why did i get review banned??

At 8/17/05 07:43 AM, bloo_apple wrote: why did i get review banned??

You probably reviewed abusively on an under judgment flash, I can't see anything particularly bannable from a quick look.

At 8/17/05 07:43 AM, bloo_apple wrote: why did i get review banned??

Can't see anything blatantly abusive in your recent reviews. I'm going to guess you got caught for a review on a UJ Flash that got blammed - but I don't know for sure.

http://www.newground../topic.php?id=328218

As a reference. So if you've been review banned from now, it was likely for something done after this date.

At 8/18/05 01:35 PM, jonthomson wrote: So if you've been review banned from now, it was likely for something done after this date.

And someone's already gone and got themselves a ban. Christ.

And, for the record, the last time prior to today that Wade made a "review bans cleared" topic was back in March. Just to give everyone a rough idea.

At 8/18/05 02:55 PM, jonthomson wrote: Just to give everyone a rough idea.

haha Yeah, he also did the mass deletion of all the flagged flash as well. So lets count the months shall we? March, April, May, June, July, August. So about every five months he lifts review bans in one big shabang. That or whenever but five months I think justs for a review ban.

At 8/18/05 03:14 PM, Master_Inuyasha wrote: That or whenever but five months I think justs for a review ban.

I feel a bit sorry for the people who get banned for one early review, then get banned again for another earlier review, when their first ban gets lifted (even if they have mended their ways since). Still, anyone with any kind of sense shouldn't be getting banned in the first place, I suppose.

At 8/18/05 08:22 PM, Denvish wrote:

At 8/18/05 03:14 PM, Master_Inuyasha wrote: That or whenever but five months I think justs for a review ban.

I feel a bit sorry for the people who get banned for one early review, then get banned again for another earlier review, when their first ban gets lifted (even if they have mended their ways since). Still, anyone with any kind of sense shouldn't be getting banned in the first place, I suppose.

Hopefully that'll be sorted out if we (review mods) get the ability to delete reviews. We can just remove the older abusive review and let them go.

Hell, if we're given the ability to delete reviews, and different lengths of ban to use (say week, month and as it works at present), and the pm to tell someone why they were banned, Wade would have pretty much nothing to do with respect to reviews apart from account deletions, which he'd have to do at present for spamming and similar things. It's just a case of finding the time to implement such a system when there's things with higher priorities, even though the time spent doing so would likely be more than compensated by that saved by letting review mods doing more of the work. Of course, it's different people's time that is being saved and used :-)

At 8/18/05 09:08 PM, jonthomson wrote: It's just a case of finding the time to implement such a system when there's things with higher priorities, even though the time spent doing so would likely be more than compensated by that saved by letting review mods doing more of the work.

I don't want to ruffle any feathers here, but I suppose I inevitably will.

Anyway, you have to look at a bigger picture with all of this. It's no secret that the majority of the people coming to Newgrounds come here to watch the flash movies and play the flash games on the site. When it comes down to what new features to implement first, it boils down to who will benefit from it the most (in terms of users on the site who are here to view content on the site, more than the authors who're submitting to the site, more than with the people who're controlling the site (from admin's/mod's point of view), or the people who get punished for misbehaving on the site (they are at the very bottom rung of the proverbial ladder - they did something wrong, even though they have to agree to terms before being able to do that ... wrong thing)).

Every now and then, there's a happy conglomeration of these things - the authors will benefit, the users who come to the site (be they registered, or more often, not) will benefit and the administrators/moderators will benefit.

An absolutely PERFECT example of this is the automated collections system. People are here primarily (I'm going to come back to the audio portal before anyone gets on my back (as they regularly do) about that one) to view flash animations, since the site evolved around flash. The majority of people who are here want to see flash that they like - and they then want to go and see more of the same thing. The people who submit flash to the site want to get publicity and people seeing more of their works.

Before the automated collections system, this was a long and drawn out process (of finding the right collections/series/games/toons pages to put the stuff into and what not and then categorise it and edit all the files that need to be edited).

This is not the case any more - it's very easy for us guys (and will this responsibility will ultimately be shared amongst trusted moderators, who will be able to add/edit collections stuff (I don't want to concentrate on that too much at the moment, we'll come back to that at a later date)).

Now, it's a case of clicking and pointing and what not at all that stuff and it's catalogued. That's great for the users, because if they see some movie or game that they like, they get to click through to other movies/games of the same genre if the entry they are watching is categorised.

It's great for the authors as well, because those that are in the same collections/games/toons/series that the user has clicked backed to, there's a good chance that the user will then check out their stuff, giving the author more exposure. And it's great for those who are in control of that stuff, because they can control all of that far more effectively than they could before.

Going back to the audio portal - that thing is my baby and it regularly gets dropped on its head by the audio portal submitters.... What they forget is that that thing is in its infancy (baby references, anyone?), compared with the flash portal. It's also something that isn't visited as much (because the majority of people know Newgrounds for flash, rather than audio). And most people who aren't really into music in any big way don't go there, nor would they ever go there, unless they hear samples of some of the music in there before they get to the place.

However, this is not down to the fact that "the audio portal does not get enough publicity", blah blah blah. It's because there aren't many flash authors who USE the stuff in the audio portal. Whenever a really successful entry in the flash portal does well, and includes an audio entry from the audio portal, that audio author tends to do well.

I forget who it was who first used paragonx9's work from the audio portal, but I know that the flash submission made front page. Just look at the guy's list of accolades now. People don't come to the site to listen to audio, but they do go to that audio once they have heard what's been played in the submission in the flash portal that they have come to see.

And that's what I'll be looking to develop in the audio portal in the future (which will come as soon as I've finished up the PM system and a couple of other features) - I've already mentioned this several times in the past, but those who come to the audio forum to bitch and hate, generally are those are consumed with their own little rants that mean shit to anyone but themselves and are the culprits of whatever they're bitching and hating over in the audio portal.

Chances of anyone reading this start-to-finish. Not much. But there you go...

At 8/18/05 09:53 PM, liljim wrote: Chances of anyone reading this start-to-finish. Not much. But there you go...

No, I read it all, and I agreed for the most part. But, I think that there should be something to protect reviewers like me from getting banned unjustly. I mean, Wade doesn't clear it out for months at a time. Look at my oldest reviews, those date back to 2002. All of them are crap, caps, and some of them are slowly collecting the X/Y users found this review helpful. Where the X is a really small number and the Y is a really large number. Then look at my recent reviews. Would you think it would be ok for me to sit months waiting to be taken off a review ban if one of those older reviews gained enough flags to get marked? I've been watching and they have gotten more and more marks along time, so it is possible I could get a ban for one of them. As jon said, sometimes users get rebanned right away for another abusive review that wrote in the past when they get off a ban. I think that a date setting should be placed for users who are banned. As in, if a user was released from a ban today, then no reviews before this date should qualify them for a ban. Why? Because, they can't go back and delete those other old abusive reviews right after they are removed from a ban. So what's the point in learning a lesson if you're going to get double-banned for you past mistakes? I don't know, maybe I'm just afraid of being banned for those 2002 reviews, but I think there needs to be something to protect you from things like that.

Lets see how long I can go without a ban. I guess years. I have to watch my mouth near UJF that are crappy whether I am joking or serious.

At 8/18/05 09:53 PM, liljim wrote:

At 8/18/05 09:08 PM, jonthomson wrote: It's just a case of finding the time to implement such a system when there's things with higher priorities, even though the time spent doing so would likely be more than compensated by that saved by letting review mods doing more of the work.

I don't want to ruffle any feathers here, but I suppose I inevitably will.

Not ruffling any feathers at this end, we know perfectly well that that this kind of thing is pretty much at the bottom of admin priorities. We just recognise that it's going to have taken Wade a long time to have gone through "15,000 reviews that were flagged as abusive... [and] review bans of 2,171 users", which could probably be put to better use on something more important (I struggle to think what would happen if the BBS had the same system). Of course, in order to do that, you'd either have to wait for a (very rare) quiet spot in workload, or disregard more important things for a while, neither of which is likely to happen any time soon.

I suppose it's somewhat analogous to juggling money and that you're going to pay attention to your mortgage ahead of paying someone back that twenty quid you borrowed off them, and on Newgrounds there's no easy way to consolidate your existing debts into one low monthly repayment :-)

At 8/18/05 10:47 PM, Xiivi wrote:

At 8/18/05 09:53 PM, liljim wrote: Chances of anyone reading this start-to-finish. Not much. But there you go...

I read it and you are right about alot of those things. I am quite interested in what you have in mind and seeing implimented as to relations to the Audio Portal.

I don't know, maybe I'm just afraid of being banned for those 2002 reviews, but I think there needs to be something to protect you from things like that.

I'm in the same boat as you friend. I'd love to have something like that implimented, that or my first 100 reviews deleted. They are pure and utter crap IMHO.

how do i get banned can u ansewr that please i wanna no

At 8/19/05 04:35 PM, prettyboyjunior wrote: how do i get banned can u ansewr that please i wanna no

Here's an example of an abusive review that can get you banned:

u fuckin suck August 19, 2005
Entry: Malltime Musings 5

Overall Score: 0
stop doin this u suck ass it was pointless and retarded ill say it agsin u suck balls u could go blow yourself ass hole u are a crappy flash artist

That being one of yours. Try that again and you'll be banned. Unless I'm missing anything else abusive that I've not got to already.

At 8/19/05 04:35 PM, prettyboyjunior wrote: how do i get banned can u ansewr that please i wanna no

It's probably best you don't know. But if you must know you get banned by breaking any of the rules set in the Review FAQ . Please avoid doing this.

Can i know why i got a ban on leaving reviews? i never leave anything bad or really negative.

At 8/20/05 01:49 PM, linkdude1984 wrote: Can i know why i got a ban on leaving reviews? i never leave anything bad or really negative.

Unless you reviewed abusively on some under judgment flash in the past couple of days, I can't see why unless someone picked up on an old review and banned for it. There's only one review of yours that springs out that has a few flags, but it's more off topic than abusive and I wouldn't have banned for it. Your name does ring a bell so you might have been banned for writing abusively on UJ flash. That's my best bet.

At 8/19/05 04:39 PM, jonthomson wrote: That being one of yours. Try that again and you'll be banned. Unless I'm missing anything else abusive that I've not got to already.

I'd re-check his reviews and re-think that ban if I was you. :/

At 8/20/05 01:49 PM, linkdude1984 wrote: Can i know why i got a ban on leaving reviews? i never leave anything bad or really negative.

Oh?

THANKS!!!!!
08/20/2005
Reviewed by: linkdude1984

Overall Score: 0

NOW I HAVE ARTHERITIS IN MY HAND BECAUSE THERE IS MORE CLICKING THAN ACTUAL ANIMATION! i hope you get cancer.

http://www.newground..al/rip.php?id=260491

Even if something is Under Judgement, reviews telling people you hope they 'get cancer' are wholly inappropriate.

At 7/9/05 03:51 AM, The_Casualty wrote: I used to be review-banned, but that was only for a month or something.

same here until wade came and lifted them that was like an hour after I got banned or something :P

At 7/4/05 06:48 AM, jonthomson wrote: Thread. There's been enough of recent to warrant it. If you want to know why you got review banned, post here and a review mod will get back to you. In this thread, obviously, no email bullshit, because by posting a review in the first place you clearly wanted the public to see it. Don't want to be pwned? Don't post.

Note that we can't unban you, or tell you how long you'll be banned for, so don't ask. Also note that we don't guarantee to be able to tell you why, if you write abusively on an under judgment submission which is blammed, we obviously can't see the review afterwards.

you know what?
I'd been banned from making reviews on NG an hour and forty-five minutes after i became a member. and i think i've been pretty fucking patient about it.
now when will the hell is some one gonna DO something about it!?

At 8/21/05 08:24 PM, radioheaded wrote:

you know what?
I'd been banned from making reviews on NG an hour and forty-five minutes after i became a member. and i think i've been pretty fucking patient about it.
now when will the hell is some one gonna DO something about it!?

Wade cleared the bans last week. And you're unbanned. Do you not read the flagged news topics?

you know what?
I'd been banned from making reviews on NG an hour and forty-five minutes after i became a member. and i think i've been pretty fucking patient about it.
now when will the hell is some one gonna DO something about it!?

Wade cleared the bans last week. And you're unbanned. Do you not read the flagged news topics?

oh and no.

Even if something is Under Judgement, reviews telling people you hope they 'get cancer' are wholly inappropriate.

oh, whoops. i didnt think it was as bad as some of the kids that say "go kill yourself" or you suck at life or anything like that. some people even swear alot and i dont do that unless it says something like "that was fuckin AWESOME"

At 8/23/05 05:52 PM, linkdude1984 wrote: oh, whoops. i didnt think it was as bad as some of the kids that say "go kill yourself" or you suck at life or anything like that. some people even swear alot and i dont do that unless it says something like "that was fuckin AWESOME"

Using other reviewers as a guide for how to review is...poor judgement at best.

Here are the review guidelines:
http://www.newground..rtal_faq.html#review

Look at the first rule.

At 8/23/05 05:55 PM, Maus wrote: Look at the first rule.

Is it me, or does it seem like rules #1 and #5 are broken the most.

At 8/23/05 06:46 PM, Master_Inuyasha wrote:

At 8/23/05 05:55 PM, Maus wrote: Look at the first rule.

Is it me, or does it seem like rules #1 and #5 are broken the most.

check a daliy2oon menu out. From zerostarX
Dear Reviewers...keep in mind rules 1 and 5 which are the most often broken

I got banned from reviewing about a week ago, and i have been trying almost everyday to post a review but still banned, i dont know if this'll be permenate ='( its very annoying becuase half the time i also forget Im banned from reviewing..i have a short term memory and an IQ of a terdball (Probly around -142)