Thread Reviews - Moderation Method Suggestions

[Deleted member 440241]

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?





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????

I'll be sure to use small words for you. The dev wrote an NTR story. You can tell it is an NTR story because even when avoiding NTR content the story acts like you chose the NTR path. I don't expect full pregnancy or a harem by episode 2. I expect writing that indicates such things are possible. An NTR story that cucks the MC at every opportunity is the opposite of that. A "harem" story that is really just the NTR story without seeing the sex scenes is not a real harem story. Writing an NTR story and calling it a harem story is lying. I expect that game devs do not lie to me about what their game is about. Do you understand?

 

[morphnet]

Sounds good

So he replied and made no sense, so I have no idea....

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.

As the outcome is unclear those can't really be added to the good or bad side.

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

Obviously not but again they can not really be counted towards the good side or bad side.

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.

That is why it needs to move away from looks by those posting and move on to proof. Alot of these threads are started by unhappy / angry people and in alot of them it turns out those same people were in the wrong. They can point fingers all they like saying "but others do it" at the end of the day they WERE still wrong and got caught and the mods already ask people to read the rules and ask for help in enforcing them by having members report.

"Obviously my own reports are a small test subject for that, but it is there." unless you have reported the exact same number or good and bad reviews and received different results it does not qualify as a test subject.

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.

They are applied to all, 1. the mods have their hands full already and do rely on members to use the report function. 2. In general angry posts of any kind review or comments have a great chance of breaking rules because when tempers flare things get said. It's harder to find a happy person insulting, threatening, flamming, trolling (unless thats what makes them happy ) etc

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

You used those to compare to tin's review in that context and only that context that i expanded on the parts you left out.

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

This is what I was talking about you are ignoring the point, the examples are clearly evidence that rules were broken and the mods were innocent in that case of unfairly deleting the review.

As for the jury thing, evidence is a BIG part of trails and if someone claims theft but evidence shows guy on other side of town that prove he is innocent.

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"

I did and does me saying "these all add a lot more than what you are saying" somehow translate to they don't break rules? or translate to they should not be reported? Nope I just expanded on what YOU brought up by pointing out the other things they said in the CONTEXT of comparing them to tin's review.

you're leaving things out again.....

What you didn't say at the time was, "I think 2 of these reviews should be reported"

That was because whether to report them or not was NOT part of the context they were used in, rather they were used to compare to tin's review on information given as you clearly pointed out by labeling each one.

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

That is if the majority of one or the other can be shown and proven and so far it hasn't.

Likewise.

Not really...

 

[moskyx]

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"

Ok, my last comment on the thread. Let's hope my message can come across crystal clear this time.

I don't really understand the need some people feel to write a negative review.

Most of times, it's just a useless rant that will be deleted as soon as some game's fan reports it, as chances are the review breaks some rule even if in a slight way because, honestly, most of the reviews break some rule, no matter if they are positive or negative.

It's just that a negative review is more likely to be reported by someone who thinks (rightly or not) that is their duty to protect that game. And a single report is enough for mods to take the faulty review down and make the 'reporter' happy with how moderation works. As it happened in the case in point.

So, unless you are able to strictly follow the site's guidelines for reviews when writing a negative one, I think it's just stupid to write anything at all. If only, because you won't really have any ground to protest against a possible deletion. Mods sticking to rules for once and getting their job done, that's all you will find.

As I said, a bad game won't get any rating at all. Considering the number of people who visit the site, download the games, and take part in the conversations around them, when a game only has a couple of 5-star amusingly overhyped ratings, that basically means is not worth your time. Of course we could report them too, but why bother. Somehow, I find that this lack of (quality) reviews is explicit enough to make my 'informed' decision of whether to try a game or not. So please spare me your negative review.

Personally, I wouldn't look for reviews when trying to decide whether to watch a film or not, but that's just me, as I'm weird and old enough to understand that everybody will be biased when writing theirs. So, to me, they are useless before watching the movie. After watching it, tough, they can be interesting to know if more people felt the same way I feel about it, or to reflect on some elements other people praise and maybe I just didn't catch. The same goes for games.

So yeah, I don't need to read your rant. Without it, I already got all the info I needed before trying out the game; and it won't probably add anything new to the discussion after having played it -if you only focus on the way a certain fetish is portrayed, I'm not really interested in reading your opinion.

Now, writing a negative review can make some actual sense when your goal is to point out some of the game's inconsistencies to the dev. But in that case, you'll probably have an honest interest in writing a respectful review, you won't probably give the game just 1 star (which won't trigger the defensive and reporting reactions from fans) and you'll be focusing on some of the topics suggested by the rules, thus limiting the risks of your review getting nuked.

My final point: the forum would be way more friendly if we all took some time to think with a cool mind and refrain from posting certain kinds of comments and reviews. I admit I didn't do it this time. I shouldn't have taken part in this thread at all. Farewell.

 

[morphnet]

I'll be sure to use small words for you.

Thanks

The dev wrote an NTR story. You can tell it is an NTR story because even when avoiding NTR content the story acts like you chose the NTR path.

You said the "main plot" takes place in the town so the introduction "acts like you chose the NTR path."

I don't expect full pregnancy or a harem by episode 2.

You mean any right? if the story, pregnancy and harem takes place in the town and you are NOT in the town there really can't be ANY yet.

I expect writing that indicates such things are possible.

Why were you going to the town again? Unless you are going off of the OP's page...in which case...from the OP there
" In The Builder, you play the role of a skilled young man who is commissioned to build a memorial in a village in the far north. Soon you discover that your real task is quite different :In order to save the village from extinction, you must make all the women there pregnant. "

An NTR story that cucks the MC at every opportunity is the opposite of that. A "harem" story that is really just the NTR story without seeing the sex scenes is not a real harem story.

How would you know? The MC only reached the town at the END of EP 2. How could the story tell the MC about a harem if the MC doesn't even know the real reason he is in the town yet?

Writing an NTR story and calling it a harem story is lying. I expect that game devs do not lie to me about what their game is about.

How can you start the harem part of the story...if the harem part of the story is in the town....and you just got to the town???

You had just arrived at the main plot area. How can you say it's lying when you haven't even started the main plot?

I haven't played that game but from what i take from the OP you only find out you are really there to impregnate the women after you arrive in the town.....

Do you understand?

Nope, no, not even a little bit.....

 

[Rufio]

So he replied and made no sense, so I have no idea....

he answered your question by saying he was talking about the plot and the pregnancy.
So suggesting he isn't talking about the plot is incorrect

As the outcome is unclear those can't really be added to the good or bad side.

And if i can;t get feedback on why positive reviews don't get deleted we have a system that is unable to provide proof on how it is moderated.
Which is a very useful system if people wanted to say things like "you need to provide proof this is wrong"

That is why it needs to move away from looks by those posting and move on to proof. Alot of these threads are started by unhappy / angry people and in alot of them it turns out those same people were in the wrong. They can point fingers all they like saying "but others do it" at the end of the day they WERE still wrong and got caught and the mods already ask people to read the rules and ask for help in enforcing them by having members report.

We don't knwo the average star rating of reported reviews, we don't know percentage of reported reviews deleted, we only have what it looks like.

"Obviously my own reports are a small test subject for that, but it is there." unless you have reported the exact same number or good and bad reviews and received different results it does not qualify as a test subject.

Which is strange, because with the few examples here you have managed to categorically say that all good and bad reviews are reported, moderated and deleted in the same conditions, that is marvelous.
It is quite incredible we have provided enough to disprove but not enough to be considered a test sample.

They are applied to all, 1. the mods have their hands full already and do rely on members to use the report function. 2. In general angry posts of any kind review or comments have a great chance of breaking rules because when tempers flare things get said. It's harder to find a happy person insulting, threatening, flamming, trolling (unless thats what makes them happy ) etc

Yeah your right, 1 of the 6 rules is much easier to see broken on negative reviews, the other 5 though, equally easy to find in both

You used those to compare to tin's review in that context and only that context that i expanded on the parts you left out.

This whole thread is about the reviews being treated differently, and again you pointed out things i missed out, funnily enough all the things that reinforced your point, but not the points that didn't, like the fact they broke the rules.

This is what I was talking about you are ignoring the point, the examples are clearly evidence that rules were broken and the mods were innocent in that case of unfairly deleting the review.

Yes which shows how negative reviews are being moderated, to the letter of the law as per the rules.
It does not prove that positive and negative reviews are being moderated the same way.

As for the jury thing, evidence is a BIG part of trails and if someone claims theft but evidence shows guy on other side of town that prove he is innocent.

yeah but if a lawyer says "dear jury. that this car was not fireproof, it only has a fireproof seatbelt.
And you come back with "hey fellow jurors, the seats and the glovebox was also fireproof"
Sure you are using evidence, you aren't proving anything though.

I did and does me saying "these all add a lot more than what you are saying" somehow translate to they don't break rules? or translate to they should not be reported? Nope I just expanded on what YOU brought up by pointing out the other things they said in the CONTEXT of comparing them to tin's review.

you're leaving things out again.....

Yeah but in the context of this thread they both BROKE THE RULES. yet one of them you are so fervent in your belief it should be deleted, in the other, you go out of your way to expand on the GOOD POINTS of a non-compliant review.

That was because whether to report them or not was NOT part of the context they were used in, rather they were used to compare to tin's review on information given as you clearly pointed out by labeling each one.

I posted the other reviews, i posted them because you asked why tintin thought his review would be appropriate.
The WHOLE context was that there were other reviews there breaking the rules, a lot before tintin, a lot after.

That was because whether to report them or not was NOT part of the context they were used in, rather they were used to compare to tin's review on information given as you clearly pointed out by labeling each one.

I never narrowed that down to it just being a source of information, one of them i clearly labelled as breaking rule 4. nothing to do with information whatsoever.

That is if the majority of one or the other can be shown and proven and so far it hasn't.

And it will be impossible if people who themselves claim to have an unbiased view on reviews but actions say wholly otherwise.

Not really...

Think you got confused "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" you were missing things out again, probably why you thought i was being off topic or talking in bad faith.

 

[Rufio]

Ok, my last comment on the thread. Let's hope my message can come across crystal clear this time.

I don't really understand the need some people feel to write a negative review.

Most of times, it's just a useless rant that will be deleted as soon as some game's fan reports it, as chances are the review breaks some rule even if in a slight way because, honestly, most of the reviews break some rule, no matter if they are positive or negative.

It's just that a negative review is more likely to be reported by someone who thinks (rightly or not) that is their duty to protect that game. And a single report is enough for mods to take the faulty review down and make the 'reporter' happy with how moderation works. As it happened in the case in point.

So, unless you are able to strictly follow the site's guidelines for reviews when writing a negative one, I think it's just stupid to write anything at all. If only, because you won't really have any ground to protest against a possible deletion. Mods sticking to rules for once and getting their job done, that's all you will find.

As I said, a bad game won't get any rating at all. Considering the number of people who visit the site, download the games, and take part in the conversations around them, when a game only has a couple of 5-star amusingly overhyped ratings, that basically means is not worth your time. Of course we could report them too, but why bother. Somehow, I find that this lack of (quality) reviews is explicit enough to make my 'informed' decision of whether to try a game or not. So please spare me your negative review.

Personally, I wouldn't look for reviews when trying to decide whether to watch a film or not, but that's just me, as I'm weird and old enough to understand that everybody will be biased when writing theirs. So, to me, they are useless before watching the movie. After watching it, tough, they can be interesting to know if more people felt the same way I feel about it, or to reflect on some elements other people praise and maybe I just didn't catch. The same goes for games.

So yeah, I don't need to read your rant. Without it, I already got all the info I needed before trying out the game; and it won't probably add anything new to the discussion after having played it -if you only focus on the way a certain fetish is portrayed, I'm not really interested in reading your opinion.

Now, writing a negative review can make some actual sense when your goal is to point out some of the game's inconsistencies to the dev. But in that case, you'll probably have an honest interest in writing a respectful review, you won't probably give the game just 1 star (which won't trigger the defensive and reporting reactions from fans) and you'll be focusing on some of the topics suggested by the rules, thus limiting the risks of your review getting nuked.

My final point: the forum would be way more friendly if we all took some time to think with a cool mind and refrain from posting certain kinds of comments and reviews. I admit I didn't do it this time. I shouldn't have taken part in this thread at all. Farewell.

Really good message and well received. A lot of points i agree with and some i don't, but understand where you are coming from.
You don't want to see reviews, absolutely fine, i do and i want honest reviews inlcuding (but not only) the good ones.
For the same reasoning posted before, the highly anticipated "Ghostbusters 7"

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Thanks for your input on the thread though!

 

[Deleted member 440241]

I don't really understand the need some people feel to write a negative review.

I don't generally read reviews, but I will check star ratings before clicking on a game in the Latest Updates section. With all the useless 5 star reviews praising a game's "potential" star ratings tend to be an early warning of a bad game. If something has 3 stars or less it's almost certainly garbage. There's also a sorting option for "weighted rating" that takes into account how many likes a review has and can help people avoid otherwise bad games with lots of 5 star responses. So leaving negative reviews is beneficial to other people. And if I'm going to leave a review I'm going to include enough information for people who do read it to understand my issues with the game... when those people aren't the biggest idiots on the planet.

A lack of reviews also doesn't necessarily mean the game is bad to me. It's a lot easier to find problems with something than to highlight its positives. I don't leave reviews that gush over a game I love. Positive reviews go to games with something unique to them that caught my attention. They also tend to be directed at the dev as a form of feedback more than an advertisement to other players, although there are generally enough details for people to get why I like the game. For example, the two banners in my signature are in my top 5 favorite games on this site but I haven't written a review for either because I have nothing to say except I love them.

 

[Icarus Media]

Fuck Tinman95

 

[morphnet]

he answered your question by saying he was talking about the plot and the pregnancy.
So suggesting he isn't talking about the plot is incorrect

Nope is was correct AND I shouldn't have given the benefit of the doubt....
If you read his replies he clearly has no idea what is going on. From one of his replies,
" The plot in general of the game is that a guy is recruited to impregnate an entire town of women. "
Which is a bad start as it is incorrect, now from the OP
" you play the role of a skilled young man who is commissioned to build a memorial in a village "
and
" Soon you discover that your real task is quite different: In order to save the village from extinction, you must make all the women there pregnant. "

He didn't play far enough to get to the SOON part and if as he says "The plot in general" starts in the town and he stopped playing as he got there and never started the plot, he can't really "discuss" the plot can he?

And if i can;t get feedback on why positive reviews don't get deleted we have a system that is unable to provide proof on how it is moderated.
Which is a very useful system if people wanted to say things like "you need to provide proof this is wrong"

Not sure how that affects my point though, just leave those out. If this and other threads like it are to be believed and it happens as often as claimed then there has to be proof out there...doesn't there?

We don't knwo the average star rating of reported reviews, we don't know percentage of reported reviews deleted, we only have what it looks like.

Which is why I have stuck to the examples given and their context.

Which is strange, because with the few examples here you have managed to categorically say that all good and bad reviews are reported, moderated and deleted in the same conditions, that is marvelous.
It is quite incredible we have provided enough to disprove but not enough to be considered a test sample.

You know, you rely on sarcasm quite alot and it's make it hard to take you seriously when you need that to carry a discussion.
As for the rest, I can categorically say that the complaint examples given have only managed to prove the opposite of what they were intended on proving.....

Yeah your right, 1 of the 6 rules is much easier to see broken on negative reviews, the other 5 though, equally easy to find in both

...and when found should be reported.

This whole thread is about the reviews being treated differently, and again you pointed out things i missed out, funnily enough all the things that reinforced your point, but not the points that didn't, like the fact they broke the rules.

See, going in circles....
You brought those up in context of tin's, did you report those 4 and were they taken down? Until they are reported and a mod makes a choice we can only assume they may or may not break rules and your statement "like the fact they broke the rules." is untrue. It is NOT a fact it is your opinion.....

Yes which shows how negative reviews are being moderated, to the letter of the law as per the rules.
It does not prove that positive and negative reviews are being moderated the same way.

....and where are the examples posted for the positives?

yeah but if a lawyer says "dear jury. that this car was not fireproof, it only has a fireproof seatbelt.
And you come back with "hey fellow jurors, the seats and the glovebox was also fireproof"
Sure you are using evidence, you aren't proving anything though.

I don't even know how you came up with that or how it compares to any of my replies in this thread...

Yeah but in the context of this thread they both BROKE THE RULES. yet one of them you are so fervent in your belief it should be deleted, in the other, you go out of your way to expand on the GOOD POINTS of a non-compliant review.

Nope, one we know was reported and a mod deleted it, the others in YOUR opinion are breaking the rules but you did not, have not offered any information saying that those 4 were reported and left there. So it is just your Opinion they are breaking the rules.

I posted the other reviews, i posted them because you asked why tintin thought his review would be appropriate.
The WHOLE context was that there were other reviews there breaking the rules, a lot before tintin, a lot after.

He DIDN'T think if it was appropriate, he was angry and typed up a rant and posted it, no amount of "other" reviews you post can change that unless you are trying to say that he sat there angry and spent time reading through other reviews first to see if his would fit in AND then after seeing those you posted he sat back and thought it was a good idea to word his "review" that way....

I never narrowed that down to it just being a source of information, one of them i clearly labelled as breaking rule 4. nothing to do with information whatsoever.

Again in your opinion, until a mod rules on those all you can say is they look to you like they are.
I also NEVER said you narrowed them down to JUST a source of information, I said that was the part i was replying to.

"one of them i clearly labelled as breaking rule 4." - "Thank god the extra dots take it over the 200 characters:" you and I have different ideas of what "clearly" means.

Probably because of looking at what other appropriate reviews look like on that game.

These four are all on the first page of reviews.

The only bit of actual review here is "it has some drama" haha:

This talks more about other reviews than the actual game:

Ooh one tag and a bit on the setting:

Thank god the extra dots take it over the 200 characters:

And it will be impossible if people who themselves claim to have an unbiased view on reviews but actions say wholly otherwise.

I don't know how that relates to what you quoted from my reply...

Think you got confused "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" you were missing things out again, probably why you thought i was being off topic or talking in bad faith.

You keep going back to those reviews as if a mod has already ruled on them. You picked them because you thought they broke rules and you keep bringing them up when we have no idea if a mod has even ruled on them.

I'm ignoring them because there is no information to say they have been "treated" one way or another, I replied to them in context of information and nothing else. You are welcome to keep bringing them up but they are and will be "your opinion" until a mod rules.

 

[Deleted member 440241]

Fuck Tinman95

Such a slut. You'll just fuck anyone, won't you?

 

[Rufio]

Nope is was correct AND I shouldn't have given the benefit of the doubt....
If you read his replies he clearly has no idea what is going on. From one of his replies,
" The plot in general of the game is that a guy is recruited to impregnate an entire town of women. "
Which is a bad start as it is incorrect, now from the OP
" you play the role of a skilled young man who is commissioned to build a memorial in a village "
and
" Soon you discover that your real task is quite different: In order to save the village from extinction, you must make all the women there pregnant. "

He didn't play far enough to get to the SOON part and if as he says "The plot in general" starts in the town and he stopped playing as he got there and never started the plot, he can't really "discuss" the plot can he?

Wasn't he reviewing up to episode 2? and he said there was no plot? and you are saying it was too soon for there to be a plot?
So you both agree there is no plot on what he reviewed.

Not sure how that affects my point though, just leave those out. If this and other threads like it are to be believed and it happens as often as claimed then there has to be proof out there...doesn't there?

Where did i claim frequency of anything?
There are threads like this but everyone of us is wrong?
There is no ba sing say you say?

Which is why I have stuck to the examples given and their context.

You literally took and example out of context when you said MY posts were about information, when my post and my context was about breaking rules.

You know, you rely on sarcasm quite alot and it's make it hard to take you seriously when you need that to carry a discussion.
As for the rest, I can categorically say that the complaint examples given have only managed to prove the opposite of what they were intended on proving.....

You also rely on sarcasm, do you expect to not receive it in kind?

...and when found should be reported.

Agreed, but you said it is harder to find posative reviews breaking rules, i was saying only on one rule.
Pretty sure everyone is aware of what should happen to reviews that break the rules.

See, going in circles....
You brought those up in context of tin's, did you report those 4 and were they taken down?

Again, i brought them up and i am well aware of the context in which i brought them up.
what part of " Thank god the extra dots take it over the 200 characters" led you to believe i was talking about the information it was providing rather than:
Rule 4: There is a 200 character requirement, do not attempt to bypass this by using spam or irrelevant comments.

Until they are reported and a mod makes a choice we can only assume they may or may not break rules and your statement "like the fact they broke the rules." is untrue. It is NOT a fact it is your opinion.....

There are non-subjective rules. if a review is 100 charachters, regardless of how positive it is, it is breaking the rules.
that is a FACT not my opinion.
If a review says "guys if you like this game you will love xxxx game" it breaks rule 2
that is a FACT not an OPINION.

....and where are the examples posted for the positives?

How about the two that you eventually agreed should be reported?

I don't even know how you came up with that or how it compares to any of my replies in this thread...

Ok assume the car is a good review, and the lawyer is someone posting it on a thread and you are the you saying what rules it doesn't break, congrats there are rules it doesn't break, good use of evidence, doesn't help point towards a correct verdict though.

Nope, one we know was reported and a mod deleted it, the others in YOUR opinion are breaking the rules but you did not, have not offered any information saying that those 4 were reported and left there. So it is just your Opinion they are breaking the rules.

Nope, one was less than 200chars without spam, you can have an opinion on if it should be deleted NOT if it breaks the rules.

He DIDN'T think if it was appropriate, he was angry and typed up a rant and posted it, no amount of "other" reviews you post can change that unless you are trying to say that he sat there angry and spent time reading through other reviews first to see if his would fit in AND then after seeing those you posted he sat back and thought it was a good idea to word his "review" that way....

YOU are wholly innequipped to say what he thought.
he said it could be more objective, you said he didn't think it was objective, something can not be more objective if it has no objectivity to begin with.
If you have a bowl of green skittles, and you want blue skittles in there, you cannot add more blue skittles if there are none to begin with, you can simply add blue skittles.
If he says it should be more objective, then his review already had the little blue skittles in there, just not enough.

Again in your opinion, until a mod rules on those all you can say is they look to you like they are.
I also NEVER said you narrowed them down to JUST a source of information, I said that was the part i was replying to.

"one of them i clearly labelled as breaking rule 4." - "Thank god the extra dots take it over the 200 characters:" you and I have different ideas of what "clearly" means.

If my labels were unclear, say so before assuming "Thank god the extra dots take it over the 200 characters:" means "the context of this post is about the quality of information shared" and repeatedly telling me the context of my posts.

I don't know how that relates to what you quoted from my reply...

Because the system does not allow for gathering of that data, so we rely on conversations like this.

You keep going back to those reviews as if a mod has already ruled on them. You picked them because you thought they broke rules and you keep bringing them up when we have no idea if a mod has even ruled on them.

As i said before, there are non-subjective rules.
A mod can't magically rule a review that is 10 letters long spelling out a completely different game with no relevance to the game it is reviewing is not breaking the rules.

I'm ignoring them because there is no information to say they have been "treated" one way or another, I replied to them in context of information and nothing else. You are welcome to keep bringing them up but they are and will be "your opinion" until a mod rules.

Yeah i get that, you can obviously say clearly what does and does not break rules, you have already done so numerous times.
But my examples need a moderator to rule on them to be clear.

 

[Rufio]

morphnet
You wanted PROOF positive reviews are being treated the same as negative reviews:
Here you have a review breaking the rules, not subjective, they mention another game (BaDIK).
As suggested when a review breaks the rules, i reported it.



Here you have that report getting resolved:

hmmm no feedback, going to be hard to prove that this is being moderated differently...

Except, here is the "Resolved" review now:

Please notice how unlike the negative reviews, this review was not deleted.
It did break the rules, and someone even edited it to remove the bit that broke the rules, without needing to delete the 5* review.
It EVEN misses the other part it broke the rule at the top "Till now i considered BaDIK being the best game around"

Do not mention other games or other developers in your review, this is to prevent cross promotion.


You wanted proof. you got proof.

 

[Rufio]

For an example of how a negative review that breaks that exact rule is handled:

Deleted without notifying me, without removing the comment on another game, and blocking me from leaving a review on that game.

 

[Diconica]

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

Generally people don't complain about positive reviews. I can't remember seeing anyone complaints on this forum of people complaining their positive review is taken down either.
You can find complaints about negative reviews being taken down.
If you been reading this forum from the start you can see fried and I got into it over a review he took down. In which he simply had a disagreement in how I should value and rate stuff. The review was respectful.
Fried in his defense of his action tried to dictate how he felt stuff should be rated including coming up with a the first star is for existing.
I pointed out the site isn't made that way and a large percent of games have less than a star in their rating.
I posted it with fried's take down reason. Understand I don't think fried or any of the staff on here are bad people. So times they make mistakes or bad choices.

A number of the issues shouldn't even be issues. The entry system for posting reviews could auto reject anything under 200 characters. Then it wouldn't need enforcement or intervention.
The rating system could be fixed that way you don't have some people like fried treating it as 4 star while others consider it 5 star rating.

If they made the review entry into sectional system it would keep review writers on topic and from writing less useful reviews.
But that isn't going to happen here we know that because it has been suggested in the past and it was turned down.

Then end result is you have a set of circumstances that makes it more likely a negative review is taken down.
1. Positive reviews and nearly never reported, when they are they are rarely taken down.
2. Negative reviews are reported vastly more. People get butt hurt others don't see the game they like in the same light.
3. When moderator/staff reads the review then you have a conflict in opinion between the reviewer and staffs opinion. It is unlikely to be the same even if they agree with some of it.
4. How busy staff are may be a factor into it.

Part of how busy staff is in a large part do to not having things setup better and the tools they should.
I'm not sure why they are so hesitant to make them or fix stuff. I'm sure they have their reasons.

Either way the accumulation of the above listed factors results in Negative reviews being targeted disproportionately.

 

[jamdan]

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.

People don't necessarily like reviews based on whether or not they're helpful or not. If you look at the most liked reviews, most of them are rants that bash the game.

Another thing is negative reviews almost always get more likes than positive or neutral ones. I've saw negative reviews get 60+ likes, but I don't recall ever seeing a positive one get more than maybe 10.

So I think a disproportional number of the "likes" from negative reviews are people who agree with the review, not that it was helpful. It just confirms what they think about the game.

 

[Diconica]

That is why it needs to move away from looks by those posting and move on to proof. Alot of these threads are started by unhappy / angry people and in alot of them it turns out those same people were in the wrong. They can point fingers all they like saying "but others do it" at the end of the day they WERE still wrong and got caught and the mods already ask people to read the rules and ask for help in enforcing them by having members report.

"Obviously my own reports are a small test subject for that, but it is there." unless you have reported the exact same number or good and bad reviews and received different results it does not qualify as a test subject.

There is a general form of proof to how things are treated.
If positive and negative reviews were treated equally their should be an fairly equal number of complaints by people dissatisfied with the treatment on the forum.
Most of them can be found in off topic and site feed back sections.

 

[Rufio]

People don't necessarily like reviews based on whether or not they're helpful or not. If you look at the most liked reviews, most of them are rants that bash the game.

Another thing is negative reviews almost always get more likes than positive or neutral ones. I've saw negative reviews get 60+ likes, but I don't recall ever seeing a positive one get more than maybe 10.

So I think a disproportional number of the "likes" from negative reviews are people who agree with the review, not that it was helpful. It just confirms what they think about the game.

To compare reviews. Here is one of my reviews. Which was mostly negative, but still fair.

View attachment 2216184

20 total likes for a neutral rating (3 star) but fairly negative review.

Another review posted right above mine is this (too long to post screenshot)
It got 65 likes. Or 3X as many as mine did and more or less a rant.

Fair enough and i can see your point.
But what i was quoting was someone saying a review was not helpful, which (it was actually 60+) people reacted to, and when i read the review i could also see how it could be helpful.
Wasn't disputing that not all of them were because it was helpful, but there was the reviewer, 60+ people reacting and myself suggesting it was helpful.

The point was something along the lines of:
It would be more believable that at least 1/20+(60+) people reacting to the review found it helpful than 0/20+(60+)

I wouldn't worry about ti though, your review isin the safe zone at 3 stars, if the other review was a 1* it is probably deleted along with all the likes.

 

[Deleted member 440241]

The entry system for posting reviews could auto reject anything under 200 characters.

From what I remember it already does this. The problem is that people skirt the minimum character limit by adding fluff or unnecessary punctuation.

 

[Jeevant]

Fair enough and i can see your point.
But what i was quoting was someone saying a review was not helpful, which (it was actually 60+) people reacted to, and when i read the review i could also see how it could be helpful.
Wasn't disputing that not all of them were because it was helpful, but there was the reviewer, 60+ people reacting and myself suggesting it was helpful.

The point was something along the lines of:
It would be more believable that at least 1/20+(60+) people reacting to the review found it helpful than 0/20+(60+)

In general, the number of people who liked a review is never a good way to judge if its helpful or not. It just means they agree which doesn't make it right.

From what I remember it already does this. The problem is that people skirt the minimum character limit by adding fluff or unnecessary punctuation.

Yes, the system doesnt let people review if the character limit is not reached so some people make use of padding (It might not be intentional always).

For an example of how a negative review that breaks that exact rule is handled:
View attachment 2216134
Deleted without notifying me, without removing the comment on another game, and blocking me from leaving a review on that game.

We always send PMs with warnings but we are humans too so maybe someone missed to send you one. And as you said yourself, you did get PMs for the other two warnings and explanations in PMs for all of them including this one.

 

[Rufio]

In general, the number of people who liked a review is never a good way to judge if its helpful or not. It just means they agree which doesn't make it right.


Yes, the system doesnt let people review if the character limit is not reached so some people make use of padding (It might not be intentional always).

We always send PMs with warnings but we are humans too so maybe someone missed to send you one. And as you said yourself, you did get PMs for the other two warnings and explanations in PMs for all of them including this one.

Hi Jeevant,

Would be good to get a moderators thoughts on this:

morphnet
You wanted PROOF positive reviews are(not) being treated the same as negative reviews:
Here you have a review breaking the rules, not subjective, they mention another game (BaDIK).
As suggested when a review breaks the rules, i reported it.

View attachment 2216128

Here you have that report getting resolved:
View attachment 2216129
hmmm no feedback, going to be hard to prove that this is being moderated differently...

Except, here is the "Resolved" review now:
View attachment 2216130
Please notice how unlike the negative reviews, this review was not deleted.
It did break the rules, and someone even edited it to remove the bit that broke the rules, without needing to delete the 5* review.
It EVEN misses the other part it broke the rule at the top "Till now i considered BaDIK being the best game around"

Do not mention other games or other developers in your review, this is to prevent cross promotion.


You wanted proof. you got proof.