At 3/9/05 10:55 PM, EKRegulus wrote:
At 3/9/05 09:46 PM, gfoxcook wrote:
There's something important everyone needs to keep in mind.Indeed but this greatness doesn't eliminate the possible problems. That's why I think that a delete button wouldn't be enough. It would need something else to control or justify the deletions. Unlike the BBS deletions, these deletions would affect the overall reviewing score so they would have an effect on portal awards. Anyway, nobody said that this option is going to exist for review mods so I wonder why we are discussing about this subject.
If review mods could delete reviews themselves, instead of waiting for Wade to do it... this would be GREAT for link spammers...
Not in this topic, no. But the possibility of review mods being able to delete reviews HAS been brought up before. I can't remember if it's a liljim idea or a Wade idea.
So that's why we're discussing it.
As for review deletions, OBVIOUSLY admins could still see the deleted reviews. They could restore them and warn the mod if someone complains and is proven correct. This is just more shit that will clog up the admins' plates, though, so that kinda defeats the purpose.
There is no perfect system until we can program trusted, infallible A.I. modding programs.
But for other abusive reviewers? It would just get rid of their bad shit and they wouldn't learn any lessons from it.Well, you could delete the review + ban the user + ban message. That would be even better but the problem is that you guys have only the middle option so yeah, the current works very well even though the banned reviewer often needs to talk about his ban on the BBS, on an instant chat or per email because he doesn't understand why he was banned.
The review BAN is important because the banned person will figure out they did something wrong to GET banned and THINK about changing their behaviours.
Yes, ban messages would be okay, except that then review mods have to worry about hatemail and shit like BBS mods do. Don't assume that the mods are going to be abusive when 99% of the time on the BBS, it's the other way around.
That said, I wouldn't mind a little checkbox while banning that says "please check which reason the user is being banned for (more than one, if applicable)" and then features this listing:
1) Link spam
2) Character spam
3) identical reviews to multiple entries
4) hateful speech at flash author
5) hateful speech in general
6) asking for movie to be blammed
7) posting nothing but "thanks for voting" screen results.
8) etc. etc. etc.
And then whatever reason or reasons were selected would be shown to the user for the whole month they're banned if they try to review again. That would be nifty, yes.
As long as the ban is long enough to IMPACT someone's behaviour, it's long enough.Too bad that the user often needs to contact a mod to understand why he was banned. Everyone would like to get more details about the reviewing bans (for example, they might want to remember which review(s) caused that, etc.) I admit that even I would post about this in the BBS but fortunately I don't need to because I mostly typed constructive reviews.
There is also the type of user that never learns...and we both know that his behaviour isn't affected by long bans.
There's nothing wrong with someone asking why they were banned in the abusive reviews topic on Wi/Ht?, man. Since when has anyone discouraged that behaviour?
And no, some people don't learn. But just like prison terms... that's why they're long: to stop the user (at least for awhile) from doing the shit they want to do again... again.
At 3/9/05 10:57 PM, XwaynecoltX wrote:
At 3/9/05 09:46 PM, gfoxcook wrote:
That said, I'm fine with review mods either being able to set a time for a ban, or all bans being 1 month or some set amount of time (except for link spam bans, which should be permanent (which usually means a day or two until Wade destroys the account, period). Because Wade can't get to all the accounts that are banned and sift through the reviews like a machine. He's only human.1month with no reviewing good lord, i ove newgrounds movies and love reviewing them, 1 month would be crazy...
As long as the ban is long enough to IMPACT someone's behaviour, it's long enough.
Someone earlier in this topic said 1 month, I was just using that as an example. Hence the "or some other set amount of time" part.
Besides... some people have reported being review banned for 2 months or more. The CURRENT ban system lasts FOREVER (unless Wade removes the ban himself).
A one month ban may SOUND long, but it's a lot shorter than SOME reviewers have been banned for in the past couple of years, so... that's not that "crazy" at all, man. Infinite bans are far more crazy.