Fappy said:
Holy crap, looks like you put a lot of work into this.
Personally, I have never been a fan of review scores. When I worked for my college paper I included them because that was the paper's policy, but once I began writing reviews on my own time I opted not to use them. I don't like them for a number of reasons you could probably guess right off the top of your head, but I am not wholly against their use when done right.
Though the sample size is rather narrow for the strict 4 to 5 star rating system, I am surprised to see it fall so neatly in-line with those that use broader systems. I've always thought that using a tighter rating system would make the scoring far less arbitrary and result in more honest scoring. Just look at GameInformer if you want to see the most arbitrary review scores of all time (what the fuck differentiates 97.3% from 97.5%?!).
I kind of think the age of review scores is beginning to wane, however. More and more people are beginning to get their information from previously unconventional sources (mostly Youtube) and many more are suckers for pre-order culture, which circumvent the review process entirely. Outside of parents looking for Christmas gifts for their kids, I don't see it a very useful consumer tool these days. All it really seems to do is give fanboys something to rage about.
Would a moderator please be as kind as to tell us (i.e. me) what part of the quoted post constitutes a bannable offense?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.872132-In-defense-of-the-number-a-note-on-video-game-review-scores#21874803
I'm genuinely curious because I don't see anything in that post that violates the Code of Conduct.
I am deeply concerned about the seeming inconsistency and heavy handedness of moderation on this forum. The moderators seem to be able to hand out penalties for any reason they please, with minimal distinction between what constitutes a valid critique and an insult.
The instruction that you need to provide a reason for your critique is flawed, because by what metrics are these reasons judged as valid?
And how vague exactly must a condemnation of a group be, with reasons provided, to evade the "insult other users" rule? The difference seems to boil down to semantics and nothing else.
Likewise, the rules against "trolling" seems to give the moderators carte blanché to remove nearly anything that could even be remotely construed as confrontational, as well as inflict a nearly permanent penalty (6 months without a warning? That's madness) for what boils down to a matter of opinion, rather than a clear intentional breach of the code of conduct.
We cannot possibly know. Likewise for posts that "incite" inappropriate responses, where only every other post seems to be moderated.
And no, if you slap a warning on me for this you only prove the point I'm making. Being able to discuss the practises of the moderating team in a public environment is necessary to maintain a good atmosphere where users feel that they can engage in discussion without fear of sudden reprisal for "transgressions".
The appeals process seems to have no impact whatsoever, since it's impossible to gauge if anything forwarded to the moderators through it is even remotely considered in the application of the moderating policies. I have not in a single communique with them felt that they even remotely considered overturning a penalty or even be willing to consider the context of the post moderated.
I made a topic a while ago where I got moderated 3 times, the last time seemingly for making the topic in the first place. The other two times for replying in a snarky manner to users that insulted me, albeit not directly.
Apparently it's not permitted to point out how poorly a person comes across for expressing glee over someone else being a target of moderation?
