've read through the entire thread, but if I've missed a post stating this idea already, please, feel free to shoot me. Alright, idea coming right up :

For a good while now, we've been hearing a big commotion about decent movies being changed to crap once passed judgement. The motives behind this are always shady, usually involving a certain, unpleasant award. I for one believe that pehaps users should have a way of tacking this. My idea is this : allow the whistle system to stay on after judgement, adding the option "Changed to shit after judgement". If the movie in question gets a certain number of whistles after judgement, it goes under admin inspection as per usual. I'm sure the admins have some way to tell if a movie has infact been changed, so it might not result in miscarriages of justice, too much.

I know, I know, people might just abuse it, flagrantly. But we could have severe penalties for those people, maybe even severe as account deletion or whatever. My idea might not be the best of the bunch, but come on, something really has to be done to stop the influx of morons trading movies post judgement. It's one hell of an annoyance, as well as system abuse.

At 3/16/05 12:16 PM, Tremour wrote: Alright, idea coming right up :

A damn fine idea.

At 3/16/05 12:43 PM, Zendra wrote: Since there will be Portal mods - or whatever they will be called, but they can delete flagged entries etc - they can also check does. So it's not only Wade doing the work.

That will definately have to happen before any kind of after-judgement whistling is implemented. There's no way that Wade would be able to make sure that people aren't abusing the whistle with that after-judgement feature. But with mods that could track it, and take care of things within a matter of hours (possibly minutes) that could be a very good idea.

The only problem is that there would have to be a complete set of options that the mods could have before the whole thing is set up, so their power wouldn't be very limited.. (Like right now how review mods can only ban people from reviewing, it would be easier if we could ban, delete reviews, unban, set time-specific bans and so on...)

At 3/16/05 03:36 PM, Zendra wrote: As for the power the Portal mods will get; the best thing would be to give the BBS moderator's the job. Because they are trusted. And then it doesn't matter of their powers aren't limited. They just do a good job, to make the Portal a cleaner place.

I disagree with that, not the portal mod idea, that sounds like a really usefull thing to have, but your idea of giving the jobs to the BBS moderators, i think they should go to users who don't do anything or as much for the site, because alot of the mods already do muiltiple jobs, audio, review, bbs moderation.

Give other users a chance to help NG. This spacing out of the 'job's will allow users to concentraight on their own area better.

At 3/16/05 03:36 PM, Zendra wrote: And it all makes it a lot faster. So people don't have to wait one single person checks it.

Well, efficiency would increase dramatically. Infact, this is the first time I've heard of the whole "portal mod" concept. Interesting.

the best thing would be to give the BBS moderator's the job.

Not sure about that one. Sure, the BBS mods are good on the BBS and all, but I assume quite a number of them are inactive when it comes to the portal. Then again, portal mod sounds like a job of heavy responsibility and most of them have proven they're capable of handling it. Whatever, if any sort of system to monitor post judgement submission were to be implemented, it would need high observation. Meaning more mods, the better.

At 3/16/05 03:52 PM, Tom_s00 wrote: I disagree with that, not the portal mod idea, that sounds like a really usefull thing to have, but your idea of giving the jobs to the BBS moderators, i think they should go to users who don't do anything or as much for the site, because alot of the mods already do muiltiple jobs, audio, review, bbs moderation.

Give other users a chance to help NG. This spacing out of the 'job's will allow users to concentraight on their own area better.

I understand what you're saying with that, but then again, users would have to be very trusted by admin if they were to be let loose upon Portal submissions, whether flagged or not. I would guess that there would be 10-20 flagged submissions, maybe less, on an average day, so it would only really require 1 or 2 mods to attend to the job daily (I'm assuming, by the way, a Portal mod's main job would be to check flagged submissions - this may not be the case).
At the moment, all we can do is wait and see what happens, I suppose

At 3/16/05 04:01 PM, Denvish wrote: I understand what you're saying with that, but then again, users would have to be very trusted by admin if they were to be let loose upon Portal submissions, whether flagged or not. I would guess that there would be 10-20 flagged submissions, maybe less, on an average day, so it would only really require 1 or 2 mods to attend to the job daily (I'm assuming, by the way, a Portal mod's main job would be to check flagged submissions - this may not be the case).
At the moment, all we can do is wait and see what happens, I suppose

Your right the users do need to be trusted, but their are alot of trust worthy users out there who arn't mods. Also if their job is to simply delete or not delete the flagged submission isn't it the NG community thats doing the flagging anyway so they wouldn't have too much control, not enough to abuse anyway.

At 3/16/05 03:52 PM, Tom_s00 wrote: Give other users a chance to help NG. This spacing out of the 'job's will allow users to concentraight on their own area better.

Existing moderators are usually the first to get offered new moderating positions. Then most other people are modded by suggestion of existing mods.

At 3/16/05 04:27 PM, TheJoe324 wrote: Existing moderators are usually the first to get offered new moderating positions. Then most other people are modded by suggestion of existing mods.

That seems to be the case for the most part. But I say the ones who should be portal mods are the ones who are in there everyday b/p flash. Don't get me wrong Joe, you'd probably be a good portal mod, but you don't b/p much anymore. :/ So I don't think if Wade was to make you a portal mod would be all that effective, unless you started b/p again, or were going there more offten.

I'm sure that gfox and ramagi will get the position. Maybe MPA or Recon, but who knows. It's all in Wades hands for the time being. But I think the idea of making portal mods out of those who b/p on a constant rate just about every single day would be the wisest choice. But like alot of you said, trust is the key factor in all of this.

At 3/16/05 05:39 PM, Master_Inuyasha wrote: That seems to be the case for the most part. But I say the ones who should be portal mods are the ones who are in there everyday b/p flash. Don't get me wrong Joe, you'd probably be a good portal mod, but you don't b/p much anymore. :/ So I don't think if Wade was to make you a portal mod would be all that effective, unless you started b/p again, or were going there more offten.

How do you know how often I go to the portal? Just because I don't vote on under judgement flash doesn't mean that I never go to the portal. And just because someone has a lot of b/p points doesn't mean that they would be a good moderator, it just means they vote alot. Fixit has close to 50k blam and protection points, that doesn't mean he'd be a good moderator. I don't care about getting points, so I don't get them. Most of the time I go to the portal and look at new submissions, it's because I try to find stolen submissions and flag them in time. As a portal mod, that's one of the main things I would be dealing with.

I only have about 40 reviews, and I've been a review mod since around the time the system was implemented. I don't have to have 10,000 reviews to understand when someone is being abusive or breaking the rules, so why should it matter if I'm getting b/p points or not?

At 3/17/05 09:11 AM, Zendra wrote:

Zendra: please stop replying to every single post that is made in this thread, it's really starting to piss me off. Read the first post, carefully, again. Your replies aren't spam as such, but they're not adding anything of worth to the topic, and they're certainly not providing a base for further discussion.
I do appreciate the fact that you're attempting to offer some feedback, but there is no obligation on you to respond several times on each page of the topic. So please, cut down on it. Thanks.

I think it would be kind of cool if the reviews were sorted by constructiveness somehow.
Mabye it could be the number of experience points the reviewer submitting them has, or the number of blam/protects, or better yet, the number of responses from the author their reviews have recieved. That way, the more constructive reviews that the authors want to read would usually be at the top, and the generic "This rox please make more" or "This sux I hate u" reviews would get sorted to the bottom, because they don't really have much of a point.
Not only that, but it would inspire the flash authors to respond to reviews and be active with the community feedback and whatnot, while also inspiring reviewers to be constructive so they get more feedback and get their reviews bumped higher on the list!
What do you guys think? Seems like a good idea to me.

At 3/17/05 10:36 AM, TheMightiestDeed wrote: I think it would be kind of cool if the reviews were sorted by constructiveness somehow.
Mabye it could be the number of experience points the reviewer submitting them has, or the number of blam/protects, or better yet, the number of responses from the author their reviews have recieved. That way, the more constructive reviews that the authors want to read would usually be at the top, and the generic "This rox please make more" or "This sux I hate u" reviews would get sorted to the bottom, because they don't really have much of a point.
Not only that, but it would inspire the flash authors to respond to reviews and be active with the community feedback and whatnot, while also inspiring reviewers to be constructive so they get more feedback and get their reviews bumped higher on the list!
What do you guys think? Seems like a good idea to me.

You relize they can already basically do something like that. Instead of soting by date
which is the default, they can sort rating. Which puts then in order 10-0. Since a most of the negitive reviews get lower scores they are at the end.
Some authors are good about responding, some are not. Many of the bad reviews learn the hard way about leaving bad reviews with gettign review bans. If you see bad reviews you can always report them to a review mod by email(which I am one) or post them in RageIV abusive thread in this forum, which many of the review mods check.

At 3/16/05 07:08 PM, TheJoe324 wrote: How do you know how often I go to the portal? Just because I don't vote on under judgement flash doesn't mean that I never go to the portal.

I don't know how often you go to the portal. Just from what I've heard/read [no names]that you don't got to the portal much often anymore. And when you do, it's only to deposit your XP. I mean, don't you want to get those 10k saves so you can be quadlisted and get it out of the way?

And just because someone has a lot of b/p points doesn't mean that they would be a good moderator, it just means they vote alot. Fixit has close to 50k blam and protection points, that doesn't mean he'd be a good moderator.

The way I see it, someone with higher b/p stats then most know more about the portal and it's ways, thus making a better portal mod. I mean, who would you choose to make a portal mod out of the two : The mod with a portal security badge, or the mod with the EGMG? I mean sure, most people know what flash break the rules, but it would make more sence to mod a person who frequents the portal on an hourly or less basis.

I don't care about getting points, so I don't get them. Most of the time I go to the portal and look at new submissions, it's because I try to find stolen submissions and flag them in time. As a portal mod, that's one of the main things I would be dealing with.

Well that answers my above question. :/ But I'm sure even you will miss stolen flash at times. Like with the making friends flashes. No one suspected that they were stolen, I sure didn't. But there are also those malicious flashes, re-submit ones over and over[thank god no more Cooking with Poopie], and pornographic/hatefull matiral.

I only have about 40 reviews, and I've been a review mod since around the time the system was implemented. I don't have to have 10,000 reviews to understand when someone is being abusive or breaking the rules,

Well I'm glad that you are one, but I neve brought up reivews, and it seems like you are making a reference to a certain someone.

so why should it matter if I'm getting b/p points or not?

:/ I just see it the way I see it and vice versa. But I'm sure you'd enjoy being one. I'm not trying to offend you in anyway, I'm just saying what I feel on the matter.

At 3/17/05 09:11 AM, Zendra wrote: Joe's score is good enough. But then again, Joe is a trusted and respected moderator.

Indeed. It's all about trust, and thats the way it should be. During my year and some months on this site, I've come to realize many truths about things, and that just the way they are and probably will be in the years to come. :/

So Joe would be also a perfect nominee for the position. If there will be Portal mods.

Yes, after all of that, I'm sure he would. And I don't doubt that their will be mods. With more and more people signing up everyday, more and more flashes are going to be submitted that will break the rules. The adims can't handle it all on thier own, they need help.

The users should also be trusted. They need to be active and need to obey the rules. Not all of the high b/p users do that...

Yes they should. There are tons and TONS of underrated users being over looked at times like these. :/ Or anyother one for high possitions at that matter. But I don't know who all does and doesn't break the rules. Not everyone has a clean record you know.

At 3/17/05 12:36 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: One idea I keep having is that when searching through a users' reviews, there would be a thrid sort option. Helpfulness.

That is virtually impossible. Besides, like ramagi has said, the score sorting is the same as what you are saying. Helpful ones [10s and such] towards the top, and abusive ones[0s and such] at the bottom.

But what I really want is a god damn info screen that tells you if you've reviewed 'said submission' or not. I wrote a fucking huge review for Ronin - Spirit of the Sword[play that game god damn yous!]and I had already writen one. Probably short and shitty like my first 100 reviews[which I would love to have deleted]. >:(

At 3/17/05 08:17 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Well, I'm not sure about you guys, but I've been running into reviews that are utterly abusive/useless more and more that carry a 5 or greater overall rating.

Well flag them then. If 'said reviews' are have been flagged enough, they will be pulled for administrative review. I mean, what do you think Wade was talking about earlier this week about giving review mods more power for? Yes, I have some some that are 5 and above that are abusive, but that percentage dosen't ever come CLOSE to the amount I see that I see which are 3s and under.

I don't know if this is coincidence or what, but from my perspective, a system sorting by the users' evaluation of the review would make my review reviewing much easier.

Thats what date/rating does. What you're talking about is basically text search in 'said users' reviews. And remeber, the text search for the fourms has been taken away, so text search for reveiws won't ever happen. Plus, ones that are 1year + older have more than likely been pulled for review, the user was banned, etc... So just flag them, and if they are recent reviews, contact a review mod.

I would really like to see an updated profile. The only thing that other users can see about you is your basic form information and just two favorites lists. Unless of course you wish to remain anonymous in most cases, it would be great to see and learn more about your fellow users. Merely just a few more favorites lists would be nice. As perhaps so;
Favorite Singers
Favorite Plays
Favorite TV shows

Just to give you more of an insight on what kind of person this is. One more thing, I have longed for new rank icons for a while. I'm talking about your blam/protect rank. The pictures seem quite old and could use a nice update and could get pretty creative; having more pictures of people than badges. I always though it would be cool to go from Civilian to Superhero or Villain, depending on your aura.

Yeah, this isnt really an idea. But the time between reviews is kind of long. On one of my recent ones. I left a pretty long review. Then I left another long one on the next. Then it was to close? I'm not even a big reviewer. I like the rule to stop spamming but, think we can make it a little shorter?

At 3/17/05 08:58 PM, Romolo wrote: I would really like to see an updated profile.

Rumor has it that Stamper has been working on one. :/

As perhaps so;

I don't think those three are really important. They don't sereve a real good purpose. If you want to know what someone likes as int TV or Plays[half of the users here woudn't know what a play is if it kicked them in the forskin.], you just have to get to know the person. IM them or NG chat or General Fourms. I would love to see howmany WHISTLE points I have, I hope it's built into the new profiles.

Just to give you more of an insight on what kind of person this is.

Again, IM them, NG chat, or the General Fourms.

One more thing, I have longed for new rank icons for a while. I'm talking about your blam/protect rank.

I don't think this will happen anytime soon unless ramagi breaks the 100k b/p mark, which she is currently 38,796 b/p points away from. So the badges for now will work just fine.

The pictures seem quite old and could use a nice update and could get pretty creative; having more pictures of people than badges.

Naw, that would look pretty goofy. I like the badges much better. They could use a sprucing up, but they work for now. One badge I've always disliked[my next badge, oh kill joy]has always looked funny to me. It's offsided on one part of it to me, and I've always hated it for that. Not to mention I can't pronounce the fucking thing. >_<

I always though it would be cool to go from Civilian to Superhero or Villain, depending on your aura.

Again, pretty silly. I would like to see some new auras, like the ones on RG[if you haven't gone there, go there, it's a photoshop submision site. :) ]. If the idea of platinum, or whatever is used for senior members[say 1, 2, or 3 years old]would be cool. Audio portal mods would have their own aura, or they could choose to have the regular blue, green, and red. Review mods would have one, of course BBS mods, and Admins. Wade has talked about admins having a special icon, so they are reconizeable. But I don't know if that would happen. A black aura would be cool, and a purple one too. [ vote purple damn yous! ] But who knows, it's all up to Tom, Wade, liljim, and Tim to decide. [ I do belive FDA is one to, but doesn't want to admit it, or declined the position. can someone correct me on this? ]

You do know about 3 other NGers are using your sig right?

At 3/18/05 04:02 PM, Dave wrote: Yeah, this isnt really an idea.

lol Suggestions are good too, don't be afraid to post them.

But the time between reviews is kind of long.

I know what you mean. I'm a fast typer [100 wpm] and I get annoyed when those messages pop-up. Even more so when I go back and my review is deleted! >_< I sometimes forget to copy it, just incase, but at times.. fuck! I can see how it cuts down on the spam, cause about 30-35%[just a guess, not a fact]reviews I've seen on NG are spammy BS. I mean, saying 'Awsome-header' 'Greatstuff-body' is complimenting the author and all, but it's just spam if you look at it. I know it's prase, good prase, but still, it's spammy. :/ And same with the ones that are solid lines of 'lol' or 'haha', those are quite frequent too. :\ But I think that if you haven't had a review ban in a year[counts me out]and have been active during that year[like 3-5 times a week], then you shouldn't get that message. I know this would make some of the top reviewers happy, that's a fact. But yeah, if it was shortend to maybe a minute instead of, what is it? 3 minutes? That would make my life better.

Ok, here's a small idea I got. I've been skimming this thread a little and I doubt this one has been suggested. I apologize if it has.

This is for the BBS.
We're all annoyed by n00bs bumping threads that are several years old, and since the mods didn't like my idea of automatically locking old topics, would it be possible to make some kind of a warning box (similar to the one that appears when you try to post with too much quoted text) appear whenever you try to reply to an old post? It could say stuff like, "This topic hasn't been replied in over X days, are you sure you want to post?" And then you obviously just choose yes or no. I guess this would be a pretty minor change and hopefully easy to implement, but it would be very useful in my opinion.

How about when you start a topic, NG automatically searches for similar topics (based on what you put in the title box) that way, people who don't search are forced to. And if you decide to post the topic anyway a box will pop up and say "Are you sure your topic isn't covered in the ones we searched for you?" if they click yes it becomes a topic. And if the mods decide they didn't look at the automated search results they can give them a much bigger ban.

At 3/15/05 05:20 PM, RedCircle wrote:

At 3/15/05 05:17 PM, Tubaboy9288 wrote: I think they should have a button to automatically take you to your Newgrounds gold account on the Frontpage

Um, they already do.

The "Sign-In" button is on ALL of the pages, including the front page.

It's possible he meant to your own profile. Some people are even more lazy than me, if so. #;-}>

At 3/16/05 12:16 PM, Tremour wrote: For a good while now, we've been hearing a big commotion about decent movies being changed to crap once passed judgement. The motives behind this are always shady, usually involving a certain, unpleasant award. I for one believe that pehaps users should have a way of tacking this. My idea is this : allow the whistle system to stay on after judgement, adding the option "Changed to shit after judgement". If the movie in question gets a certain number of whistles after judgement, it goes under admin inspection as per usual. I'm sure the admins have some way to tell if a movie has infact been changed, so it might not result in miscarriages of justice, too much.

I know, I know, people might just abuse it, flagrantly. But we could have severe penalties for those people, maybe even severe as account deletion or whatever. My idea might not be the best of the bunch, but come on, something really has to be done to stop the influx of morons trading movies post judgement. It's one hell of an annoyance, as well as system abuse.

Wade's made a post about that since you made your post, I believe. Check his recent post history.

Basically, he said that that sort of system IS probably going to happen, but no amount of POST under judgement whistling would actually REMOVE the movie from the active population of the portal. It would just make it appear on the admin's watchlist (and I guess on the watchlists of any portal mods, too) for review.

This would help with stolen shit that isn't flagged enough prior to getting saved... and with stuff that's swapped out and so forth. It could even help with the deletion of old movies that the author wants deleted.

At 3/18/05 04:02 PM, Dave wrote: Yeah, this isnt really an idea. But the time between reviews is kind of long. On one of my recent ones. I left a pretty long review. Then I left another long one on the next. Then it was to close? I'm not even a big reviewer. I like the rule to stop spamming but, think we can make it a little shorter?

At 3/18/05 07:00 PM, Master_Inuyasha wrote: I know what you mean. I'm a fast typer [100 wpm] and I get annoyed when those messages pop-up. Even more so when I go back and my review is deleted! >_< I sometimes forget to copy it, just incase, but at times.. fuck! I can see how it cuts down on the spam, cause about 30-35%[just a guess, not a fact]reviews I've seen on NG are spammy BS.

It's not really to cut down on spam that much, though that is a side benefit. It's to stop link spammers from spamming links 5 times per minute, as they used to do. And it works WONDERFULLY. The only way they've found around it is to create dozens of accounts to spam with all at once (they must have different windows open with all the reviews ready, and then they post 1 per account over and over and over again). They've attacked the portal like this numerous times, mostly about 3 weeks ago or so.

But that's more difficult for them to do than just link spam with one account, and it's more fun for us review mods, anyway. #;-}>

So, in short, sorry to both you guys, but I doubt the time limit will be coming down from the ~3.5 minutes it's currently at.

I personally have never seen the message. But I type ~100 wpm as well. Why don't I see the message?

I MAKE LONG-ASSED REVIEWS. I suggest you do the same. Or rewatch the movie and make sure there's nothing else you want to comment on in your review. Eh?

At 3/18/05 09:53 PM, Aapo_Joki wrote: This is for the BBS.
We're all annoyed by n00bs bumping threads that are several years old, and since the mods didn't like my idea of automatically locking old topics, would it be possible to make some kind of a warning box (similar to the one that appears when you try to post with too much quoted text) appear whenever you try to reply to an old post? It could say stuff like, "This topic hasn't been replied in over X days, are you sure you want to post?" And then you obviously just choose yes or no. I guess this would be a pretty minor change and hopefully easy to implement, but it would be very useful in my opinion.

That's actually a very good idea. It could also have a warning that says "if you're not adding anything useful to this ancient thread, you may be banned for bumping this thread" or something, to discourage people from hitting the "yes, I'm sure" option too often.

At 3/19/05 12:56 PM, gfoxcook wrote: Wade's made a post about that since you made your post, I believe. Check his recent post history.

Indeed he did, I noticed it shortly afterwards. Thought he was pinching my ideas, the scoundral.

>:)

Basically, he said that that sort of system IS probably going to happen, but no amount of POST under judgement whistling would actually REMOVE the movie from the active population of the portal.

Good, that was a great part of the abuse I was worried about. You know, because you'd get people flagging IWP movies simply for malicious reasons; others looking to take their petty grudges out by flagging people they didn't like. Nasty shit like that.

So I suppose the admins/portal mods decide what goes from the watchlist to removal, from there? That system seems a lot less open to abuse. Goody.

At 3/17/05 05:18 PM, Master_Inuyasha wrote:

At 3/16/05 07:08 PM, TheJoe324 wrote: And just because someone has a lot of b/p points doesn't mean that they would be a good moderator, it just means they vote alot. Fixit has close to 50k blam and protection points, that doesn't mean he'd be a good moderator.

The way I see it, someone with higher b/p stats then most know more about the portal and it's ways, thus making a better portal mod. I mean, who would you choose to make a portal mod out of the two : The mod with a portal security badge, or the mod with the EGMG? I mean sure, most people know what flash break the rules, but it would make more sence to mod a person who frequents the portal on an hourly or less basis.

Someone with a higher level of b/p points just means they come to the portal often and vote on movies. Who is to say that they are voting fairly on the movie or not. It comes down to the matter that these people cannot always just be trusted becuase they ahvea high level of b/p points. You could be here for a year, know nothing about newgrounds, gain almost 10-15000 b/p points, and therefore you can be trusted? I think not. Although I would like to agree with you, your argument is invalid and is filled with hoels. I think the people that need to be trusted are the poeple with higher levels of power because they are the people hwo have been here the longest, shown dedication to the site, and perhaps won't abuse it as much. For the people like Stamper who could give s shit less if he deposits a lot, but knows so much and has been here forever, it should be easier for those people to have some sort of power since they have spent so much time on this site and around here.

I don't care about getting points, so I don't get them. Most of the time I go to the portal and look at new submissions, it's because I try to find stolen submissions and flag them in time. As a portal mod, that's one of the main things I would be dealing with.

so why should it matter if I'm getting b/p points or not?

/ I just see it the way I see it and vice versa. But I'm sure you'd enjoy being one. I'm not trying to offend you in anyway, I'm just saying what I feel on the matter.

At 3/17/05 09:11 AM, Zendra wrote: Joe's score is good enough. But then again, Joe is a trusted and respected moderator.

Indeed. It's all about trust, and thats the way it should be. During my year and some months on this site, I've come to realize many truths about things, and that just the way they are and probably will be in the years to come. :/

So Joe would be also a perfect nominee for the position. If there will be Portal mods.

Yes, after all of that, I'm sure he would. And I don't doubt that their will be mods. With more and more people signing up everyday, more and more flashes are going to be submitted that will break the rules. The adims can't handle it all on thier own, they need help.

The users should also be trusted. They need to be active and need to obey the rules. Not all of the high b/p users do that...

Exactly even I break the rules here and tehre. Not that I try to do it but you have to remember that no one is perfect and we all make mistakes. Therefore, we cannot all be trusted with this power of being a moderator just because we have a hgiher level of b/p points.

Yes they should. There are tons and TONS of underrated users being over looked at times like these. :/ Or anyother one for high possitions at that matter. But I don't know who all does and doesn't break the rules. Not everyone has a clean record you know.

Since you and I and not many other know hwo breaks the rules and who follows them I would say keep it up to the people like wade or tom to make those sotrs of decisions. We have no idea who is being honest as a user on newgrounds and everyone can and will abuse their authoritarian power once and a while, it is just the matter of the fatc who will do it less than others.

Since I know Denvish is away right now.
This seems to be turning into a debate over one idea.
I think we need to move away from that, that is not really what was intended with this thread. We have had many good ideas come out of this thread.
I think were due for some new ones.

At 3/20/05 11:31 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Isn't it sort of important to discuss pros and cons of new ideas to fully understand the ideas though Ramagi? Maybe one person suggests something, and another adds or modifies the ideas somehow. It just seems like debating ideas (unless it turns into a "I am right, you are wrong deal) is a smart, logical thing to do.

Well at this point people are not even argueing over the idea anymore, they are argueing over who should and shouldn't be a portal mod. I don't think it is really gettign us anywhere at this point.
Which is most likly going to be chose by the NG staff.
I think it is getting away from the point of the thread.
I don't mind people posting the pro and cons of ideas.
I would just like to see us move back to the ideas.

At 3/20/05 10:35 PM, ramagi wrote: Since I know Denvish is away right now.

I have though of replying, but then not. I mean, what is the use saying something, then saying another thing and not covering the subject? I know it's somewhat of a debate, maybe classified as a mild flame war, but at times I feel as if I have to say what I have to say or I'll fucking snap. Just like with locked topics. I fucking hate that when I have the right answers and 'said topic' gets locked by some fool who thinks 'said person' is right, but in reality is dead fucking wrong. And yes I know this is the internet, but it's just like getting a door slammed in your face, and it sucks something serious. So I may or maynot reply to some of these posts, yet again I may.

Just a small one:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/rip.php?id=226405

If you pan down there a little bit, you'll see someone going BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM. Would it be possible to have that review filtered out seeing how he's banned, the same way it would be on a protected entry? No biggie, seeing how not many people view the obituaries (I guess)...

At 3/21/05 02:52 PM, jonthomson wrote: Would it be possible to have that review filtered out seeing how he's banned, the same way it would be on a protected entry?

Even if 'said person' is review banned, and you can't view their reviews from their profile, you can still view their reviews in the flash movies that they have reveiwed.

At 3/21/05 04:55 PM, Master_Inuyasha wrote: Even if 'said person' is review banned, and you can't view their reviews from their profile, you can still view their reviews in the flash movies that they have reveiwed.

Err, no - you can't.

Jon - not sure how necessary that would be. Something to think about, though...

At 3/19/05 10:48 AM, VeryProudofYa wrote: How about when you start a topic, NG automatically searches for similar topics (based on what you put in the title box) that way, people who don't search are forced to. And if you decide to post the topic anyway a box will pop up and say "Are you sure your topic isn't covered in the ones we searched for you?" if they click yes it becomes a topic. And if the mods decide they didn't look at the automated search results they can give them a much bigger ban.

Well, seeing as my suggestion was buried under the other conversation, I'd like to bring it up again. If it's bad, just say it in a nice way. The only reason I brought it up again was because nobody said if it was an okay idea or a bad one.