At 4/28/08 04:32 PM, pwroftheseagoat wrote:
So here's a question. What's keeping you the Barracks members so busy that you can't find time to post? Both the good and bad reasons.
I'm now 4 weeks away from graduating from university, which means a small mountain of coursework, planning for next year, planning for the Summer, the last matches of the water polo season, and somewhere amongst all that spending time with my girlfriend. Sadly that doesn't leave much time for NG, though I tend to be on every now and again.
Choose a select group of moderators that you feel can judge flash objectively. Give them the power to judge flash they deem unworthy of protection status.
That I believe is already in the pipeline, along with a load of other new features. Portal Mods won't have the power to judge flash on their own though, as I understand it there will be changes to the whistle system, so flagged submissions that break certain criteria will be dealt with by them.
1. One moderator judges the flash to be crap which puts it into a judgement folder for review by the other moderators.
2. The other moderators review the these flash at a time of their choosing with flash being judged according to the majority vote.
3. The flash is either deleted from or restored to the portal. You could add a ban for flash determined to be spam.
I don't think you can simply give moderators the power of judgement like that, trustworthy or not. The whole point is the community as a whole decides (though at the moment it is being abused). What exactly constitutes a bad flash? Would everyone agree? In my opinion the best policy is to have a 'spam' whistle purely for spam submissions i.e. flash that is continually submitted to the portal, such as all that Adolf Hitler rubbish. These would be taken off the portal for moderation, and deleted if shown to be obvious spam. You can't just do it with bad submissions though, as many are genuine attempts at flash, and those authors deserve reviews and help to improve (as it is I think you should be able to submit reviews to blammed submissions, as often i write long informative reviews to help and by the time I am done it is gone and I can't submit it).
It may also be possibly to allow Moderators access to who votes what on each submission, enabling them to easily identify people mass voting or abusing the system and thus issuing bans. A few days of not being able to vote (and therefore a loss of EXP) would certainly stop a lot of people.
Also raising the bar a little on the 1.6 wouldn't hurt either.
I've wanted that for a long time, it would certainly help a great deal. Also it shouldn't be possible to add co-authors after it has passed, that is simply abusing the new system of higher boundaries for submissions with multiple authors.
Blow this theory out of the water. Shoot holes through it. Make me wrong. But, suggest something better.
The portal mods could make a huge difference, it is all about making it a fair system, and it is bound to need tweaking here and there.
Personal accomplishments:
Passed 40,000 b/p
Lvl 30
Getting really close to 15k blams
Congrats, still hovering behind me I see...
Sig by lebastic