he's becoming more and more malicious towards me.

At 12/10/04 02:22 AM, FatherVenom wrote: It would be easier on Wade and faster for users if the review mods had powers similar to those of the BBS mods.

so a mod with a flash could just delete all the reviews below 9 and get and his flash on the top 10 of the reviewing ratings... Okay, they might not abuse it like that but I doubt that giving the power to delete reviews to mods is a good idea. Giving them the power to unban users isn't a bad idea but they would rarely use it. As for the last power that they could gain, delete the account, well... it should stay an admins only privilege for obvious reasons.

That doesn't make me special. I didn't even touch his confessions. Besides I did give him credit for his good flashes, nor did I make a dent in any review scores. The reason he doesn't like me is that we have conversations in which I openly oppose what he's doing. For that he thinks I'm an LF fan when in actuality I just don't think anyone deserves popularity for ragging on someone else.

He's right when he thinks that you are a LF fan. Look at your favorites...
He considers you like a toady that hates his work and that's why he added your name into the credits. It's as simple as that.

At 12/10/04 02:22 AM, FatherVenom wrote: You wouldn't know because you haven't read our correspondence, but he's becoming more and more malicious towards me.

Did it ever occur to you that if you left him alone he would leave you alone? He has just as much right to be here and submit flash as you do and apparently people like his stuff for some bewildering reason. Why does that warrant a crusade on your part?

At 12/10/04 02:22 AM, FatherVenom wrote:

At 12/10/04 01:21 AM, EKRegulus wrote:

Maybe we ought to give review mods more control?

Is that necessary?

It would be easier on Wade and faster for users if the review mods had powers similar to those of the BBS mods.

It probably would would be faster. I am not sure if it will or will not happen. I leave that up to the NG admins to figure out. Several people pushed at one point for the abilty to delete reviews. Now when some banned you can't see their reviews. You work with what your given sometimes.

At 12/10/04 10:12 AM, EKRegulus wrote: so a mod with a flash could just delete all the reviews below 9 and get and his flash on the top 10 of the reviewing ratings.

Such an action would result in demodding.

He's right when he thinks that you are a LF fan. Look at your favorites...

LOL! I had forgotten I had those. Having those was one of my ways to gain social acceptance on NG before the whole fanboy thing was revealed to me. I will say this, The Return of Gannondorf cracks me up so I'll keep that one, but for the rest it's time they go.

At 12/10/04 11:08 AM, BeFell wrote: Did it ever occur to you that if you left him alone he would leave you alone? He has just as much right to be here and submit flash as you do and apparently people like his stuff for some bewildering reason. Why does that warrant a crusade on your part?

The bewilderment. The fact that it hurts the credibility of the site. The fact that it misleads new artists. I know with your b/p rate you must have seen the rise in stick flash back when he was submitting stick flash that was passing. That's destructive to new artists who think they can get away with it and then are completely shot down. The fact that he's winning through dishonesty.

At 12/10/04 12:29 PM, FatherVenom wrote: Such an action would result in demodding.

Only if someone would find out what happened.

LOL! I had forgotten I had those. Having those was one of my ways to gain social acceptance on NG before the whole fanboy thing was revealed to me.

What? Does that mean that you added him into your favorites even if he wasn't someone that you consider like a favorite author? Honestly, I think that adding LF in the favorites was never an advantage on NG. Although, it wasn't a problem in the past before Piconjo and his crew appeared.

I will say this, The Return of Gannondorf cracks me up so I'll keep that one, but for the rest it's time they go.

Well, you bothered Piconjo in the past so I doubt that he will let you alone for a while. By the way, I'm surprised that you still didn't notice that I was on Piconjo's side. I guess that I'm not an annoying piconjer.

At 12/10/04 05:09 PM, EKRegulus wrote: Only if someone would find out what happened.

Almost everything on NG is tracked.

By the way, I'm surprised that you still didn't notice that I was on Piconjo's side. I guess that I'm not an annoying piconjer.

I know, I just don't hold it against people personally. I'm one of those, do what makes you happy as long as you aren't making other people unhappy kind of guys. I mean if you want to make the n00bs dumber than they already are I really can't stop you right?

At 12/9/04 05:49 PM, FatherVenom wrote:

At 12/9/04 05:39 PM, TheJoe324 wrote:

At 12/9/04 03:47 PM, FatherVenom wrote:

You were banned for review spamming, just repeating the same basic review over and over and over. Try putting some thought into your reviews and you won't be banned.

Yeah I figured that out after I went through. I don't know what I was thinking. 16 times really? That seems a little more excessive. Probably wasn't on my meds, but still it's a proportionate amount of effort for the flash. Neither justifes my actions. Thank you, Joe.

*resorts to waiting*

You know they really should post the reasons for bans, even if they don't post who did the banning.

As soon as the admins let us type reasons, we will type reasons. For now, the reasons we ban people are mostly posted in a thread (review mod log) on the review mod forum. They aren't for the user's benefit, they are for the administration's benefit.

As to your reviews, which I started looking at before I read Joe's reply to you... I personally didn't bother even moving on to the second page of your reviews, when I noticed that like the bottom 5 of the 10 on your first page were EXACTLY THE SAME.

As Joe pointed out, that's abusive because they're not constructive reviews.

Just keep these simple rules to review by in mind once you're unbanned by an admin:

1) whatever you do, don't post links in any form in your reviews
2) don't direct any negative comments AT the author. Keep it on the subject of the FLASH ENTRY. You can call it stupid, fucked-up, etc. etc. But if you call the AUTHOR those things, you will be banned most likely. And don't call either the entry OR the author "gay" over and over again.
3) type a separate review to EACH and EVERY entry you want to review, don't copy-paste reviews like you did. It's just not kosher, whether the reviews are POSITIVE or NEGATIVE doesn't matter. It's the fact that you aren't actually bothering to individually review movies that's the problem. You end up looking like a statwhore who wants nothing more than to compete with XwaynecoltX for top reviewer... OR... like an obsessive stalker who won't leave an author alone (that's the one you ended up looking like, with your anti-Piconjo leanings).

HTH, HAND.

Oh, and no one but admins and review mods can see the reviews of a banned user. That's a fairly recent change, meant to discourage review spammers.

I'm usually very constructive when reviewing flashes. I only review those who've actually affected me in some way. However, would writing a review about a movie under judgement say, "The only this movie isn't being blammed is because of your reputation" considered a bannable offense? I hadn't thought anything other than that out once I finished watching the movie and blammed it, only to see it was hovering in the 2-something range. Was I out of line far enough to be banned?

At 12/9/04 11:39 PM, EKRegulus wrote:

At 12/9/04 11:32 PM, TheJoe324 wrote: You shouldn't be able to see them at ALL, so please explain what you mean by that.

oh you are right. I browsed the reviews of some submissions that he reviewed and I didn't find his review.

I guess that the links that he gave me on the previous page confused me.

The links to movies that still had his review as the most recent, right? Yeah. He pointed that out as well, but that's the one problem with the current hidden-review system.

Mostly because some idiots will review dating sims with:

"OMG!!! STUPID LINK SPAMMER!!!! GO AWAY AND GO TO HELL AND YEAH!

BTW, Great game!"

When the asshole who link spammed is ALREADY BANNED, and all they've done now is make an abusive review themselves and probably encouraged other people to reply to them and go "WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?@! THERE'S NOTHING TEHREHFEFOOMG!!!!"

(sigh)

At 12/9/04 11:40 PM, YoinK_VineS wrote: so.. does this mean you're a review mod too? i guess i learn something new everyday.

Ha ha!

"OMG! WADE! PLZ MOD JOE! IT'S ABOUT TIME!"

At 12/10/04 12:59 AM, FatherVenom wrote:

At 12/9/04 11:32 PM, TheJoe324 wrote: You shouldn't be able to see them at ALL, so please explain what you mean by that.

You can see them if they are the most recent review.

See my above thing about that. I'm not sure if the admins have looked into fixing that. It might be too much trouble the way the system currently works (reviews in a movie's listing that are by banned authors are not displayed, but they aren't REPLACED by anything else... a page that normally shows 10 reviews might show 9 or 8 or even less (especially if it's a reviewpage for a dating sim) due to banned reviewers. So the main-entry-page review... would have to be replaced by some sort of temporary (REVIEW NOT PUBLIC) message or something... that would probably further confuse the idiots.

But it'd be better than the abusive review still being visible, that's for certain. It just might not be easily doable. The BEST situation would be for the most recent NON-banned-reviewer's review to be shown on the main-entry-page. But like I said, I don't think the current system for hiding banned-user-reviews would allow for that to be implemented very easily.

By hiding the reviews, the quicker someone is banned, the less time the review has a chance to be seen and the link clicked.

Maybe we ought to give review mods more control?

If the admins wanted review mods to have all the powers and flexibility of BBS mods, they would have given us those powers to begin with. We may have things added (or taken away) from our list of options, but we'll never have the relatively free-reign that we do when BBS modding (even if we get to delete reviews someday, like we can delete posts... we'll never have the equivalent of "delete topic," which I suppose would be "delete all reviews" (might be useful for turds of the week, but easily abusable and too powerful).

I hope I get my review power back soon. It's unfair to have a personal attack be posted as a front page flash and not be able to defend yourself. Check out the credits on the Piconjo flash if you don't know what I'm talking about.

"not be able to defend yourself"? How are you planning on doing that? If you mean in a review TO that personal attack in that frontpage Piconjo DVD entry or whatever... is your review going to be abusive? Even if you try not to be, I'm betting you might slip into insulting the author(s).

So just forget about it and move on. Ignore the shit you brought upon yourself, deserved or not, and it will stop. If it doesn't? Then let the admins on NG know if it's happening here. If it's happening via e-mail or something, and you're receiving actual physical threats, notify the sender's ISP of his behaviour.

Christ, it's not that complex. O_o

At 12/15/04 04:25 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: I'm usually very constructive when reviewing flashes. I only review those who've actually affected me in some way. However, would writing a review about a movie under judgement say, "The only this movie isn't being blammed is because of your reputation" considered a bannable offense? I hadn't thought anything other than that out once I finished watching the movie and blammed it, only to see it was hovering in the 2-something range. Was I out of line far enough to be banned?

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the review mod, time of day, mood, etc. etc. It's not exactly "BLAM THIS!" or "THIS SHOULD BE BLAMMED!" but it's getting close.

I'm of the opinion that to be SAFE, you shouldn't EVER bother saying "blam" or "blammed" in a review, with the possible exception of saying "I love this flash, Yadda yadda yadda, I am SOOOO happy that this did not get blammed!"

But even there, couldn't you just say "I'm happy this got protected?"

Treat "blam" as though it is a "b-word" far worse to say in reviews than fuck, shit, or various other cursewords. Because it is. Don't lecture authors on why or why not their shit should be blammed, or WOULD be blammed under different circumstances... REVIEW THE FLASH.

Do you think that serious movie critics spend their time shouting that the director should have his films removed from theatres and thrown in the trash can? Hell no. A serious critic tends to talk about the MOVIE itself, and may compare it to previous works by the same director, or to other works of the genre or of the time... but they don't tend to bring personal attacks into it. If they do, they're an idiot. Most... most keep it ON-TOPIC.

And so should you, if you're going to review movies on NG and expect/hope to not get banned.

Thank you for clarifying that to me. I'm pretty new and just getting the rhythm of things. Thanks again.

At 12/15/04 04:26 AM, gfoxcook wrote: The links to movies that still had his review as the most recent, right? Yeah. He pointed that out as well, but that's the one problem with the current hidden-review system.
Mostly because some idiots will review dating sims with:
"OMG!!! STUPID LINK SPAMMER!!!! GO AWAY AND GO TO HELL AND YEAH!
BTW, Great game!"

Idiots indeed. The reviewing system is there to comment the flash, not to comment the review of another user. Instead of telling the link spammer to go to hell, he could simply check if the user is banned. If not, post the link into the abusive reviews thread but most users will never think about that, especially the ones that rarely browse the site.
bleh...

When the asshole who link spammed is ALREADY BANNED, and all they've done now is make an abusive review themselves and probably encouraged other people to reply to them and go "WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?@! THERE'S NOTHING TEHREHFEFOOMG!!!!"

.......... rofl! Starting a flame war between users in the reviews. That wouldn't be a surprise. They could even continue it with alternate accounts :O. Yeah, it sucks but it doesn't seem to be a huge problem.
I never noticed a huge flame war or chain replies about a link spammer in the reviews. They usually stop that crap quickly.

"OMG! WADE! PLZ MOD JOE! IT'S ABOUT TIME!"

It's time for Yoink to wake up and look at what is happening beside him.
Before I made my first post, I knew that thejoe was a reviewing mod.

See my above thing about that. I'm not sure if the admins have looked into fixing that. It might be too much trouble the way the system currently works (reviews in a movie's listing that are by banned authors are not displayed, but they aren't REPLACED by anything else... a page that normally shows 10 reviews might show 9 or 8 or even less (especially if it's a reviewpage for a dating sim) due to banned reviewers. So the main-entry-page review... would have to be replaced by some sort of temporary (REVIEW NOT PUBLIC) message or something... that would probably further confuse the idiots.

If it's NEEDED then the admins should at least have a look at that. If not, let's keep dealing with it.

But it'd be better than the abusive review still being visible, that's for certain. It just might not be easily doable. The BEST situation would be for the most recent NON-banned-reviewer's review to be shown on the main-entry-page. But like I said, I don't think the current system for hiding banned-user-reviews would allow for that to be implemented very easily.

We could ask the guy that coded it. He probably can give a better answer than anyone else. Wait.. do you know something about the review program? It sounds like you partly know how it could be implemented.

If the admins wanted review mods to have all the powers and flexibility of BBS mods, they would have given us those powers to begin with. We may have things added (or taken away) from our list of options, but we'll never have the relatively free-reign that we do when BBS modding (even if we get to delete reviews someday, like we can delete posts... we'll never have the equivalent of "delete topic," which I suppose would be "delete all reviews" (might be useful for turds of the week, but easily abusable and too powerful).

I don't want to see that power in the hands of Dobio. I also doubt that the admins will give more power to mods.

So just forget about it and move on. Ignore the shit you brought upon yourself, deserved or not, and it will stop. If it doesn't? Then let the admins on NG know if it's happening here. If it's happening via e-mail or something, and you're receiving actual physical threats, notify the sender's ISP of his behaviour.

Indeed, there's no point to continue that crap. Piconjo will probably stops if venom don't bother him anymore unless what he did in the past really annoyed Piconjo. :O

At 12/15/04 04:26 AM, gfoxcook wrote: If the admins wanted review mods to have all the powers and flexibility of BBS mods, they would have given us those powers to begin with.

You can't tell me that the circumstances haven't changed enough that it shouldn't even be considered. When people are talking about the admin respectfully it's very often about the fact that they're extremely busy. If they're so busy, why not give them a break?

we'll never have the relatively free-reign that we do when BBS modding

Of course not. I was vague by design.

"not be able to defend yourself"? How are you planning on doing that?

By posting a review that defends my credibility after giving an honest opinion about the flash. But apparently I need more than that so I'll probably post some suggestions on areas of improvement as well.

is your review going to be abusive? Even if you try not to be, I'm betting you might slip into insulting the author(s).

I understand that I'm not special enough to have come into your realm of focus, but if you had continued reading my reviews before I went crazy on them you would have seen that they are (with a few exceptions) very constructive. You would know this also from reading my BBS posts, but once again, I'm just a lowly politics reg.

So just forget about it and move on.

I probably will, but not from lack of displeasure.

Ignore the shit you brought upon yourself, deserved or not, and it will stop.

Given Piconjo's track record of holding a grudge, I'd seriously doubt that it will stop in the forseeable future.

If it doesn't? Then let the admins on NG know if it's happening here.

That's a silly solution. It's not against the rules to insult NG users or pose as them, provided that they aren't admin or mods, or attribute false qualities to them. If it were we wouldn't be having this discussion as Piconjo would never have taken off in his current conceptualization and I wouldn't have had any reason to admonish him about his lack of maturity and abuse of talent.

*realizes he's been a hypocrite*
ow, my pride

Christ, it's not that complex.

Nothing on the internet is, however it's not like we're pretending otherwise.

At 12/15/04 04:36 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Thank you for clarifying that to me. I'm pretty new and just getting the rhythm of things. Thanks again.

No problem. I'm glad there are users like you who are interested enough in such things to care in the first place.

At 12/15/04 01:52 PM, EKRegulus wrote: Idiots indeed. The reviewing system is there to comment the flash, not to comment the review of another user. Instead of telling the link spammer to go to hell, he could simply check if the user is banned. If not, post the link into the abusive reviews thread but most users will never think about that, especially the ones that rarely browse the site.

Exactly.

bleh...

'nuff said on that matter. "bleh" pretty much covers it.

.......... rofl! Starting a flame war between users in the reviews. That wouldn't be a surprise. They could even continue it with alternate accounts :O. Yeah, it sucks but it doesn't seem to be a huge problem.
I never noticed a huge flame war or chain replies about a link spammer in the reviews. They usually stop that crap quickly.

That would be mostly because you can't review the same flash more than once. If you had, say, a 5 review per flash limit, plenty of reviewer flame wars would happen. Some between different reviewers, some between the reviewer and the author, replying back and forth.

It's time for Yoink to wake up and look at what is happening beside him.
Before I made my first post, I knew that thejoe was a reviewing mod.

I was mostly joking that once Wade thought Joe wasn't a mod when someone jokingly suggested him for BBS mod, so he included Joe with other prospective mods in a topic on the mod forum, asking us mods what we thought about some specific people. In joke, I suppose. #;-}>

We could ask the guy that coded it. He probably can give a better answer than anyone else. Wait.. do you know something about the review program? It sounds like you partly know how it could be implemented.

No, I was going off of what I deduced about it. I have no idea how to code such things. My knowledge of website construction is limited to 1990s HTML. I know nothing about the workings of PHP, MySQL, etc.

At 12/15/04 05:28 PM, FatherVenom wrote: You can't tell me that the circumstances haven't changed enough that it shouldn't even be considered. When people are talking about the admin respectfully it's very often about the fact that they're extremely busy. If they're so busy, why not give them a break?

As often as we receive new powers, we have powers taken away. I'm just saying that the mods on NG haven't been constantly granted new powers, and I don't anticipate any new powers anytime soon. The last time we got any, it was the power to view whistle reasons and unwhistle movies, but that only lasted from March to June, or so. Then it was gone again. :::shrugs:::

It's not about giving THEM a break, it's about them deciding the best way to mod and admin the site. If the admins wanted mods to have more power, I'm saying we would have already had it. It's possible that an entirely new type of mod might be made (portal mods), since review mods were given SOME power in that area but then it was taken away. But for now, it seems that the admins are happy with doing the work themselves. Trust me, if they asked for us mods' help, we would give it to them. They ain't asking.

"not be able to defend yourself"? How are you planning on doing that?

By posting a review that defends my credibility after giving an honest opinion about the flash. But apparently I need more than that so I'll probably post some suggestions on areas of improvement as well.

I would hope so....

is your review going to be abusive? Even if you try not to be, I'm betting you might slip into insulting the author(s).

I understand that I'm not special enough to have come into your realm of focus, but if you had continued reading my reviews before I went crazy on them you would have seen that they are (with a few exceptions) very constructive. You would know this also from reading my BBS posts, but once again, I'm just a lowly politics reg.

It's not about how special you are or are not, it's about human nature. People who are attacked want to defend. Defending often involves attacking the person who attacked you. The problem is that authors on NG can attack all they want in the form of flash movie content and responses to reviews, but reviewers are not allowed to return fire. So I advise that any attacks you want to deliver... in the course of defending yourself... be made via e-mail, AIM, or a flash of your own. Yes, in fact... that's the perfect solution... make a flash yourself that defends yourself from his flash and points out his silliness or something. And do it in a quality, funny way that's guaranteed to get your movie saved. Or not. :::shrugs:::

And lay off that politics reg shit. I don't go to politics, but it's not because I look down on people who mostly post there, I just don't come to NG BBS for political conversation. You're right that I didn't continue reading your reviews, but that's because I read plenty of reviews all the time, and all I did when looking at yours was see why you were banned, and boom, I saw the same things Joe did, and there was no reason to dig deeper. Having good reviews DOES help when it comes to the admins unbanning you and not deleting all your reviews/your account, but however good a reviewer is, if they slip badly enough, they will be banned just like all the newbie abusive assholes. It's the way the system works, for now.

If it doesn't? Then let the admins on NG know if it's happening here.

That's a silly solution. It's not against the rules to insult NG users or pose as them, provided that they aren't admin or mods, or attribute false qualities to them. If it were we wouldn't be having this discussion as Piconjo would never have taken off in his current conceptualization and I wouldn't have had any reason to admonish him about his lack of maturity and abuse of talent.

It's against the rules to repeatedly harass users on the BBS. I'm not sure how the admins feel about the same thing on the portal, but when it comes to huge review/reply wars, many bans and account deletions have happened... so I'm sure the admins do care, at least somewhat, about such things. One flash putting you down isn't such a huge deal, but if Piconjo started making an anti-you flash every single week or something, I would personally contact an admin if I were you. But whatever.

*realizes he's been a hypocrite*
ow, my pride

:::shrugs:::

Christ, it's not that complex.

Nothing on the internet is, however it's not like we're pretending otherwise.

Human emotions. Go figure.

At 12/22/04 04:38 PM, gfoxcook wrote: That would be mostly because you can't review the same flash more than once. If you had, say, a 5 review per flash limit, plenty of reviewer flame wars would happen. Some between different reviewers, some between the reviewer and the author, replying back and forth.

We both know why that option doesn't exist on NG. Although, they can still do it with alternate account but it wouldn't a good idea. I doubt that an admin would enjoy looking at that and their accounts will probably disappear and their "fun" with it.

I was mostly joking that once Wade thought Joe wasn't a mod when someone jokingly suggested him for BBS mod, so he included Joe with other prospective mods in a topic on the mod forum, asking us mods what we thought about some specific people. In joke, I suppose. #;-}>

O_o I'm not laughing :(

No, I was going off of what I deduced about it. I have no idea how to code such things. My knowledge of website construction is limited to 1990s HTML. I know nothing about the workings of PHP, MySQL, etc.

Okie dookie!