For a while now, there has been a lot of confusion about reviews and flagging.

I am making this thread as an "ask the experts" type of deal. You can ask questions and a review moderator will answer.

Only review moderators can answer questions in this thread, but everyone is allowed to ask a question.

concerned if something is abusive or not? Question about what is/is not abusive?

Were you review banned and you are still confused?

Had a review deleted and want to know what you can do to improve?

I will try to answer any questions related to reviews.

I will address whistles only once:

The system is not broken. Flagging something is not an instant process. A review you flag may not be judged on by a review moderator for hours or days or months or even years if you have a garbage whistle. It takes more than just you to bring something to the attention of a moderator/administrator. The ratio between points gained to points lost is not 1:1. If you flag something incorrectly you will be punished severely with a large chunk of points taken away.

You do not lose points if a review is deleted. Ever. That includes spam accounts and chain letters.

I cannot see who has flagged what, I cannot give or take whistle points on a whim. I cannot tell you what review sent you into garbage. Nobody can.

So please, any questions about reviews you may direct here.

First off, good idea for a thread.

At 11/12/08 10:40 PM, Malachy wrote: The ratio between points gained to points lost is not 1:1. If you flag something incorrectly you will be punished severely with a large chunk of points taken away.

I think this is obvious just from experience, but there was one thread where a moderator said that they actually knew for a fact that the ratio was actually almost the same for points gained and points lost. I will go look for this thread later for proof, but if I'm not mistaken the mod that said this was ramagi. So are you 100 percent sure about this right here?

You do not lose points if a review is deleted. Ever. That includes spam accounts and chain letters.

Just throwing out a scenario here. What happens if a review mod comes along and gives negative points for a review or reviews. The review gets marked again by other people and a different review mod comes along and thinks it's worthy of being deleted. That's my personal opinion on why people would think they lose whistle points on reviews that were deleted and they get confused on the matter. Wouldn't you agree that this scenario is very likely to happen everyday so it isn't always someone crying/complaining for the wrong reason?

I have personally tested out the whistle system a couple of times and for the god honest truth have marked those chain letter and website reviews from spam account with an alternate account and went right from normal to garbage and even bronze and silver to garbage on these alts in one go. Without marking any other review. How do you explain this? And no it's not because I marked other stuff either.

Thanks for your time.

No answers yet? =P Oh well, I answered late last night. Here is another thing that is a problem. And I quote you directly with this Malachy.

I hope you all enjoy your garbage whistles.

Seriously, you just fucked yourselves over big time by flagging EVERY SINGLE REVIEW by this xurk reviewer.

So here you are going against what you usually say. You say we DONT lose points when marking old reviews and spam account review, but clearly you go against what you preach time after time by giving people negative points.

NOBODY got points for that shit. Most of his reviews were from 2001 and frankly, many of them were perfect aside from him putting his website at the bottom!

Seriously. if you are that stupid to just flag shit that is a good review because it has a website or some shit at the bottom before there were even review guidelines for him to break in the first place, you should be happy if you ever get out of garbage.

Now if people can't see the two major problems with this then they are blind. First off let's cover the 2001 reviews. There weren't review guidelines? I thought there was review guidelines, but just not any review mods. That doesn't matter though because it still doesn't cover what the problem is.

The problem is how are people suppose to know there isn't a review guideline? Some people come and join newgrounds. They read the FAQ like they are suppose to and what is the first thing that new users do? They go to the flash portal, watch a couple of movies and review them. If they liked the movie something that is very common is to check through some of the reviews, especially the low scoring reviews were you usually find these "old review" to see if people disliked the movie that the loved so much. The find a review that is clearly abusive, but is from 2001 lets say. Tell me why in the world would you give them negative points for marking an abusive review when it says that reviews before a certain date can't be marked? That's pretty dumb to me. Even people who have been here for a couple of years might not have any clue. It's not like most of them were around in 2001 and the earlier dates to even know this right? So I think it's a very stupid thing to give negative points to people when there isn't anything about the FAQ or anywhere else for that matter for the people on newgrounds as a whole to see.

Now say the reviews that you were talking about in your post weren't old. You said that Seriously. if you are that stupid to just flag shit that is a good review because it has a website or some shit at the bottom before there were even review guidelines for him to break in the first place, you should be happy if you ever get out of garbage. So this obvioulsy goes against another rule. You are saying that just because they have a good review they are allowed to stick their website in the bottom of the review? So I can start putting my myspace url or hell say I was the owner of meatspin and put that link in the bottom of my review every time? There is no difference whatsoever here, but again you say you give negative points for reviews that are clearly against the rules.

Answers again please. =P

And thanks for your time again.

At 11/12/08 10:59 PM, Corky52 wrote: Just throwing out a scenario here. What happens if a review mod comes along and gives negative points for a review or reviews. The review gets marked again by other people and a different review mod comes along and thinks it's worthy of being deleted. That's my personal opinion on why people would think they lose whistle points on reviews that were deleted and they get confused on the matter. Wouldn't you agree that this scenario is very likely to happen everyday so it isn't always someone crying/complaining for the wrong reason?

Although that scenario is possible, I believe that's highly unlikely as the review moderator team are fully aware of the complete tonal difference between what reviews are deem deletable and what reviews are clearly fair reviews.

I believe that more than likely, its due to the case of mis-flagging. One of the most common (imo) for i.e., a poster linking to a set of reviews with the statement "the first two reviews" in which case the abusive reviews could have already been removed, lending to mis-flagging. I know you're aware of this but some people are quick on the draw. To those people, please carefully read the reviews and make a qualitative judgment before flagging a review.

At 11/13/08 06:59 AM, Corky52 wrote: Now if people can't see the two major problems with this then they are blind. First off let's cover the 2001 reviews. There weren't review guidelines? I thought there was review guidelines, but just not any review mods.

I believe the review guidelines came in place in 2003.

The problem is how are people suppose to know there isn't a review guideline? Tell me why in the world would you give them negative points for marking an abusive review when it says that reviews before a certain date can't be marked? That's pretty dumb to me. Even people who have been here for a couple of years might not have any clue. It's not like most of them were around in 2001 and the earlier dates to even know this right?

I'm sure Malachy can give you his own response to your question but in my belief, people shouldn't be looking for ridiculous old abusive reviews in the first place. I can understand why this issue seems trifling but you have to consider that the reviews were created before the guidelines, thus shouldn't bare the same tenacity as current reviews. I've taken a look at the reviews that malachy cleared and I can understand why he did as so. It was hardly abusive (minus the websitelinking) but if you happen to look at it without any set of guidelines; would you honestly see it as abusive?

I'm sure you and the other regulars knew about the caution on flagging ancient reviews, so why did they not stop and reconsidered? Did anybody notice the date of these reviews?

It's unfortunate for those guys, but they just got to deal with it and learn. \

You are saying that just because they have a good review they are allowed to stick their website in the bottom of the review? So I can start putting my myspace url or hell say I was the owner of meatspin and put that link in the bottom of my review every time? There is no difference whatsoever here, but again you say you give negative points for reviews that are clearly against the rules.

The difference here is the date of the reviews. You're aware of the guidelines; the reviewer from 2001 was not. I hope this clear up a bit of confusion. :-)

At 11/13/08 07:27 AM, Jawdyn wrote: I want you to make it clear where the fine line is drawn between abusive and useless. I also want all the review mods to go by the same rules and information because it feels like depending on the review moderator, I could lose or gain points.

Honestly, abusive and useless reviews should be blantly obvious. If you feel strongly a review is abusive, flag it (Read the Review Guidelines) if you're unsure; don't flag it and/or ask a review mod. We all closely follow the review guidelines and it's very unlikely that our judgment will be crossed between what review is constituted as deleted and a review that is cleared with penalty.

At 11/13/08 08:03 AM, Jawdyn wrote:

At 11/13/08 07:59 AM, dave-mac-dave wrote: If you're not fucking sure, why bother flagging it? You guys are so fucking retarded, it hurts.

I think you're mad because YOUR WHISTLE ITS SWEATY AND GREEN. SUCK MY BIG FAT DICK YOU FAGGOT!

Cut the bickering please. Let's all try to be sensible adults here.

At 11/13/08 08:14 AM, BR wrote:

The difference here is the date of the reviews. You're aware of the guidelines; the reviewer from 2001 was not. I hope this clear up a bit of confusion. :-)

Yeah, thanks for answering, but I still think you are missing my point BR. What if someone comes along pretty new to this website. Reads the FAQ and stumbles across a review such as the one that I talked about. Would he not mark the review as abusive? Does he know that there wasn't a review guideline? The answers to that would be yes and no respectively.

You know for a fact that I know there isn't anything wrong with the review system. I was brought up in the abusive review thread when you were one of the most active users so I was lucky enough to understand things the right way. Do you not agree that it's a bad thing to give people negative whistle points for this though? Look at my reasoning. It's impossible for newer users to know these little nooks and crannies .

My question concerns quality reviews that are marked as abusive. Is there a mechanism to report these type of reviews to a review admin to have their flags cleared?

At 11/13/08 08:53 AM, zimzap wrote: My question concerns quality reviews that are marked as abusive. Is there a mechanism to report these type of reviews to a review admin to have their flags cleared?

They just come up on our lists the same as every other flagged review, and if they've been wrongly flagged we can simply clear them when we get around to viewing them.
____________________

I've deleted a fair few posts and banned 2 people who have posted in this thread already. Trolling in a thread run by moderators isn't a good idea, no matter how much distaste you may or may not have for the whistle system.

Keep it civil.

At 11/13/08 06:59 AM, Corky52 wrote: No answers yet? =P Oh well, I answered late last night. Here is another thing that is a problem. And I quote you directly with this Malachy.

I hope you all enjoy your garbage whistles.

Seriously, you just fucked yourselves over big time by flagging EVERY SINGLE REVIEW by this xurk reviewer.

So here you are going against what you usually say. You say we DONT lose points when marking old reviews and spam account review, but clearly you go against what you preach time after time by giving people negative points.

well you see...those reviews, and I remember them quite clearly, were NOT abusive in any sense. The review guidelines are not rules to be taken like the BBS rules, where if you break one, your post will be deleted or you will get banned...

with these reviews, the review itself was exceptional. Probably a much better review than most I see. The only problem that I noticed in his reviews was that he tagged his webpage at the bottom of each...Yes..if I caught him doing it today, right now, I probably would send him a PM to tell him it isn't cool and if he continues he may get a review ban...but when you flag a review as abusive, you are telling me that that particular review is abusive. Review mods handle problem reviewers, people who want to clean the site up should only worry about the review at hand.

Blah Blah Blah

Maybe you need to do something about people marking reviews as useless when they are not, i seen a week or two ago lots of my current reviews marked as useless and i found it very odd, haters i tell ya haters

~X~

At 11/13/08 02:16 PM, XwaynecoltX wrote: Blah Blah Blah

Maybe you need to do something about people marking reviews as useless when they are not, i seen a week or two ago lots of my current reviews marked as useless and i found it very odd, haters i tell ya haters

~X~

We don't have any power over that; it's just people being morons. The more well-known you are on the site, the more people will try and pull stupid shit like that with you. I've had many of my reviews marked as useless in the past when they clearly aren't, had my audio downvoted, etc etc. Just have to grin and bear it I'm afraid.

From what I've seen from you review mods' posts regarding whistling, you take more of a overall qualitative approach to judging reviews, and will not dwell on the smaller, nitpicking rules that the reviewer may happen to break (eg: posting a website at the bottom of a decent review, having a curse word in the middle of a good review, etc.). So unless the review itself it completely useless, you will err towards keeping the review and just clear the blows and leave it up there.

Am I right to think this?

At 11/13/08 03:44 PM, Timmy wrote: Am I right to think this?

Yes, pretty much.

A common mistake that people make though is that any review that isn't deleted earns them negative points. This isn't the case. We can choose to clear flags on a review either with or without penalty, and more often than not, when judging a review that we can see COULD have been perceived as abusive, it will be without penalty. If users are flagging blatantly legitimate reviews, however, in order to spite the reviewer or whatever, then we'll clear with penalty and the flagger's whistle will suffer.

How come all the reviews on the TOTW's have been getting deleted lately, even when they aren't abusive?

At 11/13/08 03:51 PM, DrDickHead wrote: How come all the reviews on the TOTW's have been getting deleted lately, even when they aren't abusive?

Examples would help.

Sorry for not quoting the rest of your post. I have no clue why I didn't do it before.

At 11/13/08 08:14 AM, BR wrote:

At 11/12/08 10:59 PM, Corky52 wrote: Just throwing out a scenario here. What happens if a review mod comes along and gives negative points for a review or reviews. The review gets marked again by other people and a different review mod comes along and thinks it's worthy of being deleted. That's my personal opinion on why people would think they lose whistle points on reviews that were deleted and they get confused on the matter. Wouldn't you agree that this scenario is very likely to happen everyday so it isn't always someone crying/complaining for the wrong reason?

Although that scenario is possible, I believe that's highly unlikely as the review moderator team are fully aware of the complete tonal difference between what reviews are deem deletable and what reviews are clearly fair reviews.

Yeah, I just want to point out that they don't alway work good as a team like this though. I have had many situations where I have asked one review moderator if reviews would be considered abusive and they have said yes and then another mod doesn't think they are abusive. I have a couple of PM's that I can use as examples, but I will use the most recent one. I will keep mod names out now just so I don't start arguments and stuff. I asked one moderator if they though some reviews were abusive. They looked at them and said yes so I posted them in the abusive review thread. Shortly after a moderator deleted my post and told me that those reviews weren't going to be deleted. This isn't really a problem since the moderator who knew I asked about the reviews before hand cleared them with no negative points given out. That just goes to show that the review mods aren't always that consistent with their opinions. I don't disagree with you much, but I think that examples like this show that.

I believe that more than likely, its due to the case of mis-flagging. One of the most common (imo) for i.e., a poster linking to a set of reviews with the statement "the first two reviews" in which case the abusive reviews could have already been removed, lending to mis-flagging. I know you're aware of this but some people are quick on the draw. To those people, please carefully read the reviews and make a qualitative judgment before flagging a review.

Haha, you know me well. ;) Yes I do agree that this is usually the case also my friend. I'm just trying to use this thread what it's for and get all of the "what ifs" figured out. Not only for me, but so the mods can be on the same page, or close to the same page and newer people who don't understand as much can learn these little "what ifs".

The problem is how are people suppose to know there isn't a review guideline? Tell me why in the world would you give them negative points for marking an abusive review when it says that reviews before a certain date can't be marked? That's pretty dumb to me. Even people who have been here for a couple of years might not have any clue. It's not like most of them were around in 2001 and the earlier dates to even know this right?

I'm sure Malachy can give you his own response to your question but in my belief, people shouldn't be looking for ridiculous old abusive reviews in the first place.

Yes they shouldn't be, but there are so many times that people run into them I can understand why this issue seems trifling but you have to consider that the reviews were created before the guidelines, thus shouldn't bare the same tenacity as current reviews. I've taken a look at the reviews that malachy cleared and I can understand why he did as so. It was hardly abusive (minus the websitelinking) but if you happen to look at it without any set of guidelines; would you honestly see it as abusive?

I'm sure you and the other regulars knew about the caution on flagging ancient reviews, so why did they not stop and reconsidered? Did anybody notice the date of these reviews?

I'm not talking about the regulars. Again, I'm trying to emphasize this. I'm talking about people who aren't regulars.

It's unfortunate for those guys, but they just got to deal with it and learn. \

You are saying that just because they have a good review they are allowed to stick their website in the bottom of the review? So I can start putting my myspace url or hell say I was the owner of meatspin and put that link in the bottom of my review every time? There is no difference whatsoever here, but again you say you give negative points for reviews that are clearly against the rules.

The difference here is the date of the reviews. You're aware of the guidelines; the reviewer from 2001 was not. I hope this clear up a bit of confusion. :-)

Very true, so I understand this part. I took Malachy's wording wrong with this. I understand after you and Life gave me a nice little explanation. It still brings up the point that someone new wouldn't know the difference since they wouldn't know about no review guideline back then.

At 11/13/08 12:35 PM, Malachy wrote:

with these reviews, the review itself was exceptional. Probably a much better review than most I see. The only problem that I noticed in his reviews was that he tagged his webpage at the bottom of each...Yes..if I caught him doing it today, right now, I probably would send him a PM to tell him it isn't cool and if he continues he may get a review ban...but when you flag a review as abusive, you are telling me that that particular review is abusive. Review mods handle problem reviewers, people who want to clean the site up should only worry about the review at hand.

Yeah, see my explanation above. I see why they shouldn't be marked, but I don't see why you gave negative points for them, for again the reasons I stated above in my post. New users don't understand this obviously. (I'm still a new user. (Slap a 07 date on my account because I only deposited and reviewed a couple of times before 07) Even I had no clue when the review guidelines were put into place. Sorry my post was so delayed. =P I guess work took a lot out of me this week and I fell asleep in a middle of making this post.

I'm sorry corky, but you seem to have missed what I said.

This thread is not here about whistles. From now on, I will simply delete any more of your whistle related posts. If I have to keep deleting them, you'll just find yourself on a BBS vacation. Please abide by how I framed this thread or don't post. You can PM us all you want. You can find a complete list of site moderators right here. Any one of us can tell you the same things I am telling you.

Review mods don't control whistles. We can't see how many points you have. We can't see who flagged what. We aren't told how they work. Whistles are in your own hands, not ours. All we do is look at a flagged review, determine if it was an abuse of the review system, and move on to the next. We may look at hundreds in a day, so you can easily see that there is absolutely no way we could ever have a vested interest in punishing you or banning a reviewer or deleting reviews for our favorite submissions. It's totally out of context when it gets to us.

If there was a way to shoot you back down to garbage for being a whiny shit when your whistle drops from one level to a lower level, I would do it, because clearly if you are that upset about a jpeg in your userpage, you should not be participating in cleaning up the site. We don't want you if that's your priority. Not to mention the whistle status is totally and utterly your own problem. I couldn't give two shits about you not being able to throw reviews my way if you have a tendency to throw the wrong ones up, when I should be spending my time dealing with the ones which are really abusive.

Count yourself lucky that we even have an option to clear flags without taking away whistle points, because the number of reviews that I clear without penalty is HUGE. If something is not obviously abusive, we usually don't delete them, but if we can see how it may have been flagged, we are able to BE NICE TO YOU and clear the flags off of the review without taking points away.

I already made a reply about the whistle status after I had stated I would only mention it once. I'm not going to deal with this sillyness anymore. I am happy to answer questions about reviews.

At 11/14/08 06:28 PM, KevnSevn wrote: If someone compliments on the flash in their review (without reviewing the actual animation) just because it is a goldmine for whistle points, is that flaggable?

I don't understand your question. somebody reviews the submission because the submission is a goldmine for whistle points?

and no, I would not say encouragement is an abuse of the review system.

OK, I'm going to need a mod's answer on this one, because it has me confused. What if something legitimately doesn't work?

OK, I'll make it a bit clearer. Let's say there's a "game", but it doesn't work. It doesn't get past the preloader screen. Would a review stating that and giving a 0 because of it be considered abusive?

At 11/14/08 09:48 PM, SoulMaster71 wrote: OK, I'm going to need a mod's answer on this one, because it has me confused. What if something legitimately doesn't work?

OK, I'll make it a bit clearer. Let's say there's a "game", but it doesn't work. It doesn't get past the preloader screen. Would a review stating that and giving a 0 because of it be considered abusive?

how can you possibly review how well the author utilized the tools of Flash if you didn't even watch the movie or play the game?
It may simply be that the submission has a glitch, and the author may not read all of his reviews. If there is a problem with a submission, I would recommend sending the author a PM.

it's sort of like not watching a movie and leaving a review of "i didn't watch it but here's a 0"

At 11/14/08 09:38 PM, KevnSevn wrote:

My shitty attempt to re-make a review in text.

well, that review is flaggable because if it's a spam submission, clearly they aren't reviewing the quality of the submission and the review space isn't for talking about other reviews. I can see how that could be deleted.

Well, I have a question, I think I already know the answer but I want to be sure.

If someone says that he didn't watch the submission, is the review abusive? For example, some days ago I saw a review that said something like:
"I haven't watched the flash yet, but I know it's awesome" (And voted 10).
I suppose it's abusive, since although he says he thinks the flash is awesome, he didn't even watch it.

Then we have situations like this one, where Blacktay said:
Summary: "Only 2.2 KB? That looks malicious..."
Review: "I think that isn't a game, it's only a malicious game. But I'm not going to whistle this, because I didn't played it."
(And voted 0), the game actually passed judgment and has 3+ score.

So, the one at the bottom is obviously abusive (imo), but I just want to be sure about the first one :)

At 11/15/08 08:42 AM, Ismael92 wrote: Well, I have a question, I think I already know the answer but I want to be sure.

If someone says that he didn't watch the submission, is the review abusive? For example, some days ago I saw a review that said something like:

As I said in my last post, yes, something like that is abusive. How can you review something if you didn't even watch/play it?

it's like a guy going to Amazon.com and leaving poor reviews for tampons.

Thank you for creating this.

My question is if certain examples may be abusive.

As we all know insulting the author is abusive.
What If its in the tittle of the review?
What if what they are saying "Get a life, you suck, grow up, fuck your stupid ass flash"
What if the review is just quoting a line from the movie? And nothing else

We all know that reviewing low without giving the author ways to improve are useless.
What if its just "This sucked" or "I didn't like it it was too wierd"
Would these count as useless?

What if the game is one that can give you a code so others can play your level?
Would leaving a 10 with "01001000010000000000000000000000000000" in the body be useless?

Would just leaveing a 10 and "I liked it" be useless?

Im sure these are very common questions and asked hopeing to find answers myself and mabe help a few other users

At 11/15/08 10:11 PM, Wyattfilms wrote: Thank you for creating this.

My question is if certain examples may be abusive.

As we all know insulting the author is abusive.
What If its in the tittle of the review?

there's no reason to be insulting an author. Sometimes, as has been mentioned in this thread, if the rest of the review is acceptable it may just be useless...but for the most part if you're resorting to insults, your review is going to get deleted.

What if what they are saying "Get a life, you suck, grow up, fuck your stupid ass flash"

that would get deleted and probably get you a ban.

What if the review is just quoting a line from the movie? And nothing else

useless, not abusive.

We all know that reviewing low without giving the author ways to improve are useless.
What if its just "This sucked" or "I didn't like it it was too wierd"
Would these count as useless?

both would count as useless. the "This sucked" may even get deleted.

What if the game is one that can give you a code so others can play your level?
Would leaving a 10 with "01001000010000000000000000000000000000" in the body be useless?

It's pretty common sense that if it's a code for a movie that the author's comments include "share your level!".

So those reviews, although not extremely helpful or constructive, are still not useless since they are adding levels for others to play.

Would just leaveing a 10 and "I liked it" be useless?

Useless? yes. Abusive? no. Everyone likes encouragement.

Malachy this thread has been needed for along time. Now insted of clogging up rages thread with these questions now we can come here and get the answers wee need from mods themselfs. Insted of users misinforming everyone. Now i have a question, do you give points out when there are thoes pictures made of symbles and such i know they have a name but don't know what it is.

At 11/15/08 11:14 PM, idiot-buster wrote: Malachy this thread has been needed for along time. Now insted of clogging up rages thread with these questions now we can come here and get the answers wee need from mods themselfs. Insted of users misinforming everyone. Now i have a question, do you give points out when there are thoes pictures made of symbles and such i know they have a name but don't know what it is.

ascii art is abusive and will be deleted and repeated offenses will get you review banned.

from the guidelines:

Do not flood the review title or body. Examples would be long strings of characters or words with no breaks or repeating words or phrases over and over. Do not submit images made from text and characters, as this will also get you banned.

At 11/15/08 11:17 PM, Malachy wrote: ascii art is abusive and will be deleted and repeated offenses will get you review banned.

Okey so thats what it is called thanks.

from the guidelines:

Do not flood the review title or body. Examples would be long strings of characters or words with no breaks or repeating words or phrases over and over. Do not submit images made from text and characters, as this will also get you banned.

Okey i got it, i was not sure if it was allowed or not. I must have missed allot of points from not flagging those huh?

I have a question, but it's not about reviews per se. Although I suppose it cuts along the same grain.

Anyway, I had a silver whistle a week ago, yet when I logged on, I had a gold whistle. I'm just curious on how my whistle rank went up even though I haven't been flagging any reviews at all.

At 11/15/08 11:24 PM, BranflakesofDoom wrote: Anyway, I had a silver whistle a week ago, yet when I logged on, I had a gold whistle. I'm just curious on how my whistle rank went up even though I haven't been flagging any reviews at all.

This thread isn't about whistles, it's about reviews. Mal said in his first post:

"I will address whistles only once"

So let's just leave it at that and talk about reviews here, yeah? If you have whistle questions, ask in Rage's thread, or contact a review mod.

Does putting some random lettersas a review count as abusive, even if they are rated 10

At 11/16/08 07:36 AM, CSanimations wrote: Does putting some random lettersas a review count as abusive, even if they are rated 10

Yes, because that isn't related to the submission, and therefore is not an acceptable review.

At least a word or three regarding how the reviewer felt about the submission is needed, e.g. "I liked it".

However, with low scores, users should always motivate the low scores and not only rate 0 and review with something like "It was bad".