It would be neat if the website was more friendly towards a large DPI. Some pages (like new topic/reply) are VERY screwed up if the font size is enlarged.

I think we should be allowed to change our vote for movies like at YTMND. I accidentally voted four on one of Katie Towell's movies, and REALLY wanted to change it. What do you think?

At 10/23/06 01:17 PM, AbsurdRandomness wrote: I think we should be allowed to change our vote for movies like at YTMND. I accidentally voted four on one of Katie Towell's movies, and REALLY wanted to change it. What do you think?

No. That way a bunch of people could signifacantly change a submission's score just to stop it from getting an award.

Besides, you can vote on the same submission as many times as you want. Just not more than once in the same day. So you could make up for your "mis-vote" by giving it the score you wanted to on another day.

At 9/23/06 12:08 AM, Patrick-Star wrote:

If we can flag offensive comments, there will be hundreds of users abusing this privelage and they are going to use it to track down Star Syndicate members, kittykrew members, illwillpress, etc.

I'd think that if we were to flag author responses to reviews, that maybe a system to prevent abuse could work. I've seen this on another forum, but they make it so that there can only be one abuse complaint against the author of a post at any given time. That would prevent people from spam voting to call an author's response abusive when it really might be because the person just doesn't like the author's response or they hate the author totally and want some sort of revenge.

I would like to see an end to the abuse that authors are allowed to enact against reviewers (I have had several abusive author responses against my posts) but I also know that it could be insanely abused.

At 10/27/06 02:30 PM, qygibo wrote:

I'd think that if we were to flag author responses to reviews, that maybe a system to prevent abuse could work. I've seen this on another forum, but they make it so that there can only be one abuse complaint against the author of a post at any given time. That would prevent people from spam voting to call an author's response abusive when it really might be because the person just doesn't like the author's response or they hate the author totally and want some sort of revenge.

I would like to see an end to the abuse that authors are allowed to enact against reviewers (I have had several abusive author responses against my posts) but I also know that it could be insanely abused.

Maybe there should be guidelines, if the author's response is offensive and mean because the review is abusive, we shouldn't flag it, but if the review is helpful and constructive and not mean at all when the response is offensive, maybe we should flag it.

how about a way to mass PM, like in an e-mail. i hate having to type everyones name out or click the "contact author" button10-15 times to send out important info to the members of the Doctor Who Crew.

At 10/27/06 02:56 PM, Patrick-Star wrote: Maybe there should be guidelines, if the author's response is offensive and mean because the review is abusive, we shouldn't flag it, but if the review is helpful and constructive and not mean at all when the response is offensive, maybe we should flag it.

No, an author shouldn't be allowed to be abusive because the reviewer is abusive. Responding to abuse with abuse does nothing to help the situation and will only make it worse.

At 10/28/06 05:36 PM, qygibo wrote:

No, an author shouldn't be allowed to be abusive because the reviewer is abusive. Responding to abuse with abuse does nothing to help the situation and will only make it worse.

Yeah thats right, let the author receive the abuse without a way to make a comeback.
And yes it does put an end, the author is the one who makes the last word.

I don't know if it is already suggested yet.

A list for yourself that you can see what flash you have voted on today or the other day ( under judgement, flagged, blammed, protected).

At 10/28/06 05:41 PM, Patrick-Star wrote:

Yeah thats right, let the author receive the abuse without a way to make a comeback.
And yes it does put an end, the author is the one who makes the last word.

That's what the "report abuse" button is for, so that abusive reviews can now be cleared out. The author shouldn't take it upon themselves to be abusive right back to an abusive person, that just makes them look bad, especially now that NG is actually starting to clear out the abusive reviews.

At 10/29/06 01:41 AM, qygibo wrote:

That's what the "report abuse" button is for, so that abusive reviews can now be cleared out. The author shouldn't take it upon themselves to be abusive right back to an abusive person, that just makes them look bad, especially now that NG is actually starting to clear out the abusive reviews.

All the abuser gets is a deleted review and a possible 15-day ban. The author should be mean if the review is abusive if he wants. Making that against the rules only favors those who make abusive reviews and no one else.

At 10/29/06 10:59 AM, Patrick-Star wrote:

All the abuser gets is a deleted review and a possible 15-day ban. The author should be mean if the review is abusive if he wants. Making that against the rules only favors those who make abusive reviews and no one else.

Then my thoughts on that would be that perhaps there could be some way for an author to report abusive reviews made on their own flashes and have those made as a sort of a priority. What you're basically advocating for is for authors to have more power than they already have. Right now, there does not appear to be anything that one could do against abusive author reviews, they are always going to be there until a flash is either deleted or the review (which may or may not be abusive) is deleted. There's no reason at all for an author to be just as rude as a reviewer, particularly since there is no recourse against author abuse in their review responses, while there is a recourse against reviews by average users.

That said, I also have a question concerning the reviews. Why is it that we couldn't possibly edit our reviews? I know that over time, my opinion may change concerning a review, and I may think differently from when I first made the review. Why is it that we wouldn't be able to edit a review after a certain period of time?

At 10/30/06 12:39 AM, qygibo wrote: Why is it that we couldn't possibly edit our reviews? I know that over time, my opinion may change concerning a review, and I may think differently from when I first made the review. Why is it that we wouldn't be able to edit a review after a certain period of time?

There's a few reasons. You could change your review score solely to increase/decrease the Flash's overall review score, be it to help it win an award/prevent it from winning an award, or simply because you wish for the overall review score to reflect your opinion rather than yours and others.

You could write an abusive review and then replace it with a non-abusive review solely to make people lose whistle points. Or you could write a non-abusive one, wait for it to slip away amongst the reviews, then replace it with an abusive one.

If the author had responded to the review, you could edit it to make a comeback to the author, or to make them look like an idiot.

Bah I suppose. Although it's a shame that it couldn't be made so that edits to a post wouldn't affect the original score already given, but just to serve other people who will watch the flash who look at reviews before watching the flash.

I have an idea.
How about lowering the 4 posts per half hour limit to 4 posts per15 minutes.
That would be good.

We need to put names on the images files themselves. The reason why is because search engines only pay attention to the image filename when someone performs an image search. I see lots of images posted everyday in the Art forum and in other places that could bring people to Newgrounds if they had filenames. Until filenames are added to the images, Newgrounds is potentially missing a significant amount of traffic from image searches. Leaving image filenames this way would be to a search engine like stripping every page of its title and meta tags.

At 10/17/06 01:55 PM, Gaz09 wrote: We need a audio protal batting average!

horrible idea, not many people vote on audio submission, so any radom guy could easily get an A+ audio average. That would only be a good idea if it were popular.

At 10/30/06 12:39 AM, qygibo wrote:
Then my thoughts on that would be that perhaps there could be some way for an author to report abusive reviews made on their own flashes and have those made as a sort of a priority. What you're basically advocating for is for authors to have more power than they already have. Right now, there does not appear to be anything that one could do against abusive author reviews, they are always going to be there until a flash is either deleted or the review (which may or may not be abusive) is deleted. There's no reason at all for an author to be just as rude as a reviewer, particularly since there is no recourse against author abuse in their review responses, while there is a recourse against reviews by average users.

I do think that authors insulting nice reviewers is a bad thing, and those should be flagged. The author should be as rude as the reviewer if he/she wants. It humiliates the abusive reviewer like the reviewer was doing to the author. I am not advocating for authors to have more power than they already have, I am actually hoping that they lose the power for being mean to nice and helpful reviewers.

That said, I also have a question concerning the reviews. Why is it that we couldn't possibly edit our reviews? I know that over time, my opinion may change concerning a review, and I may think differently from when I first made the review. Why is it that we wouldn't be able to edit a review after a certain period of time?

This is just like the retarded edit post idea. Forget it, it won't happen.

I have made a topic about this but now Im bringin it here. Shotgun man should come back to newgrounds. Or assassin. Or a Shotgun Man day. Whatever. This man has too much history for newgrounds for him to be gone!!! Not bashin ya Stamper, but since u had redone Newgrounds, I've missed him. And all the other things that made newgrounds special. Not saying change it back to the old page or nothin (cause it was terrible, but what do ya expect from a guy who was blamed for the influence of the Columbine High School shootings? I don't think he got much support then...) but since you are (I think) re-newgroundzing Newgrounds, bring back the things that made it special, including Shotgun Man.

At 10/31/06 03:53 PM, Patrick-Star wrote:

I do think that authors insulting nice reviewers is a bad thing, and those should be flagged. The author should be as rude as the reviewer if he/she wants. It humiliates the abusive reviewer like the reviewer was doing to the author. I am not advocating for authors to have more power than they already have, I am actually hoping that they lose the power for being mean to nice and helpful reviewers.

I don't think that authors should be able to subjectively be assholes to those who make abusive reviews, that just makes it worse.

This is just like the retarded edit post idea. Forget it, it won't happen.

I don't think it's retarded, I was thinking in terms of how I change my views on a certain flash after viewing it again, long after I make my original review. Unless you're saying that people never change their minds on reviews.
--------

On another note, why does this thing have to show up even if you're already logged in to post?:

You must have a Grounds Gold account to post. Sign up if you don't!

At 11/2/06 01:43 PM, qygibo wrote:

I don't think that authors should be able to subjectively be assholes to those who make abusive reviews,

Why not, it shows the abusive reviewer who's better

that just makes it worse.

I have a had time understanding this, please explain how. And don't say, "It's common sense", EXPLAIN IT.

Why don't you make it where for example you can see your both Blam and Protect points in total? So that it looks like this

Blams 600
Saves 400
Total 1000

What I am suggesting is you add the total points so you don't have to calculate how many you need to get the next badge thingy. Does anyone think this is a good idea?

Afro_Stud posted earlier in this thread about having portal mods and I think its a good idea. I have another idea for things portal mods can do, which is watching downvoters.

Downvoting (voting 0 on something everyday) has become a problem.

About two months ago, there was a thread some people bitching about fat-badger's movies getting on the frontpage. Someone stated in that thread that Fat-badger's Batting Average is better than everyone in the thread that was complaining. I saw his profile and I saw the BA as 4.09. Now, I see his batting average as 3.95. I am just going to take a guess that people looked for his best movies and blindly vote 0 because they think his worst movies suck.

Once I saw a thread that was trying to encourage users to vote 0 on the YuYu because they think its unfair that it gets #1 score all the time.

How the portal mods can find out about a flash being downvoted unfairly is recieving a simple PM from someone with the subject, Downvoting abuse! . The admins can give the portal mods the tools to watch what votes are being casted on a flash. If they see a lot of 0s and 1s when the flash DOES NOT deserve it, they can give a ban for voting and decrease some of their voting power.

In another note, the way Wade wanted us to vote is posted here.

I'm not sure if anyone has previously mentioned this, but my idea has to do with the audio portal. What if, for each category of music, we make a brief comprehensible description of that certain genre? How it sounds, what intruments (or whatever) it commonly uses, where it's most popular, etc. I often go to the Audio Portal and don't have a clue about what some of those genres are so I think having that would help a lot of people like me. How about it?

At 11/2/06 03:43 PM, Patrick-Star wrote:

that just makes it worse.

I have a had time understanding this, please explain how. And don't say, "It's common sense", EXPLAIN IT.

Let's put it this way then: If an author decides that they want to respond to an abusive reviewer in a dick way, that just allows the abusive reviewer (or indeed, any regular person responded to in a rude fashion) to smack back in the only way they can: by voting 0 every day on that flash, and ruining that author's hard work. I've seen flashes, perfectly decent ones, disappear because of people mad enough at an author review to consistently vote 0 and ruin that author's work.

An author should be above the abusive reviews, especially since NG is basically on their side already in terms of what they can do. Responding to abuse with abuse does, because there's no real response that the average reviewer can give to the author, whereas the reviewer can get their reviews deleted and get into trouble for giving abusive reviews. Currently, an author doesn't get into trouble for that.

How about users can tag other users reviews? it'll just be like a small link or a drop down menu, with their comment to their reviews.

At 11/4/06 11:37 AM, qygibo wrote:

Paragraph 1

Recently I posted an idea that unfair downvoting would lead to a voting ban and a decrease of voting power. If the author suspects someone's downvoting their flash, they can PM a portal mod.

An author should be above the abusive reviews, especially since NG is basically on their side already in terms of what they can do.

Flash Authors > Flash Reviewers.

Responding to abuse with abuse does, because there's no real response that the average reviewer can give to the author,

The average reviewer can't give a response to an author's response because they should have put more thought before posting the review. Before they posted their reviews they should have made sure that that was the review they were going to give. And if the author's response was offensive because the review is abusive, giving the reviewer a tool to respond to an author's comment will just lead to the reviewer posting more abusive stuff. If the author's response was not offensive and the reviewer wants to respond, the reviewer does not need to make it public, the reviewer can just PM the author for their response.

whereas the reviewer can get their reviews deleted and get into trouble for giving abusive reviews.

The reviewer should get into trouble, they had the guidelines for years and at the bottom of the page where they post the review, there is a statement that requires to be check and it is "I have read the review guidelines."

Currently, an author doesn't get into trouble for that.

As I have said before, If an author was offensive to a helpful/nice review which is not abusive at all, the author should get into trouble. Abusive reviewers do not deserve justice for being offended in a response.

If a user send a pm to someone and that user who sends the message, is deleted, you should be able to read the message, even if the user is deleted.

I'm not even speaking on justice, there, but on the idea that an author shouldn't have to be abusive in their responses. Abusive reviews get reported, a mod deletes them. What need does an author have to get into making their own petty responses, so that they can act just like the dick reviewers?

Wanted to add something else:

You're basically advocating that an author respond to a troll, which if we all remember Troll 101, is NOT what you do to a troll. You don't feed them, you report them, and the mods take care of the rest.