Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsTOASTER_TEAM'S PROFILE
Toaster_Team
966
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Are we too generous with game reviews?
The difference between the youtube 5 star system and the one here is that there was no culpability on youtube. People could and did rate shit without any reason left as to why. That's why it was shit and replaced. They didn't replace it with something better, though. Just more shit.
I had some doubts reading this so I did a bit of reading on youtube's blog:
Seems like when it comes to ratings it's pretty much all or nothing. Great videos prompt action; anything less prompts indifference. Thus, the ratings system is primarily being used as a seal of approval, not as an editorial indicator of what the community thinks about a video. Rating a video joins favoriting and sharing as a way to tell the world that this is something you love.
We're glad there are so many awesome videos on YouTube, but all of this begs the question: if the majority of videos are getting five stars, how useful is this system really? Would a thumbs up/thumbs down be more effective, or does favoriting do the trick of declaring your love for a video? These are just some of the questions we ask ourselves as we look at data like this and think about how to build the best, most efficient site for you.
So there reason of the switch wasn't based on culpability/people not being accountable for their scores but for a practical reason.
Also, to quote TechCrunch:
YouTube asks in its post, “Would a thumbs up/thumbs down be more effective, or does favoriting do the trick of declaring your love for a video?” Yes, the two vote option (thumbs up/thumbs down) or the one vote option (favoriting) are both better methods because they’re more defined.
They can't just hit 5 stars and say it was great, they have to say why it was great- and woe betide them if they lie because that review is tied to their name, their account. They are -known- and if they lie and try to cheat the system they become known for doing so. Their reputation is tied into their reviews, so there's a big problem for them when they review if they don't do so truthfully. Again, as people have found out when they tried to cheat the system.
People have accounts on steam too and their reviews are tied to their names too:
Anyway, the situation wouldn't change if Steam changed the rating system to stars, it's just so popular that people take advantage of loopholes and other treachery to get what they want. If RMN had the same popularity, it'd be the same thing. Like another use said, it's human nature, it's not a community/rating phenomenon.
As for devs paying for positive reviews, it's sad but true. People are offering positive reviews for sale on fiverr. This is very, very sad. I guess the bright side is that if your game really sucks, you won't have enough money to bribe everyone.
Sources:
https://techcrunch.com/2009/09/22/youtube-comes-to-a-5-star-realization-its-ratings-are-useless/
https://youtube.googleblog.com/2009/09/five-stars-dominate-ratings.html
Best of Blogs #025 *DOUBLE FEATURE*
Best of Blogs #025 *DOUBLE FEATURE*
@Liberty: I have a suggestion.
Maybe you could select less blogs for the spotlight and write a short paragraph as to why you selected said blog? I think it would help people who want to improve which I think is part of the whole initiative. I would personally prefer to know what you liked about the blog more than anything else. I think it would also encourage me to read the blogs if there was a short description like that as opposed to a list. Right now I don't read any because it's just a long list. Even a single sentence would be cool.
Also, check your PM please! :)
Maybe you could select less blogs for the spotlight and write a short paragraph as to why you selected said blog? I think it would help people who want to improve which I think is part of the whole initiative. I would personally prefer to know what you liked about the blog more than anything else. I think it would also encourage me to read the blogs if there was a short description like that as opposed to a list. Right now I don't read any because it's just a long list. Even a single sentence would be cool.
Also, check your PM please! :)
Lunatics with guns, domestic terrorists and homophobia...
When I said gay marriage and guns are not connected, I meant that just because it worked for gay marriage doesn't mean it'll work for gun control. Because really, gay marriage has nothing to do with violence unlike guns. The implications of both are completely different from each other. That's what I'm saying.
That's your opinion and your perception of reality. It's not wrong, it's just different than mine. You focus on the fact that guns and mariage are different things and they are. They are also very conservative ideas that remained the same for a very long time. One of them changed overtime, why not the other one? My point was/is that the culture of a country changes through time, surely you can agree on at least this little bit? That was the point of the comparison. You may find to unconvincing but to go the extent to say it's irrecevable is a pretty big step.
So simply saying that guns might work out in culture just because gay marriage worked out without stating any substantial evidence and reason and how they'll actually work out is just naive and superficial.
Naive and superficial are adjective which don't really push the discussion forward in the sense that they're very fickle in nature. I mean, what's the point, it doesn't have any reasoning or convincing value, does it? As I said, the reason is the following: if certain conservatives aspects of a culture can change over time, is it reasonable to come to the conclusion that other aspects of the same culture might also change over time? That's it really, nothing groundbreaking here I don't think. Other countries have changed drastically changed their policies regarding firearms over a fairly short amount of time after all.
Convince me again when you have actually written a report with references. And I mean actual credible references such as journal papers, not newspaper articles.
We'd have to first agree on what's a credible reference. Dismissing any newspaper article as not being credible evidence is fundamental difference that we once again share. Why are newspaper articles not credible references? Newspaper articles are often actually written by collaborators who are credible sources on a certain topic (which is why they are asked to write an article on said topic). In fact, I think your argument would have carried more weight if you had mentioned the article is an opinion piece.
Just my point of view.
Lunatics with guns, domestic terrorists and homophobia...
No offense, but comparing gay marriages to guns is like comparing apples to oranges.
This is a pretty sensitive subject, so unless you truly understand the subject and situation at hand, I highly suggest you stay out of this.
I respectfully disagree with you on both stances. Sorry!
I disagree that our different perceptions on a certain topic implies that I should abstain from comment on it. I don't mind if you express your opinion, give me that same courtesy why dontcha ? :).
I also disagree that there's no connection.
It's interesting you would bring this up because this is also discussed in the Washington Post:
But it wasn’t all that long ago that same-sex marriage seemed just as hopeless a cause as meaningful gun laws seem now. And the reason many Americans — including Obama — changed their minds about gay marriage may be the same reason people eventually change their minds about guns.
I guess if it were published by a newspaper maybe the idea isn't that far fetched, an opinion worth pondering about? Or maybe it is but other people share my point of view?
It doesn't matter, as long as we express our opinions in a respectful way, no harm done. If I'm being an "an idiot lacking comprehension", enlighten me! Maybe I don't understand the issue at all. Like I said, I haven't read anything which convinced me that might be the case just yet.
As for Jude, I wouldn't ban him. It's no big deal really.
Lunatics with guns, domestic terrorists and homophobia...
@Ratty524:
I don't think not knowing something means having intelligence issues, that much is obvious. I mean, that would pretty much imply everyone is stupid considering there's so much to learn and know. So I do think there's some degree of personal responsibility when it comes to equating ignorance to stupidity. That's your take on it, but it's certainly not mine. I think there's a lot of ignorance regarding gun control and I include myself in the lot. I haven't actually read a single comment so far which provided any convincing insight about the situation. Most comments are personal biases which aren't really grounded in anything other than impressions and whims. This is in part why the problem persist, limiting our respective perspectives to our own front door so to speak.
If Jude was offended that I wrote: ''or you don't know :)'' then I apologize. I was teasing him but I think that came across wrong in written form. So I'm sorry about that. Either way, I still think that reply to Corfaisus was uncalled for if anything though and also deserve an apology to him:
Like you said, it's not simple. So to answer that guns are part of American culture is not really a complete answer, I'm pretty sure other factors come into play (like money in politics for instance and that lobbying effect on the powers that be).
As for the other argument you provided:
So, I guess the idea here is that there are so many guns that getting rid of them would be a futile attempt.
You know in Australia they did something similar. The article says that the government bought back 700,000 guns. Granted, that'd be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of guns right now in America but some initiatives can be put in place about about this. I don't know how many guns there were at the time in Australia so it'd be interesting to know what % that represented at the time.
I do agree that the culture comes into play here but I don't think it should be a cop out, i.e. "guns are part of the culture, deal with it". Gay marriage wasn't part of the culture until very recently, culture evolve and change, why should it be any different with guns?
Here you are insulting someone's intelligence while not really understanding the bigger picture yourself (As previously stated, outlawing/taking away guns is not a viable solution in the states due to how guns are embedded in our culture). Jude has a right to be offended by your comment.
I don't think not knowing something means having intelligence issues, that much is obvious. I mean, that would pretty much imply everyone is stupid considering there's so much to learn and know. So I do think there's some degree of personal responsibility when it comes to equating ignorance to stupidity. That's your take on it, but it's certainly not mine. I think there's a lot of ignorance regarding gun control and I include myself in the lot. I haven't actually read a single comment so far which provided any convincing insight about the situation. Most comments are personal biases which aren't really grounded in anything other than impressions and whims. This is in part why the problem persist, limiting our respective perspectives to our own front door so to speak.
If Jude was offended that I wrote: ''or you don't know :)'' then I apologize. I was teasing him but I think that came across wrong in written form. So I'm sorry about that. Either way, I still think that reply to Corfaisus was uncalled for if anything though and also deserve an apology to him:
Go back to jerking off to belly inflated Sonic the Hedgehog porn.
Toaster_Tream, pianotm and Feld already gave you the answer. Guns are not only a part of American culture, they currently outweigh the population here. It's completely fallacious to compare our situation with that of other countries on the entire basis that we not only have a completely different culture, we don't even share similar population levels with the examples you mentioned.
It's so complicated an issue that the simple "take guns away from citizens" is not a viable option.
Like you said, it's not simple. So to answer that guns are part of American culture is not really a complete answer, I'm pretty sure other factors come into play (like money in politics for instance and that lobbying effect on the powers that be).
As for the other argument you provided:
they currently outweigh the population here.
So, I guess the idea here is that there are so many guns that getting rid of them would be a futile attempt.
You know in Australia they did something similar. The article says that the government bought back 700,000 guns. Granted, that'd be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of guns right now in America but some initiatives can be put in place about about this. I don't know how many guns there were at the time in Australia so it'd be interesting to know what % that represented at the time.
I do agree that the culture comes into play here but I don't think it should be a cop out, i.e. "guns are part of the culture, deal with it". Gay marriage wasn't part of the culture until very recently, culture evolve and change, why should it be any different with guns?
Lunatics with guns, domestic terrorists and homophobia...
Jude, I honestly hope you figure out why it is that you have so much anger and I don't mean this in a way which is patronizing. There shouldn't be a need to insult anyone when discussing this topic. No need for that.
[Design] Reward Design and Ideas
Bump! Added a car, that one took a while.
Do you guys agree with the ladder, I mean, the order of the statuses. Maybe the desk should be lower down than the spa for one thing.
Lunatics with guns, domestic terrorists and homophobia...
pianotm
Unrest. People do not get this for some reason. There is widespread division in this country, fueled by systemic racism and general hate that is deliberately being fueled by those in power.
Those are part of the systemic human condition and not limited to certain countries. I don't believe this is the root of the problem.
There was once a time when we were ruled by Great Britain.
The British Empire has had its share of colonies under its rule. Yet, they don't all struggle with shootings or the prevalence of guns in general. Please explain.
This should not have been the case as the majority of the colonies came here to escape European rule.
I think this more precise:
The colonists came to America in the 16th and 17th centuries for several reasons, particularly practical motivations that related to their homeland, such as overpopulation, religious persecution and poverty. For these reasons, many colonists came to America seeking economic opportunity and the freedom to practice their religion without having to fear the government.
Jude
It demonstrates the only thing that matters. It's mine, I've done nothing wrong with it, my ownership of it affects nobody, so it's not your decision whether or not I can have it.
Please apply this rationale to drug users.
Owning something doesn't imply the legitimacy of ownership. I'm pretty sure your quote was mentioned by all of the mass shooters out there, what's would you conclude from this?
Jude
I can't make sense of your second sentence.
The Other with a capital O. The other people.
It's my business if the fact that easily having access to firearms leads to increasing the probability of me ending being shot at. That was the meaning of my sentence.
There are 15 million hunters in the USA. That's about half the population of your country. It might be a minority, but it's a lot of people who didn't shoot or threaten to shoot their neighbors with their rifles.
Again:
team_toaster
As far as needing rifles to hunt, how many people need rifles to hunt in order to feed themselves? I don't have any statistics but I would imagine a majority on individuals in the USA can get their meat at the supermarket.
Personally, I use a bazooka to hunt grouse, does it make it ok? Joking aside, most people don't need to hunt anymore, they do it as a hobby. It is therefore not necessary for them to own a firearm.
I don't need to explain shit to somebody who misquotes and misunderstands me.
Or you don't know the answer. :)
Anyway, if I were American I would be soooo fed up that no change is taking place with shooting after shooting after shooting after shooting. It's so sad. But there's this firearm entitlement which is just so fossilized in the culture. It's so hard to understand from an outsider's perspective.
Lunatics with guns, domestic terrorists and homophobia...
I'm not asking you to justify your purchase of pregnant scat porn.
This is invalid comparison. A person's porn purchase is not a lethal weapon. Therefore, the comparison doesn't demonstrate anything here.
First of all, it's none of your business why I want or need something.
I beg to differ, especially if the *other* is at the end of gun barrel.
As far as needing rifles to hunt, how many people need rifles to hunt in order to feed themselves? I don't have any statistics but I would imagine a majority on individuals in the USA can get their meat at the supermarket.
If a minority of people do need the rifles to hunt not as a hobby, I'm sure this would affect such a sliver of the American that some thorough background check and strict rules could be put in place.
wouldn't be an effective homicide countermeasure.Please explain how it seems to work in certain other countries like Japan or Canada but wouldn't work in America.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
