At 4/9/05 02:34 PM, FrOzEn_FoX wrote:
At 4/9/05 02:15 PM, thelordofcheese wrote:
That wasn't abusive, don't be stupid. Read the rules! Calling YOU names is abusive. Saying your Flash is a pice of shit may be harsh or it may be true. That doesn't matter, though, because the question is whether it's abusive. The answer is it's not.Ok, take a moment and actually read the review rules.
1. 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. Without our contributors Newgrounds wouldn't be what it is, so we take seriously any insults directed at them by reviewers.
All he said was bollocks, a piece of shit leaching of the popularity of another piece of shit, don't tell me that wasn't abusive, he didn't even explain why he thought it was shit. Even if it is true that it was shit, that doesn't make it acceptable to call it shit literally, the review system is to help flash makers improve their work, not insult them for trying! :(
Sorry but about 14/144 people think that review was abusive or not helpful.
How about, instead, YOU take a moment to read the rules. That little bit you pasted up there? It says not to tell the ARTIST that he sucks. Not to tell the ARTIST to die, or that he's gay.
It doesn't say you can't say the MOVIE sucked.
"Your movie sucks! It's total shit! I can't stand it!" = fine
"You suck! You're total shit! I can't stand you!" = abusive
Understand the difference yet?
Also, just because that review has such a low "helpful" rating doesn't mean that everyone besides the 14 helpful clickers clicked "abusive." Many, if not most (I hope), clicked NOT HELPFUL. Which is not the same as abusive. It means the review should have and COULD have been better and more constructive, but that it wasn't abusive.
And it sounds like it was simply not helpful. Not abusive. So get over it, none of us review mods are banning him for your hurt feelings on BEHALF of your movie. If he insults YOU next time, then come running to us.
At 4/9/05 03:09 PM, Nonesuch wrote:
What I don't get is this:
The person who submitted Nightmare City said he wasn't Clairvoyance--when I first saw the thing, it said they were submitting it for the actual author. The revised author's comments that are on its blammed page give MORE information about the actual author.
So, WHY did nobody check with the actual author before giving it a 5, giving it a good review, or GIVING IT FIRST PLACE?
This isn't an issue of "ZOMG we were fooled! BASTARD!!" At best, we may have been led to believe that the author actually wanted his/her pieces submitted...but then, isn't it we who are the fools? I didn't think ANYONE who read the author's comments would actually believe the submitter was the author. And anytime someone says "I'm submitting this for the real author," we should probably notify Tom or Wade and ask them to contact the "real author" so we can be CERTAIN it's OK with the artist.
Kicking the submitter in the groin when the majority of voters DIDN'T READ THE AUTHOR'S COMMENTS? (Or didn't question why someone else was submitting clairvoyance's work? or didn't think to contact Clairvoyance and ask if the submitter had permission?)
Every one of us who voted 5, despite the fact that it's obvious Clairvoyance didn't actually submit that piece to NG, is to blame for that piece surviving and winning.
Don't be a fool. Giving it a 5 was FINE. If you've ever read the message that NG gives you when you whistle something for being stolen, you'd know that you're SUPPOSED TO VOTE WHAT THE ENTRY DESERVES, NOT WHAT THE AUTHOR DESERVES.
As a result, if something is GREAT but you think it's stolen, you should whistle it as stolen and ALSO vote 5. The problem in this case isn't that people voted 5. The problem is that NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE HIT THE WHISTLE. Maybe it wasn't clear enough that it was stolen. From what you say, it sounds like it should have been. I personally wasn't on NG at the time it was UJ. I suspect most of the 200 voters were fairly noobish, and none of them realised that "submitting a movie for someone who doesn't want to submit it to NG, but it's really good so I had to submit it here!" is not an okay reason to steal a flash and submit it to the NG flash portal.
That's not the fault of the system, it's just bad luck and ignorance on the part of a hundred or so viewers and voters. 3 people may have whistled it as stolen, but it takes 4 people to take it off the portal... and sadly, no 4th person ever got to whistle it in time. That's what you should be angry about, if anything. Relax, jeez. O_o