MODERATION NOTES ON GAMEPAGES

Wikipedia comes to mind.

1. If a game doesn't have enough screenshots a mod/program could add a warning statement (an image/text, usually) stating that the page needs more screenshots (like at least 4).

2. If a game is of a certain genre but the tags don't specify that genre (like "jokegame") then it merits this warning.

3. If not enough is said on a game-page, it merits a warning.

4. If you share a game title with someone else it gets another warning.

5. If the messages get out of hand it may get a warning.

6. If nothing has been updated for 3 months.

7. If it's for a certain audience, but doesn't flag/tag that as its audience.

This is not a usual warning system. 3 strikes does not mean its out. It works like wikipedia - once the changes are made the warnings are gone. If they persist for a long period of time then its safe to beckon a removal of that game from the website. Say, a 1-3 month timer and if there are at least 2 or 3 long-standing issues. If your game does get removed, then you can feel free to resubmit it.

We CAN'T tell if a game is serious by one initial subjective view. Give a game time. If it lives for a year here without these demerits, then it is a serious game with a serious goal. Otherwise its garbage and should be tossed. This is the simplest method - and everybody wins. It will take a larger moderation team, but that would not hurt at all.

Also, like Wikipedia these don't necessarily need to be given out with expediency. (Wikipedia is only fast cause it has many members), but a casual perusal is good enough for a mod to flag these demerits.

author=undefined

author=undefined
6. If nothing has been updated for 3 months.

Archival.

How about:

And it still says "in production"?

I do understand the importance of hiatus and "cancelled". A cancelled project could still stay with the only demerit being "not updated for at least 3 months" this is not a strikeout system.

author=kentona

1. If a game doesn't have enough screenshots a mod/program could add a warning statement (an image/text, usually) stating that the page needs more screenshots (like at least 4).

This is handled already by the submission requirements

Umm... I've spotted many games with one maybe 2 screenshots in them. :/ (usually older titles, your recent efforts are unquestioned)

author=kentona

2. If a game is of a certain genre but the tags don't specify that genre (like "jokegame") then it merits this warning.

Genres are subjective, but yes we do trust that creators are accurately labelling their own games. Perhaps this trust is misplaced? If you want you can send me some examples.

3. If not enough is said on a game-page, it merits a warning.

Again, submission requirement.

4. If you share a game title with someone else it gets another warning.

Games can have the same name.

5. If the messages get out of hand it may get a warning.

This is just regular moderation.

6. If nothing has been updated for 3 months.

I'll see what I can brainstorm.

7. If it's for a certain audience, but doesn't flag/tag that as its audience.

Usually people are pretty good at determining themselves whether or not they are the intended audience of the game. Staff aren't about to start pigeonholing games.

My idea here was not for you to shoot these down. What you said applies to most Wikipedia warnings, but "people" I've come to understand don't always exhibit a kind of "trust" that self moderates appropriately. The idea was to have a system that marks games for un-approval (usually older titles), in a way that is not obtrusive, and tells the author he needs to get his act together, because his game is appearing quite sketch. Call it a second chance system, if you will.

If my examples are not worth value, then they remain examples. My word is not final, this system is for you guys to discover.