At 8/10/24 02:24 PM, River wrote:We could ask Tom to raise to raise the voting rights of certain individuals,
This is a bad idea mainly because unless these are given out in secret and not so much publicly, people with a much stronger voting right can be targeted for people either desperately need 5 stars on their submissions or need to zero bomb submissions. It's mainly bad because I feel like this is the hardest to answer properly first and foremost, how do we make this work exactly? How do we minimize the possible bad actors and ensure that the gold standard is at least consistent? What makes one person eligible and the other not eligible?
maybe tack on a bonus to whistle status,
I mean, at least there's an incentive to get better whistles, but I feel like this is a conflict of interest because the whistle IS for reporting submissions that do violate the portal submissions. Plus it's like I tried to use the confusion between a blam and a whistle as a feature for having a good whistle for voting, which are two different concepts. The worst part about it is exactly how is this counteracted with people who ONLY follow the rules for the mere power of the deity whistle? My solution to that would be that if you posted submissions that break the portal guidelines or have done anything that would be deemed unfair (Like actually zero-bombing submissions.) revokes whistle points and/or could possibly demote your whistle status or remove the bonus for you. It's really hard to distinguish voters that gave 0 for its' merits versus zero bombers mainly because while reviews can be used to differentiate each other, the block feature is sadly, for better or for worse, abused in this category as some users may opt into this feature to effectively ban reviewers who give negative reviews for a submission, making it particularly unreliable if you're not exactly sure if the uploader can handle criticism and not every mod can know that beyond of a doubt. This isn't necessarily bad for me because I don't really see the problem since everybody who I've blocked reviews from would be completely terrible at making reviews (Because their reviews is NOT the reason why I did it unless someone REALLY shits it up to a T, but who would do that?) OR would abuse this by sending really fucked up shit that violates any sort of guidelines, but it's still a problem to acknowledge even if I don't get affected by this and not everybody uses the block feature like I do, so we're gonna need a sensible system to fight zero bombing with little to no room of error.
maybe create a page on newgrounds dedicated to "the voting standards"
Okay, when I read this the second time to ensure what I've said makes sense, I wrote EVERYTHING as if it were under the interpretation of a BBS topic. It COULD be different because an written reply as I'm going to mention is formatted much differently from a reply in a form of a video, because you're not restricted to a 2 images limitation (For non-supporters that is.), but nevertheless, here we go: I should state this would require WAY MORE rules for it to work, because assuming that users who vote are also users who visit the BBS are the majority of voters, you would need regulation to prevent people from just telling people that "X sucks because of Y" and "X rocks because I give Uploader Y blowjobs", for people who don't get it, we need to prevent zerobombers and dickriders for coming into it and corrupting the golden standard. If it's anything from what I'm thinking, people post a submission link, either a Movie or Game submission, say whether this submission should stay or get trashed, then write it as if it's an argumentative essay with the thesis OF why it should stay or get removed. But I wanna get more interpretations of this.
