Petition
 

!!!PETITION!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a big problem at J2O. Trafton and Violet often make improper use of their administrator status. They are editing almost every short review and remove rating with reasons too short and undetailed. They probably want to see objective reviews on .:their:. web. But what are reviews for, what is objective? So is it useless to do any reviews these days?
BECAUSE: TO MAKE OBJECTIVE RATINGS YOU NEED LOTS OF .:::SUBJECTIVE:::. RATINGS WHICH ARE MADE OF .:::FEELINGS:::. OF REVIEWERS.



But they're saying they will delete it because it's not detailed. But subjective feelings do not always have to be detailed, do they?



Although, if they hate undetailed reviews, what's this???






And this is unfair. If they want to see objective reviews, why didn’t Trafton remove his rating? We want admins to repair bugs, double reviews, delete multiple accounts... But not to make unfair reviews...



Also, that review was made when there weren’t many people posting long reviews and it was accepted... SO STOP BEING UNFAIR!!!



So, everybody, stop with supporting that! Stop writing reviews until they reasonably convey to this and they will stop with it.



Write here everybody, who agrees.



PLEASE! It will be helpful to everybody in the Jazz Jackrabbit community.

Do you know date of review? Trafton may posted this before he went adminmadd0.

You have to understand that rating standards have changed over time, the review by Trafton you quoted is three years old.

In your review you need to support your opinion. You aren't being asked for two pages, just valid support that explains WHY it is bad or good to you. Writting one line, "this is good", is going to result to be removed.

Also I see no reason to blame Trafton and Violet. They just enforce the rules. They didn't make them.

You should probably have done some back reading before posting this petition.

http://www.jazz2online.com/jcf/showthread.php?p=218500

This topic explored the evils of removing the ratings from older reviews, something which I never actually did. In it, it was decided that since review standards have changed over time, we will not be removing ratings from old reviews due to length - only new ones. There is no "double standard" here. I regret writing such stupid reviews, and try to repair them when I get the chance.

Although a public spectacle is always welcome, it would be nice if you had private messaged me to inform me of my "double standard" before posting a semi-factual JCF entry. Not that you should have not posted this to avoid my being embarassed or anything; if I did something wrong, I deserve to be embarassed, but I do not think I did anything wrong here. However, it would have at least been worthwhile to inform me of my behavior in a more direct way.

Either way, this is a case of irresponsible reviewing several years ago, and nothing more. If you still want to file some sort of complaint, I will - as I do with every viable user comment - make a note of it for the other administrators to see.

~ Traft

AND what about OBJECTIVITY?

i know lot of people (300 reviews and more) who stopped review only because it. They are boycotting it long time. This Topic is NOT MY IDEA!!!

So these boycotting reviewers told you to make this topic?

DIE, TOPIC

Derby: Severe filter bypass removal. Never filter a word on your own; let the filter catch it.

What about it? Objectivity is the ability to make a judgment about something. I don't know where objectivity even came into the view here.

For information's sake, there are only seven reviewers who meet the criteria: Taz (341), dx dc (367), Blackraptor (412), Violet CLM (429), Labratkid (482), aiko (534), and me (652). Of those, five still actively review, while only Taz and aiko no longer commonly do. Taz, I believe, simply stopped reviewing due to inactivity months and months ago; aiko has not reviewed actively in over a year. It would be interesting to meet these people you describe.

If it was not your idea, why did you post it? Why did you not let the other person post it?

I am fine with receiving criticism, but you have to give me something that I can reply to in order to defend myself. It is more effective to give a reasonable description, anyway, as that will make it more likely that there will be reprimand, if necessary.

~ Traft

This review was done a bit over a year ago (definitely NOT 2 or 3 years ago):

Original Link: http://www.jazz2online.com/downloads...p?levelid=1505

I don't know when you passed the rule that useless reviews will be removed but is that how you repair reviews?

--No total offense when I say this though--
~I'm glad that Trafton doesn't have power in JCF
~Trafton reminds me so much of Simon from American Idol, doesn't actually do the job, just gets to rate meaning. Simon doesn't sing or ever has, I think, he just gets to flame or commend the singers....Basically review...

So you're saying that Trafton doesn't review things, all he does is tell people how what's wrong or right with their reviews and how to improve them? Ok.

Trafton never did it so often like you, Violet. Just don't delete ratings to save any objectivity... You can say "this is short" but not "this is short so rating removed". It makes J2O your own and not our...



TY KRIPLE! (-David)

note to all:
- keep it civil.
- Poll Closed and results edited to 0 - 0.
Because it does not represent the perspective of the admins at J2O or JCF.

J2O did not exist that long ago. It was probably in mid or late 2002; back then, this sort of review was acceptable.

A while back, users started to complain that reviews were of poor quality. They were too short, and Newspaz started to remove them. If you mean "you" as in me, I have never passed any new rule that I am aware of. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I suppose the short answer would be yes. Part of "repairing" the downloads section would include removing ratings that are unexplained - the reviews are left as is.

Absolutely none taken.

As am I.

This is an odd analogy. What job am I not doing? This example would be true if I never reviewed, but the fact is that I HAVE reviewed - quite a lot - and so has Violet. If you mean creating levels, I no longer upload many, but I do create them when I get a chance. I have used JCS for a long time, and am decent with it. Not that it would matter; a basic understanding of JCS mechanics is really all that is required.

I am not sure what you mean here, but if you are saying that the J2O administrators are turning it into our site instead of yours, that's an odd point. It sort of is our site - not as much us base admins, but the "main" admins. We maintain the site, and have control over it. It's to some extent an authoritarian meritocracy.

I am going to share this in the J2O Administrators Forum because you feel so strongly about it. I cannot promise there will be any response, but I will do my best to represent what you are trying to say there.

~ Traft

originally posted by trafton: J2O did not exist that long ago. It was probably in mid or late 2002; back then, this sort of review was acceptable.


bs. so why were reviews back then that you didnt deem right edited?

...unless you're speaking about something we don't know about, we've been over this before. They WERE edited, but it was an ACCIDENT, and they have ALL been put BACK AGAIN.

I'm mad! Then they remove ratings they does it for a resson, you're self unfair of talking to the admins like that!

I can't really tell if this is still being discussed, but I just went through all my reviews and removed every single rating of mine which I found unsupported. I will willingly do this for anyone who requests the service, due to their not liking their old reviews but being too lazy to do it themselves (or having forgotten their old password).

but one rating doesn't makes nothing.

In J2Ov2 you can highlight, like new post in PM, red (bad rev) and blue (super rev) reviews what you are not glad with (in .:reviews:. and in .:All reviews by user:. too)

It will be good, especially if you will make table of 10 worst and 10 best reviewers (sorted by % of red and blue highlighted reviews. Please reply...

i hate automatic smilies... LoL

...Huh?

One rating can severely affect a level's rating. That logic is logicless. What are you saying in the second and third paragraphs? I do not understand.

~ Traft

I think that you can add (like author's name and rating) third column, review rating. Red(-1), normal(0), blue(1). And from this make table of bests and worsts reviewers...

Trafton, i don't hate you...

Are you suggesting a review/reviewer rating system? If so, many such things have been thought of in the pass, but we're still looking for one that isn't biased. Yours is a little too biased to work.

On a side note, I like how you claimed your original complaint was useless as soon as it was addressed. REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE!!!11111

Yes. But on J2O downloads will objectivity and that's important. By the way this system is biased only little, that's not the problem. Whole system is strange...

Peharps it's strange to you because it does not farvor you?

The truth is that there is no way to take the bias out of any system which involves human intervention. If it could be done manually, I'm sure it would be. Unless there is any significantly better solution, which I have not heard, it is not really worth bringing up as I see it.

Additionally, I did not think you hated me...but, for the record, I'm glad you don't.

~ Traft

I would reply but this topic has had so many twists and turns that I don't know anymore what to reply to.

I will say I support Trafton and Violet in this. I see no reason to think they're inept at their jobs.

When Trafton was only .:: active ::. administrator, it was O.K. But now, when Violet is admin too, it's triple. Trafton didn't do that always when he wanted. Or yes, but he wanted much much less... Violet does it always when it's short and undetail. But REVIEW CAN BE OBJECTIVE...

K. I can agree with that like Traftie was doing it... But now, admins don't cooperate (I think) and there are lot of them (too - two). First things what I do when I go to J2O is looking to my reviews and look at all N/As. It wasn't so often, when there repaired BAD REVIEWS only Trafton. It was once per three weeks...

so what, unknown?

So you're saying the problem is that when you don't follow the rules, it gets noticed more quickly?

This petition seems to be out of order or something. Perhaps if you have a website, you should make your poll on that website and tell people to vote on the poll. Or try your poll in #jj2 or something.

I wish I knew how to accidently edit over 200 levels. =9

...but Violet's system is better. He says what he wants to improve, not like Trafton. But Trafton did it only in cases when it was needed...

There are multiple kinds of accidents, Ninja besides the the "oops I clicked the button" accident. You should know that.

???

^^^

Apparently you don't want to listen to my suggestion. Oh well, I am sure it would help.

i only don't understand

What a shame. Now let this topic die, please.