Thread Reviews - Moderation Method Suggestions

[Icarus Media]

Fuck Jeevant

 

[Rufio]

i love how there is a deep thought provoking conversation, and a bunch of fuck you's both running in parallel on this thread hahaha.

 

[moskyx]

i love how there is a deep thought provoking conversation, and a bunch of fuck you's both running in parallel on this thread hahaha.

And yet the 'fuck you' convo is way more interesting than the other. Just learn how to express your negative opinions without them sounding an outright attack and don't sweat if they are taken down after someone reports them, in the end you didn't like the game anyway so why even bother reviewing it in the first place. Insisting on it looks like like you have something personal against that game/dev

 

[Rufio]

At least you can admit that you think reviews should only be for if you like the game... i am not sure if you know what a review is.

 

[moskyx]

At least you can admit that you think reviews should only be for if you like the game... i am not sure if you know what a review is.

If you don't have anything good to say about a game, you can either properly say that in a way that don't break some very simple rules, or just ignore it. A game with almost no reviews (or just a couple of high-rated ones that seem clearly useless or fan-boyish) talks by itself. People don't really need to read your rantings

 

[morphnet]

"Nope you left out most of that... what he ACTUALLY wrote was....
" Pregnancy is my fetish, so the idea of impregnating an entire town of horny women is extremely appealing to me. But as of Episode 2 The Builder does nothing good with its plot. "

He was reffering to pregnancy and how nothing good was done with it. That's why he wrote "it's plot" it's = pregnancy...not game plot."

I don't know how you could assume that it's = pregancy and not it's = the game, and so confidently, no wonder you are so good at patronising everyone, you know what they mean more than they do!

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt there, you could just ask him if i am right or wrong of course....

"Again, nope, as I said before pregnancy and harem are late game additions usually (unless the main or sole focus of the game for pregnancy) and his "review" clearly stated there was a bait and switch, meaning no harem or pregnancy would be ingame and that is false as it was still early in the game dev and there is NO way you could know for certain they would not be added.
Basically his "review" said there WOULD not be instead of is not yet... that is a big difference."

His review does not say there would not be anything, another huge assumption.
And the tags are meant to be for current content, otherwise they should be shown as planned content.
If the game has the wrong tags worth mentioning in the review for people looking for said tags.

"If you want to make an ntr story, make an ntr story.", "Don't lie to me about a harem game" He is clearly sating the game is NTR and will stay that way. At no point in the "review" says it might change later.

"If the game has the wrong tags worth mentioning in the review for people looking for said tags"
No I should be reported so the tags can be fixed, unless you are saying people who don't read reviews don't count?

"He mentioned the version, talked about NON-existent content NOT current state of game, parts of the plot without context but with his dislike of those parts.
It has nothing to do with what I like or don't like He said he didn't break ANY rules, then admitted it wasn't objective (one rule broken) and Fixated on NTR (second rule broken) the break down I gave was just countering his arguments as to why he didn't break rules."

If reviews should be deleted for not being about the current state of the game, should we report the 100's of reviews from "where it all began" because they are from the previous version before the remake, a completely different games?
Strange take, defeats the purpose of having the thread guideline about showing what update you are reviewing.
but you seem to be a bit of an expert so i would probably agree with you there.

"If reviews should be deleted for not being about the current state of the game" who said anything about that??

You have a weird take on him admitting his review was not objective and focusing on NTR but ok....

"I was making a point that you only saw what you wanted too and that your point was incomplete as you left ALOT of details for each of those reviews out. As for if they were good, 2 did their jobs clearly and the other 2 should be reported."

I didn't only see what i wanted, i was highlighting worse reviews that remained on the game thread, because you were so baffled as to how he thought his review was acceptable.
then your response was saying that each one was good, i am happy you back peddled now, but that wasn't your first response was it.

I never back peddled on anything I said those reviews were better than his and they were, I also pointed out that each remark you added to each of those reviews left out ALOT of information for each. Nice try though

"No, just because a review gets a like does NOT mean it was helpful. It could mean others wanted pregnancy in the game ahead of time, others could like his views on NTR, others could be unhappy with the speed of the game or updates and just like a bunch of negative reviews, others have found the way he referred to the MC as funny, others could be upset the harem path wasn't getting enough content as the ntr path AND other might have found it helpful....but there is no way to know for certain if it was one of those things, some of those things or all of those things."

It doesnt mean it was helpful, some people just liked it because they wanted one of the tags in the game which he highlighted were not in the game... which somehow in your head is not helpful?
You are assuming everyone that likes this negative review does so for the wrong reason.
At this point you might as well right everyones review for them, then tell people how and why they should like it.
Go a step further, delete all the ones you don't like.... oh wait.

"You are assuming everyone that likes this negative review does so for the wrong reason." Are you SURE you are reading my replies? I clearly said it could be one, some or all of the reasons I mentioned, it could also be for reasons I can't even think of?
"At this point you might as well right everyones review for them" or YOU could just read the replies from the guy your are defending and writing walls of text for and see he admitted his review was NOT objective, he could write it objectively but won't.... Rule broken, "review" deleted, not seeing your point??

" I've been following this game since 0.01 and never really understood what the dev was aiming at, but just finished episode 3 and must say that this game has found a real niche in a netori dynamic, and a rural Norwegian setting. Excited to see this game thrive"

Does that review give you an idea of what you might get when starting the game? yes - norwegian netori?
Does that review give you an idea of what kind of pace you could expect from the game? yes - if you can get that from the above review you are wearing rose tinted glasses
Does that review give you an idea of how well it handles some CURRENT contents in the reviewers opinion? yes - Again really reading into the review, it says it has a netori dynamic, you can assume he likes it, but anything more and you should apply that to the negative reviews and assume they are all giving an idea how the game is handling some current contents.
Does that review give you an idea of the atmosphere and setting the games story takes place in? yes It says the setting, not the atmosphere
Does that review give you an idea if the reviewer thinks it's worth giving the game a try? yes - like the negative ones suggest the game isn't worth giving the game a try

Now the other "review"

Does that review give you an idea of what you might get when starting the game? nope - He says what you won't get against the games tags, equally as useful
Does that review give you an idea of what kind of pace you could expect from the game? nope - does every review need to?
Does that review give you an idea of how well it handles some CURRENT contents in the reviewers opinion? nope- it does DOES against the version he is REVEIWING which he STATES CLEARLY
but does say what WON'T be added...and " some simp who swore a vow of chastity because he's too on the hook to move on from the worst love interest ever. Don't make me sit through this loser cumming 3 seconds after seeing a barely exposed nipple because he's too cucked to be around women." - he talks about his opinion of the MC and you read he is saying the game will never have content, massively over reaching on your part.
"swore a vow of chastity" inaccurate, "worst love interest ever" inaccurate so so giving false information... - You want to report every review that uses a metaphor or hyperbole?
"Best game ever"! - "Hactually this is not the best game ever, that is misinformation, you exagerated" - Morphnet

Does that review give you an idea of the atmosphere and setting the games story takes place in? nope and doesnt need to
Does that review give you an idea if the reviewer thinks it's worth giving the game a try? nope, because the information given is either inaccurate or completely wrong. - you honestly, after his whole review, think it is even slightly ambiguous whether the reviewer thinks people should give this game a try? this response in particular detracts your credibility, you have made MASSIVE assumptions on what the reviewer means/thought, yet you can't possibly read from it whether he thinks it's worth giving it a try.

Does his review cover " Story, Originality, Renders, Sound, Playability, Performance, Bugs, Animations, Voice Acting, Grammar, Amount of content " ?
Story - yes - plot
Amount of content - yes number of scenes, content of three different tags

So you tell me which of those 2 is more helpful?
Obciously it depends, because you managed turn a 2 sentance review into a fountain of helpful info, but deduced nothing from a massive review.
I personally think his review was more helpful and the majority of people would agree, and they would do so to reacting to each review... that spoke for itself

"Obciously it depends, because you managed turn a 2 sentance review into a fountain of helpful info, but deduced nothing from a massive review." I "deduced" that he didn't like NTR, I "deduced" that he didn't get pregnancy content or harem content, I "deduced" that he REALLY should not type reviews when angry....

Btw are your seriously saying you think there should be a pregnant harem by the 2nd chapter of a story?

"I personally think his review was more helpful and the majority of people would agree" Majority? I'm sure you can back that up right? If not that's an assumption, at best some will agree, some will disagree and some won't care....

I can't speak for others on that but I will say this, most negative reviews are written in a terrible way and if people just stopped and thought calmly / objectively they COULD find a way to leave a negative review.

Example...

Having read Rufio's replies I find them well worded and passionate, he seems to put alot of effort and research in them.
I think with some practice and time he will be able to improve them to the point where his point is easy to see and understand.
While he made a few mistakes in reading some others replies he was open and engaging and left room for discussion although some parts did seem to convey frustration on his part.
While I don't personally agree with his points, I am sure they will strike a cord with some and help continue the discussion.
I give him 2 stars.

or

Dude, like wtf he clearly friend wit other dude. like serious. bad replies. 2 stars.

Which do you think is the better choice? - You are right the detailed paragraph is much better than the 2 sentence response, and i say that even though i don't agree with the paragraph, but the reviewer is entitled to his opinion.
Seems to mirror the reviews we were talking about very closely too.

"although some parts did seem to convey frustration on his part." -
This must be in response to:
" Of course you can ignore those things if you like but no sure why when they are among the things advised in the review rules thread.... "
Don't worry, i didn't take offense and could understand your reason for being condescending. Kudos for bringing it up rather than focusing on a direct response to it

None of it was in response to anything, I merely wrote a example negative review of your reply to keep context and chose the usual negatives that come from replies in threads like this.


What this boils down to is "a guys complained about his "review" being taken down and claims no rules were broken, then admit to breaking one rule and through replies makes it easy to see the second rule broken." You are now defending a guy who clearly admit he broke a rule, that alone is justification for his "review" being taken down...yet you keep defending him?

If you see reviews you think break the rules: report them
If you see a game with inaccurate tags : report it
If you see a pic of a cute kitten : enjoy it

 

[anne O'nymous]

If you don't have anything good to say about a game, you can either properly say that in a way that don't break some very simple rules,

And I can confirm that not only it's possible, but you'll also not be hit by the moderation hammer.

I mostly write 1 stars reviews, but instead of saying what I feel, I explain why I feel it. I'm not a reference in mater of taste, and it's not the role of a review to impose a thinking. I present the facts, add some words explaining what I think about them, and let the reader decide if he agree or not.

 

[Rufio]

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt there, you could just ask him if i am right or wrong of course....

You were giving him the benefit of the doubt, when that quote was where you said he was talking about pregnancy and not the plot? You gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was incorrect? Very generous

"If you want to make an ntr story, make an ntr story.", "Don't lie to me about a harem game" He is clearly sating the game is NTR and will stay that way. At no point in the "review" says it might change later.

He clearly states what he thinks the game is as of the version he stated. anyone can put "this might change later" on the end of a review of any incomplete game, most people don't need that statement... because it is not a finished game.
Where does he say it will stay that way?

"If the game has the wrong tags worth mentioning in the review for people looking for said tags"
No I should be reported so the tags can be fixed, unless you are saying people who don't read reviews don't count?

Well i definitely didn't say people that don't read reviews don't count, another hell of an assumption.
is reporting tags and leaving reviews mutually exclusive?
Can people see reported tags? Can people see tags that are missing?
People can see comments on the game, do they need reviews?

"If reviews should be deleted for not being about the current state of the game" who said anything about that??

Because his points were about that version of the game, made obsolete by further updates and later releases.
You are going to find a lot of reviews that are for previous versions will have the exact same issue that they are obsolete or irrelevant. so accept all of them, or champion removing all of them.

You have a weird take on him admitting his review was not objective and focusing on NTR but ok....

That is a pretty big generalization of the whole conversation.
I never even addressed what he admitted or not, and don't think much of our conversation has been about NTR.

I never back peddled on anything I said those reviews were better than his and they were, I also pointed out that each remark you added to each of those reviews left out ALOT of information for each. Nice try though

Ah i see, so when i raise those reviews as being bad i am not looking at the big picture.
But when you respond how each one was good, without mentioning the fact that even you think 2 should be reported, you truly were telling the full story.
Although later on you DID say they should be reported,but i suppose that was more of just a.... peddling.. but um... backwards?

"You are assuming everyone that likes this negative review does so for the wrong reason." Are you SURE you are reading my replies? I clearly said it could be one, some or all of the reasons I mentioned, it could also be for reasons I can't even think of?
"At this point you might as well right everyones review for them" or YOU could just read the replies from the guy your are defending and writing walls of text for and see he admitted his review was NOT objective, he could write it objectively but won't.... Rule broken, "review" deleted, not seeing your point??

Yet with the 20+ people that liked or reacted to his review, you were still qualified to say it was unhelpful.
So either all of those people were wrong and an it wasn't helpful and you were right,
OR at least some of those people found it helpful, which would make it a helpful review.

"Obciously it depends, because you managed turn a 2 sentance review into a fountain of helpful info, but deduced nothing from a massive review." I "deduced" that he didn't like NTR, I "deduced" that he didn't get pregnancy content or harem content, I "deduced" that he REALLY should not type reviews when angry....

Yeah that was my point, you only saw the obvious emotion in the review, so couldn't see anything helpful.
Yet did you see how much useful stuff you got from the 2 sentence happy-go-lucky review (that may even be one of the ones you think should be reported)
Could you pretend to beyourself, but fighting on the other side, and making points on howthe negaticve review was helpful?
i bet you could come up with just as many.

Btw are your seriously saying you think there should be a pregnant harem by the 2nd chapter of a story?

No? and never even suggested that...

"I personally think his review was more helpful and the majority of people would agree" Majority? I'm sure you can back that up right? If not that's an assumption, at best some will agree, some will disagree and some won't care....

There was a neat little KPI for that. One person found the other review helpful, 20+ found the negative one helpful.
So nto assuming anything, using the toolsthere for all to see (until the bad ones get deleted of course).

None of it was in response to anything, I merely wrote a example negative review of your reply to keep context and chose the usual negatives that come from replies in threads like this.

Ah, apologies, i must have forgot that ones reference for others frustration is most commonplace in threads such as these.

What this boils down to is "a guys complained about his "review" being taken down and claims no rules were broken, then admit to breaking one rule and through replies makes it easy to see the second rule broken." You are now defending a guy who clearly admit he broke a rule, that alone is justification for his "review" being taken down...yet you keep defending him?

I am not defending him at all, if you read the history of the thread, the whole discussion is positive reviews and negative reviews are not reported/moderated/deleted under the same conditions. And you have been a prime example of the attitude mods have on this, as you managed to ignore anything relevant in a review, and focus on broken rules, yet (at least initially) were blind to non-compliant positive reviews, focusing on relevant parts as a review

If you see reviews you think break the rules: report them
If you see a game with inaccurate tags : report it
If you see a pic of a cute kitten : enjoy it

Nothing new here, but fully support your points

 

[Rufio]

If you don't have anything good to say about a game, you can either properly say that in a way that don't break some very simple rules, or just ignore it. A game with almost no reviews (or just a couple of high-rated ones that seem clearly useless or fan-boyish) talks by itself. People don't really need to read your rantings

I am certainly not arguing that rules need to be followed, the point was around how that is moderated.
People don't need to read rantings or gushing, and to be honest, no one HAS to read anything.
The point was there is a crackdown when things contain, or turn into, or resemble a rant. But there is not the same mentality on gushing.

Because you want reviews to only contain posative reviews is fine, but that is pretty much just advertisement.
The same way people try to ban negative reviews on products is also advertisement.

I'm not assuming that is what you want, it just definitely looked that way when you said " in the end you didn't like the game anyway so why even bother reviewing it in the first place"

Think of it like a film, if you are going to see a film, you go to rotten tomatoes and read the reviews.
You see the good and bad and decide if you want to see the film
If you see a critic score of 96% but an audience score of 15%, you think there are some power hungry pretentious fuckwits looking after these stats. Thank god there is an audience score to give a better representation.
Now take away all the negatives, and you have a crap film rated 96% and we are all off to watch "ghostbusters 7,The transitioning bi-ghost"

 

[anne O'nymous]

Because you want reviews to only contain posative reviews is fine, but that is pretty much just advertisement.

No one said this in this thread. The only time it appear, is when those who complain try to force it in the mouth of anyone who don't agree with them. This exactly like you are doing right now, since you are saying this to someone who clearly said, in the message you answer to and that you quoted, that he don't care if you write negative reviews.

How do you expect to make your point seem valid, when you so obviously, and openly, twist what people are saying, for it to fit your narrative ?

If you aren't able to understand something as basic as Moskyx's, "if you don't have anything good to say about a game, you can either properly say that in a way that don't break some very simple rules, or just ignore it", to the point that you see it as a claim for the removing of all negative reviews, no wonder that you aren't able to understand the rules about reviewing.



Edit: Love you too Rufio, XOXO

 

[Rufio]

No one said this in this thread. The only time it appear, is when those who complain try to force it in the mouth of anyone who don't agree with them. This exactly like you are doing right now, since you are saying this to someone who clearly said, in the message you answer to and that you quoted, that he don't care if you write negative reviews.

How do you expect to make your point seem valid, when you so obviously, and openly, twist what people are saying, for it to fit your narrative ?

If you aren't able to understand something as basic as Moskyx's, "if you don't have anything good to say about a game, you can either properly say that in a way that don't break some very simple rules, or just ignore it", to the point that you see it as a claim for the removing of all negative reviews, no wonder that you aren't able to understand the rules about reviewing.

Awkward, if you read it all i say:
Because you want reviews to only contain posative reviews is fine, but that is pretty much just advertisement.
The same way people try to ban negative reviews on products is also advertisement.

I'm not assuming that is what you want, it just definitely looked that way when you said " in the end you didn't like the game anyway so why even bother reviewing it in the first place"

I said it looked that way, and explained why it looked that way, and said i wasn't assuming he did want that.

Now can you see how you took one line, ignored the following bit that clarifies what i said and it's context, and ...you know the word... kind of rotating but with pressure.... so it has tension... twisted? yeah TWISTED what i said.

I have to have said 5+ times on this thread I AGREE WITH THE RULES. I AGREE THEY SHOULD BE FOLLOWED, but you, the mods, morph each keep coming back with "if you can't undertand the basics of the rules".

EDIT: Who edits their post without correcting there hugely contradicting and out of context statement

 

[Deleted member 440241]

What this boils down to is "a guys complained about his "review" being taken down and claims no rules were broken, then admit to breaking one rule and through replies makes it easy to see the second rule broken." You are now defending a guy who clearly admit he broke a rule, that alone is justification for his "review" being taken down...yet you keep defending him?

Seems you need to work on your reading comprehension, as I never admitted to breaking any rules. I assume you're referring to rule 1 because I admit to being angry while writing the review. But if you actually read rule 1 it's not "be a Vulcan" it's "try to be objective by highlighting the things you liked and disliked in the game." I highlighted the things I disliked. You've clearly failed to understand both what I've said and the very rules you think I've broken.

Now can you see how you took one line, ignored the following bit that clarifies what i said and it's context, and ...you know the word... kind of rotating but with pressure.... so it has tension... twisted? yeah TWISTED what i said.

This seems familiar for some reason.

You take statements out of context, claim they're irrelevant, then talk about the context being good form for a review.

 

[morphnet]

Seems you need to work on your reading comprehension, as I never admitted to breaking any rules. I assume you're referring to rule 1 because I admit to being angry while writing the review. But if you actually read rule 1 it's not "be a Vulcan" it's "try to be objective by highlighting the things you liked and disliked in the game." I highlighted the things I disliked. You've clearly failed to understand both what I've said and the very rules you think I've broken.

Not really it seems it's you who doesn't understand....

objective

əb-jĕk′tĭv
adjective

Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
Based on observable phenomena; empirical.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: synonym: fair.

I admit to being angry while writing the review.
I highlighted the things I disliked.

and don't forget 5. Your review shouldn't be solely focused on your feelings about a specific genre.

I am not defending him at all, if you read the history of the thread, the whole discussion is positive reviews and negative reviews are not reported/moderated/deleted under the same conditions. And you have been a prime example of the attitude mods have on this, as you managed to ignore anything relevant in a review, and focus on broken rules, yet (at least initially) were blind to non-compliant positive reviews, focusing on relevant parts as a review

See the above reply.

If people are going to uses cases where they are clearly at fault to illustrate how the mods are unfair in the removal of reviews then they are just proving that the statement "positive reviews and negative reviews are not reported/moderated/deleted under the same conditions." is untrue in the cases shown and until a case is shown where the person / persons did not actually break the rules it is just ranting with no proof.

Unless things have changed in the real world, if people accuse others of something they need to show proof, so far all this has shown is that the case in point the mod did the RIGHT thing.

 

[Deleted member 440241]

Not really it seems it's you who doesn't understand....

objective

əb-jĕk′tĭv
adjective

Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
Based on observable phenomena; empirical.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: synonym: fair.

You're either incredibly stupid or dangerously crazy if you think the rule demands people be uninfluenced by emotions when reviewing their entertainment.

and don't forget 5. Your review shouldn't be solely focused on your feelings about a specific genre.

And it wasn't. Something that I, and others, have explained thoroughly in this thread. Thanks for reinforcing my point that you're not doing a good job reading.

 

[morphnet]

You're either incredibly stupid or dangerously crazy if you think the rule demands people be uninfluenced by emotions when reviewing their entertainment.

You see it's this kind of stuff that gets your reviews etc removed

The rules say TRY be objective, you didn't even try. "no preg, no harem, NTR RANT" In what universe does that come close to you "trying" to be objective?

Did you even think to add anything about " Originality, Renders, Sound, Playability, Performance, Bugs, Animations, Voice Acting, Grammar, " nope...just "no preg, no harem, NTR RANT"

And it wasn't. Something that I, and others, have explained thoroughly in this thread. Thanks for reinforcing my point that you're not doing a good job reading.

Your definition of "thoroughly" seems lacking abit. "Pregnancy not there" is not focusing on it, "harem not there" is not focusing on it. The rant about NTR was focusing on it.

BTW you might take this time and clear something else up....

"Pregnancy is my fetish, so the idea of impregnating an entire town of horny women is extremely appealing to me. But as of Episode 2 The Builder does nothing good with its plot."

When you talk about ep 2 and "does nothing good with its plot" were you saying that up to ep 2 the game did nothing good with the pregnancy plot or the plot in general?

 

[Rufio]

and don't forget 5. Your review shouldn't be solely focused on your feelings about a specific genre.

Was the SOLE genre he was focusing on the pregnancy, or the harem, or the NTR?
Which of the THREE points he was discussing, was his SOLE focus?

If people are going to uses cases where they are clearly at fault to illustrate how the mods are unfair in the removal of reviews then they are just proving that the statement "positive reviews and negative reviews are not reported/moderated/deleted under the same conditions." is untrue in the cases shown and until a case is shown where the person / persons did not actually break the rules it is just ranting with no proof.

Unless things have changed in the real world, if people accuse others of something they need to show proof, so far all this has shown is that the case in point the mod did the RIGHT thing.

Which would be an absolute argument ender, if i didn't provide good and real examples of positive reviews that broke the rules but were not removed.

Even some reviews i report because they do break the rules get "resolved" without further comment.
If you want you can pick a game with say... 50+ reviews and i will show you the ones that break the rules?

Which would indicate that: "positive reviews and negative reviews are not reported/moderated/deleted under the same conditions." is TRUE in the case of "reported"

Now "moderated" is a harder one to prove as "resolved" doesn't really explain or give reason as to why a reported review is not removed.
The same applies to "deleted"

Of course the burden of truth is a valid point, but likewise the absence of evidence does not prove innocence.

Oh and here are your other open points and number 9 is particularly relevant, because it is about that time you could only find the positives of a non-compliant review, kinda had different conditions for that one to be reported:

1. morphnet said:

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt there, you could just ask him if i am right or wrong of course....

You were giving him the benefit of the doubt, when that quote was where you said he was talking about pregnancy and not the plot? You gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was incorrect? Very generous

2. morphnet said:

"If you want to make an ntr story, make an ntr story.", "Don't lie to me about a harem game" He is clearly sating the game is NTR and will stay that way. At no point in the "review" says it might change later.

He clearly states what he thinks the game is as of the version he stated. anyone can put "this might change later" on the end of a review of any incomplete game, most people don't need that statement... because it is not a finished game.
Where does he say it will stay that way?

3. morphnet said:

"If the game has the wrong tags worth mentioning in the review for people looking for said tags"
No I should be reported so the tags can be fixed, unless you are saying people who don't read reviews don't count?

Well i definitely didn't say people that don't read reviews don't count, another hell of an assumption.
is reporting tags and leaving reviews mutually exclusive?
Can people see reported tags? Can people see tags that are missing?
People can see comments on the game, do they need reviews?

4. morphnet said:

"If reviews should be deleted for not being about the current state of the game" who said anything about that??

Because his points were about that version of the game, made obsolete by further updates and later releases.
You are going to find a lot of reviews that are for previous versions will have the exact same issue that they are obsolete or irrelevant. so accept all of them, or champion removing all of them.

5. morphnet said:

I never back peddled on anything I said those reviews were better than his and they were, I also pointed out that each remark you added to each of those reviews left out ALOT of information for each. Nice try though

Ah i see, so when i raise those reviews as being bad i am not looking at the big picture.
But when you respond how each one was good, without mentioning the fact that even you think 2 should be reported, you truly were telling the full story.
Although later on you DID say they should be reported,but i suppose that was more of just a.... peddling.. but um... backwards?

6. morphnet said:

"You are assuming everyone that likes this negative review does so for the wrong reason." Are you SURE you are reading my replies? I clearly said it could be one, some or all of the reasons I mentioned, it could also be for reasons I can't even think of?
"At this point you might as well right everyones review for them" or YOU could just read the replies from the guy your are defending and writing walls of text for and see he admitted his review was NOT objective, he could write it objectively but won't.... Rule broken, "review" deleted, not seeing your point??

Yet with the 20+ people that liked or reacted to his review, you were still qualified to say it was unhelpful.
So either all of those people were wrong and an it wasn't helpful and you were right,
OR at least some of those people found it helpful, which would make it a helpful review.

7. morphnet said:

"Obciously it depends, because you managed turn a 2 sentance review into a fountain of helpful info, but deduced nothing from a massive review." I "deduced" that he didn't like NTR, I "deduced" that he didn't get pregnancy content or harem content, I "deduced" that he REALLY should not type reviews when angry....

Yeah that was my point, you only saw the obvious emotion in the review, so couldn't see anything helpful.
Yet did you see how much useful stuff you got from the 2 sentence happy-go-lucky review (that may even be one of the ones you think should be reported)
Could you pretend to beyourself, but fighting on the other side, and making points on howthe negaticve review was helpful?
i bet you could come up with just as many.

8. morphnet said:

"I personally think his review was more helpful and the majority of people would agree" Majority? I'm sure you can back that up right? If not that's an assumption, at best some will agree, some will disagree and some won't care....

There was a neat little KPI for that. One person found the other review helpful, 20+ found the negative one helpful.
So nto assuming anything, using the toolsthere for all to see (until the bad ones get deleted of course).

9. morphnet said:

What this boils down to is "a guys complained about his "review" being taken down and claims no rules were broken, then admit to breaking one rule and through replies makes it easy to see the second rule broken." You are now defending a guy who clearly admit he broke a rule, that alone is justification for his "review" being taken down...yet you keep defending him?

I am not defending him at all, if you read the history of the thread, the whole discussion is positive reviews and negative reviews are not reported/moderated/deleted under the same conditions. And you have been a prime example of the attitude mods have on this, as you managed to ignore anything relevant in a review, and focus on broken rules, yet (at least initially) were blind to non-compliant positive reviews, focusing on relevant parts as a review

 

[Deleted member 440241]

When you talk about ep 2 and "does nothing good with its plot" were you saying that up to ep 2 the game did nothing good with the pregnancy plot or the plot in general?

They're the same thing. The plot in general of the game is that a guy is recruited to impregnate an entire town of women. The only woman the MC can potentially have sex with is already pregnant with another man's child, so there isn't even a chance of impregnating her. And that sex scene isn't canon to the storyline the dev clearly wants to write because subsequent scenes act like it didn't happen. That is one of 3 (4? depending on if you count the alternate where another guy sleeps with her in the same place as a separate scene) "sex" scenes in the game. I've already detailed the bathroom scene where the MC watches a future LI of the game sleep with someone else. Then there's the scene where a nurse asks the MC for a sperm sample as part of his physical to get the job. He refuses to jack off or let her touch him because he won't sleep with anyone if he can't be in a relationship with the aforementioned pregnant chick. Then the nurse flashes her nipple at him and he cums almost immediately.

Episode 2 ends with the MC arriving at the town. He meets 2 school girls on the ferry ride over and the mother of one of the girls upon arriving. Those 3, the nurse, and the girl from the bathroom scene are the only women the MC meets that he can (presumably) impregnate later in the game. All 5 are very poor first impressions that don't seem to even try endearing the player to these LIs. And as the MC is still obsessed with another woman he makes no attempt to get to know or flirt with any of them.

I'll reiterate to make things super clear. A game supposedly about the MC impregnating an entire town of women has 2 scenes of another man having unprotected sex with love interests, and a scene detailing why the MC refuses to sleep with any love interests besides a woman already pregnant with another man's baby. He's not going to be impregnating anyone anytime soon.

 

[morphnet]

Was the SOLE genre he was focusing on the pregnancy, or the harem, or the NTR?
Which of the THREE points he was discussing, was his SOLE focus?

Waiting back on reply from tin before answering this, I asked him seeing as you didn't want to....

Which would be an absolute argument ender, if i didn't provide good and real examples of positive reviews that broke the rules but were not removed.

Did you report them? and have you received a reply?

Even some reviews i report because they do break the rules get "resolved" without further comment.
If you want you can pick a game with say... 50+ reviews and i will show you the ones that break the rules?

So you've seen those, have the mods? Can you prove the mods saw them and left them there? Hard to prove the mods saw a review from a game i pick at random and you chose as a rule breaker.

No one is saying there are not reviews out there breaking rules but if mods don't see them they can't do anything about them.

Which would indicate that: "positive reviews and negative reviews are not reported/moderated/deleted under the same conditions." is TRUE in the case of "reported"

How so far the only ones we've had to compare them to DID break the rules?

Now "moderated" is a harder one to prove as "resolved" doesn't really explain or give reason as to why a reported review is not removed.
The same applies to "deleted"

As the discussion is "positive reviews and negative reviews are not reported/moderated/deleted under the same conditions." we can only go by examples given. So far no collection of examples given has proven that statement to be true. Those trying to prove it true are the ones giving the examples so not much i can do about that.

Of course the burden of truth is a valid point, but likewise the absence of evidence does not prove innocence.

No one said "absence of evidence proves innocence" but the examples given are doing a pretty good job of proving it.

Oh and here are your other open points and number 9 is particularly relevant, because it is about that time you could only find the positives of a non-compliant review, kinda had different conditions for that one to be reported:

As for the 9 points you say are open, you have on a number of occasions included statements with no origin and asked me to reply to them, said that I was making assumptions, ignoring points and as you seem to be doing the very same thing in those points i see no reason for us to go around in circles.... As proved by to response in 9

as you managed to ignore anything relevant in a review, and focus on broken rules,

If you can't see what is wrong with that then you are either discussing in bad faith or clearly have gone off-topic.

 

[morphnet]

They're the same thing. The plot in general of the game is that a guy is recruited to impregnate an entire town of women. The only woman the MC can potentially have sex with is already pregnant with another man's child, so there isn't even a chance of impregnating her. And that sex scene isn't canon to the storyline the dev clearly wants to write because subsequent scenes act like it didn't happen. That is one of 3 (4? depending on if you count the alternate where another guy sleeps with her in the same place as a separate scene) "sex" scenes in the game. I've already detailed the bathroom scene where the MC watches a future LI of the game sleep with someone else. Then there's the scene where a nurse asks the MC for a sperm sample as part of his physical to get the job. He refuses to jack off or let her touch him because he won't sleep with anyone if he can't be in a relationship with the aforementioned pregnant chick. Then the nurse flashes her nipple at him and he cums almost immediately.

Episode 2 ends with the MC arriving at the town. He meets 2 school girls on the ferry ride over and the mother of one of the girls upon arriving. Those 3, the nurse, and the girl from the bathroom scene are the only women the MC meets that he can (presumably) impregnate later in the game. All 5 are very poor first impressions that don't seem to even try endearing the player to these LIs. And as the MC is still obsessed with another woman he makes no attempt to get to know or flirt with any of them.

I'll reiterate to make things super clear. A game supposedly about the MC impregnating an entire town of women has 2 scenes of another man having unprotected sex with love interests, and a scene detailing why the MC refuses to sleep with any love interests besides a woman already pregnant with another man's baby. He's not going to be impregnating anyone anytime soon.

So to be clear, your review of the game was up to the end of EP2, and in this reply you state "Episode 2 ends with the MC arriving at the town." Correct?

So you were unhappy that he did not impregnate anyone in town even though he wasn't in town until the end of EP2?

The plot in general of the game is that a guy is recruited to impregnate an entire town of women.

Episode 2 ends with the MC arriving at the town.

I am so confused, if the plot is to "impregnate an entire town of women" and the MC is not in the town yet why would you expect there to be impregnation or pregnancy yet let alone a harem????

 

[Rufio]

Waiting back on reply from tin before answering this, I asked him seeing as you didn't want to....

Sounds good

Did you report them? and have you received a reply?

Yes i have reported some and as mentioned previously, when a report is "resolved" you do not get a response or further info as to why it is not deleted.

So you've seen those, have the mods? Can you prove the mods saw them and left them there? Hard to prove the mods saw a review from a game i pick at random and you chose as a rule breaker.

As above, Do you want me to provide you a snapshot of my inbox with a message not in it for proof?

No one is saying there are not reviews out there breaking rules but if mods don't see them they can't do anything about them.

That is a very big part of the conversation, it "looks" like the positive rule breaking reviews don't get reported as much, and when they do, it "looks" like they don't get deleted as much. Obviously my own reports are a small test subject for that, but it is there.

How so far the only ones we've had to compare them to DID break the rules?

Again, if the rules cannot be broken, at any point of the review, or infringes upon it i don't care, just apply that to all reviews.

As the discussion is "positive reviews and negative reviews are not reported/moderated/deleted under the same conditions." we can only go by examples given. So far no collection of examples given has proven that statement to be true. Those trying to prove it true are the ones giving the examples so not much i can do about that.

yet you did manage to provide a highlight when positively referring to non-compliant positive reviews.

No one said "absence of evidence proves innocence" but the examples given are doing a pretty good job of proving it.

Then i take your opinion on what is a pretty good job of prooving something and hope to christ you aren't selected for jury duty

As for the 9 points you say are open, you have on a number of occasions included statements with no origin and asked me to reply to them, said that I was making assumptions, ignoring points and as you seem to be doing the very same thing in those points i see no reason for us to go around in circles.... As proved by to response in 9

Ok i will help refresh your memory, point 9 is about positive and negative reviews not being treated the same.
And i said you were a good example beccause on this thread you have seen a lot of bad reviews and found all the faults and broken rules in them.
Then i sent you a lot of positive reviews, can you remember your responses?
"these all add a lot more than what you are saying"
What you didn't say at the time was, "I think 2 of these reviews should be reported"

Is that clear?
bad review... straight to why it should be reported
good review... straight to why it shouldn't be.

Like the positive and negative reviews are not being looked under through the same microscope.

If you can't see what is wrong with that then you are either discussing in bad faith or clearly have gone off-topic.

Likewise.