My goals for Film Ratings

HomeForumsGovernmental ForumsCitizensMy goals for Film Ratings

This topic has 1 voice, contains 93 replies, and was last updated by Avatar of Ladon Ladon 2785 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 94 total)
Author Posts
Author Posts
January 5, 2007 at 7:06 am #250007
Avatar of Ladon
Ladon

To Watson:

I wasn’t saying that his was the right thing to do, I was saying that the advertising scheme that was put into place had unfortunately resulted in this action by the raters.

I don’t want to try and stop people from expressing themselves, it’s their right. This is where the Staff Rating will come into effect. Members will only be able to touch one of the ratings, therefore rendering their punitive rating irrelevant. Seeing as they won’t be able to affect the film’s standing, there will be much less of a want to sabotage the film’s ratings.

To Lord_Of_The_LEGO:

I don’t think this is as good an idea as it sounds. I want to retain the ‘This is what you rated, are you sure about that?’ style of screen that will appear after the rubric, but I don’t want to separate people’s ratings. The only way to let you change your ratings would be to keep everyone’s ratings separate, and that would bring up the idea of ‘who rated what’ once more.

The rubric is also going to help you rethink your choices while you’re rating. After spending a few minutes considering what you’re giving, you should feel more satisfied with the final result when you’re done.

chosen1, thank you for your input. I do want to try and get it to be more acceptable to give a 5 as an average rating. If you aren’t thinking about the numbers when using the rubric, perhaps you’ll think more about the description you’re ending up with. This most likely means that I’ll end up removing the numbers from the rubric so that you can’t really try and guess what the final score will be, you’ll be more focused on your own experience while watching the film.

People, be prepared for something that will seem to be a ‘lapse in ratings’. This is going to change the way we rate, and for a time it’ll look like films aren’t getting the ratings that they deserve. It won’t be because films aren’t as good anymore, and it won’t be because people are being too harsh. It’ll be because the ratings will be more fairly averaged. Less films will get a score that comes close to eclipsing all other films in the directory, because there will be more understanding of what score you’re actually giving.

-Ladon

January 5, 2007 at 8:01 am #250009
Avatar of Watson
Watson

“Ladon” wrote: I wasn’t saying that his was the right thing to do, I was saying that the advertising scheme that was put into place had unfortunately resulted in this action by the raters.

Not quite. Tim condemned this action, but you argued on behalf of those who did it, essentially saying that it was understandable. Do you feel that depending on the context, that kind of behavior can be understandable? Your next point seems to indicate that you do:

“Ladon” wrote: I don’t want to try and stop people from expressing themselves, it’s their right. This is where the Staff Rating will come into effect.

So your view is that it’s people’s right to be able to perform punitive votes if they wish?

January 5, 2007 at 8:48 am #250010
Avatar of Ladon
Ladon

No, not at all. What you’re referring to has nothing to do with film ratings themselves, and was actually a direct result of your shameless and over-active promotion of your own film during the event you call ‘Septemberfest’. I won’t go into any more detail as to why this wasn’t a good idea, I will simply say that the drop in ratings for your own film was the unforseen result of your activity. If you had properly calculated cause and effect into your ideas for that specific activity, you would have immediately understood why your ratings dropped dramatically.

Once again, this is not the subject on hand, and any further attempts at ‘mud slinging’ will be ignored, as they will simply be distractions from developing the potential of the site.

All I wish to do is help people understand their own ratings, and make the ratings layout more understandable to help standardize the resulting rankings. I do understand that people have previously taken it upon themselves to ‘punish’ specific directors for complaining about their ratings. I believe that the ‘Staff Rating’ will help considerably in putting an end to this, as there will be no way for a potential saboteur to have any effect on both of the ratings. Having an accurate ranking displayed next to the sabotaged ranking would defeat the purpose of engaging in such an act. I am forseeing a drop of at least 70% in these sorts of activities, without removing freedom of speech from the users who are submitting a rating.

-Ladon

January 5, 2007 at 9:11 am #250011
Avatar of Watson
Watson

This is not mudslinging, Ladon. This is an honest-to-god concern. I’m not trying to be smart or to simply discredit you. As someone who wants to be this site’s minister of film ratings, I would expect that you would take this issue much more seriously. Frankly, I am stunned by your answers thus far.

You are saying, basically, that if you feel a film deserves it, it’s perfectly okay for people for people to enter punitive ratings — and I’m not talking about low ratings (there’s certainly nothing wrong with that, and everyone is entitled to their opinion) — I’m talking about ratings with the express intent and purpose of crushing the overall ratings of a film, thus undermining the views and ratings of all of the honest reviewers and patrons who voted on it previously. I just want to be perfectly clear about your stand, because your answers so far are certainly pointing to it. You feel that, if a film deserves it, then people are well within their rights to abuse and undermine the system that you are running to oversee?

What if someone felt that Triumph of the Empire was objectionable because of its Nazi propaganda overtones, and decided that they’d rate it with all zeros — no because of objections to quality, but because they resented its current ratings — would you be as accepting of this?

I don’t think this is something that should be ignored, and I don’t think that other citizens should ignore it. The split between patrons and reviewers is nice, and it’s clear that voters needed actual guidelines to tell them what the numbers mean, but when it comes down to it, any person voted in as minister of film ratings can do all that. What I’m interested in most of all, and what all people should be interested in, is the ethics of the person in charge — this is unique to candidate. We need someone who will not tolerate or overlook abuses. That is important to me, it’s important to anyone who has a movie in the directory, and it’s important to our visitors, many of whom will first be exposed to our films through the directory.

January 5, 2007 at 9:35 am #250014
Avatar of Ladon
Ladon

Firstly, I will clearly state that purposely attempting to sabotage ratings is the wrong thing to do. I do not support it. I can understand that in the heat of the moment, people may have let their personal judgement get the best of them, but they chose poorly. I am simply trying to have sympathy for them, as they were obviously not able to control their impulses when it was required of them to do so.

Now, allow me to take your scenario and explain how what I’m doing will change it for the better.

If someone were to find Triumph of the Empire completely offensive, then that is their opinion. They can talk in the forums if they feel the motives of the film need to be explained, and they most likely would. If the person was still so emotionally stricken as to attempt to sabotage the ratings, then that’s nothing anyone can stop. Yes, it is the wrong thing to do. And so what I want to do is discourage them from doing it, by making the results of their negative rating look foolish. If they realise that their sabotage would be inconcequencial, then hopefully they will give the film a fairer rating, with the help of the rubric.

Simply put, the Staff Rating will be un-touchable by the general collective of users. Film reviewers, moderators, and administators will have submitted their opinions to this ranking. Because of the limited number of staff members, and their vast knowledge in the areas of brickfilming, the rating they give the film will be the most fair and unbiased possible.
Now if the user rating mirrors this, with a few minor variations, then the users will know that they are in agreement with the staff members. If it’s higher, then the users obviously have a higher opinion of the film that the staff. And so on for any variation.
Imagine if someone were to look at that film and say ‘This director is a moron’, or whatever would run through their mind if they disliked the creator of the film. Right now, the ratings system is so basic that it would seem inconcequencial to just put in some lower numbers in order to bring down the score of the film. But if there was another score next to it that represented a more steady rating, any effort to bring down the user score would simply reflect badly on the users, not the director themselves. And hopefully with the rubric, the potential saboteur could come to understand that what they dislike about the film has nothing to do with the film itself, and should not be reflected in the ratings.

I hope this clears up any confusion about my intentions and position on the abuse of the current ratings system.

January 5, 2007 at 10:12 am #250018
Avatar of Cometgreen
Cometgreen

“Ladon” wrote: I am simply trying to have sympathy for them, as they were obviously not able to control their impulses when it was required of them to do so.

Why would you want to have sympathy for those who abuse the system?

Watson’s argument has little to do with your rubric system or the introduction of Staff Ratings; we all know there’s no way to really stop this problem, and certainly no way to remedy past mistakes. This is not an issue of policy, but of character. Even with your latest post, you leave a little room to suggest that it was fine for people to bomb a film’s ratings because of some forum shenanigans. You even went so far as to suggest that, not only should Watson have expected people to sabotage his film’s ratings, but he should accept responsibility for it.

I also feel it is unfair to accuse Watson of mudslinging, as his concerns are legitimate, while at the same time subtly mocking him and calling his actions in the forum shameless (actions that you have incorrectly attributed to him). This is rather inconsequential and does not need to be addressed further, but I don’t like seeing people get away with this kind of rhetoric.

Cometgreen

January 5, 2007 at 10:32 am #250019
Avatar of Ladon
Ladon

I am in no way supporting the people who consider it a good idea to attempt to sabotage people’s ratings. All I’m saying is that everyone makes mistakes. Are you denying this fact?

Also, I apologised to Watson directly, and you were present in chat when I did so. Bringing up that subject again in a thread intended to express my ideas for advancing the ratings area doesn’t seem to be the right way to go about any of this. To finish this, it seemed to me that Watson was representing the people behind the ‘shenanigans’ referred to as Septemberfest in this thread. If that was not his intent, then I apologise. However, forum antics are not the topic of discussion in this thread, and so I’m hoping that people can keep their focus on the future potential of the ratings section and express any doubts or questions they might have.

-Ladon

In addition, I am not here to play politician. I saw something that could be improved. I came up with a way to improve it. And now I’m going through the motions required at the moment to get these changes implemented. At the end of this, I may or may not be in a situation where I can improve upon my idea, and update it when different situations arise. If you feel that there is a problem with my idea, then please let it be known, because I intend to spend as much time as needed improving this idea. If you don’t have any specific issues with it, and you think my changes will be good, they all you have to do is support it. There is no need to try and attack my character, for if you suceed in somehow swaying the majority of voters away from my improved layout for the ratings mehod, my idea won’t be implemented and everything you dislike about the ratings at this point in time will simply continue.

January 5, 2007 at 11:21 am #250027
Avatar of Cometgreen
Cometgreen

“Ladon” wrote: I am in no way supporting the people who consider it a good idea to attempt to sabotage people’s ratings. All I’m saying is that everyone makes mistakes. Are you denying this fact?

Of course people make mistakes. Though you may not be supporting people who attempt to sabotage ratings, you certainly haven’t been condemning them:

People have most likely rated the film what they think is fair … people are probably tired of hearing about it … I believe the expression ‘advertise to death’ is quite literal here. You’ve hyped it enough for people to hate it’s existence.

I don’t want to try and stop people from expressing themselves, it’s their right.

What you’re referring to has nothing to do with film ratings themselves, and was actually a direct result of your shameless and over-active promotion of your own film … the drop in ratings for your own film was the unforseen result of your activity.

I am simply trying to have sympathy for them, as they were obviously not able to control their impulses when it was required of them to do so.

In these statements, you have often avoided condemning these sorts of actions. At worst, you have defended and justified them. How is this not “supporting the people” who believe in sabotaging ratings?

“Ladon” wrote: Also, I apologised to Watson directly, and you were present in chat when I did so.

And it was only the three of us, plus tim, who were in chat. You accused him of mudslinging in this thread, and I felt it important to set everything straight for those 60+ voters who weren’t in the chat. And I did not write that hoping for or expecting an apology.

“Ladon” wrote: There is no need to try and attack my character

This is not intended to be a character attack, but you have to admit that in certain ways, one cannot deny the role that character plays when one is involved in creating policy. If there are serious concerns about your ethics with respect to this position, they are definitely worthy of consideration.

“Ladon” wrote: if you suceed in somehow swaying the majority of voters away from my improved layout for the ratings mehod, my idea won’t be implemented and everything you dislike about the ratings at this point in time will simply continue.

This borders on being a scare tactic. There is nothing that would prevent another candidate from implementing these ideas if they were elected. It is presumptuous to assume that you are the only one capable of such a modification, and even more presumptuous to assume that no one else could come up with different solutions for these problems.

Cometgreen

January 5, 2007 at 12:01 pm #250031
Avatar of Ladon
Ladon

That isn’t a scare tactic, I am simply trying to reduce this ‘debate’ to a ‘do you want this or not’ scenario. I do realise that once I demonstrated my ideas they were open for adoption, but seeing as I’ve only released the beta of what I eventually want to install, they would have to do all of my hard work again for themselves. I’m also not trying to use the potential later versions of the rubric as some sort of leverage. This is something I’m truly passionate about, and I strongly believe that it will work. I’ve put a lot of work into it so far, and I would love the opportunity to implement it and improve upon it when I see something needs such an improvement.

“Cometgreen” wrote: [quote="Ladon"]I am in no way supporting the people who consider it a good idea to attempt to sabotage people’s ratings. All I’m saying is that everyone makes mistakes. Are you denying this fact?

Of course people make mistakes. Though you may not be supporting people who attempt to sabotage ratings, you certainly haven’t been condemning them:

People have most likely rated the film what they think is fair … people are probably tired of hearing about it … I believe the expression ‘advertise to death’ is quite literal here. You’ve hyped it enough for people to hate it’s existence.

I don’t want to try and stop people from expressing themselves, it’s their right.

What you’re referring to has nothing to do with film ratings themselves, and was actually a direct result of your shameless and over-active promotion of your own film … the drop in ratings for your own film was the unforseen result of your activity.

I am simply trying to have sympathy for them, as they were obviously not able to control their impulses when it was required of them to do so.

In these statements, you have often avoided condemning these sorts of actions. At worst, you have defended and justified them. How is this not “supporting the people” who believe in sabotaging ratings?[/quote]

I’m not avoiding anything. This is where I stand on the issue. I do condemn the abuse of the current system, as it is very basic. It is wrong, and there is no excuse for it. But you aren’t proposing an alternative method to stopping this, and so I fail to see what your point is other than to try and pin something on me. I am not going to try and insult the people who have sunk to this level, because some of them are most likely going to be voting. Why would I try and rid myself of votes to try and get you to be quiet? I am being sympathetic and understanding, while not advocating what they did. Condemnation is a cold and harsh thing to do, I am simply not supporting what they did, and am wanting to implement measures to keep them from being able to do it again. Pardon the expression, but I’m saving them from themselves.

I have stated on multiple occasions that my methods will help eliminate the threat of sabotage in the directory. I have said that eliminating this thread is a positive thing, and will further help the community and clear up issues of this sort. Yet you repeatedly accuse me of ‘avoiding’ the issue. I fail to see how stating it as one of my main concerns is avoiding it.

I also don’t see how quoting me from 6 months ago during an isolated incident where you yourself were one of the instigators is going to help people better understand a new ratings system. I’m sure that if you had acted and nominated me for your our party none of these irrelevant discussions would be coming up. And so that leads be to believe that you are now being biased because of the individuals who nominated me.

“Cometgreen” wrote: After talking with Ladon in chat and throwing around some ideas, I think he is a great candidate for Minister of Film Ratings

I must add that people do not want a Minister of Discussion who cannot make up his mind. I suggest you work on that before you begin your campaign.

January 5, 2007 at 3:43 pm #250043
Avatar of saulgoode
saulgoode

I would be very disappointed if Ladon were to deny the rights of filmraters to rate a film however they wish. How would such a concept even be implemented? Hopefully it is not being suggest that rating submissions should be ignored because they deviate too far from the standard.

Film raters DO have the right to rate based on their own criteria and it is nobody else’s place to dictate what that criteria has to be. One has to be a Patron of Brickfilms in order to rate films and this means that each rater has a vested interested in the site.

Certainly the ideal is to have the ratings be an accurate representation of a film’s general acceptance; but it is also the ideal to have the Forums be a place for “shenanigan free” discussion of brickfilms and the craft of brickfilming; and ideally a Patron should not have to decide between the two options.

In the non-ideal world, there is nothing sacrosanct about Film Ratings which make them a more important feature of the Brickfilms site than the sharing of brickfilming knowledge, experience, and results that takes place in the Forums. If Patrons gave Watson’s film ratings of “0″ across the board, it was not necessarily some vindictive attempt to attack him personally; but instead was likely a very reluctant action taken in order to restore a sense of community and equitability back to the Brickfilms Forums.

Watson, your expectation of respect for the Film Ratings aspect of Brickfilms.com would be more meaningful had you demonstrated a similar respect for the brickfilming discussions in the Forums. It is hypocritical of you to complain that others are not respecting a part of Brickfilms that is important to you, while you are unwilling to respect the part they feel is important.

January 5, 2007 at 5:28 pm #250069
Avatar of Legoman182182
Legoman182182

Could we please stop with the petty attempt to shoot ladon down in flames. Ladons comments on “septemberfest” and the hype about COTY hardly justify this expedition off topic.

January 5, 2007 at 6:32 pm #250079
Avatar of chosen1
chosen1

I shan’t be voting for you, as you completely Ignored my post. (:P)

January 5, 2007 at 6:46 pm #250084
Avatar of Ladon
Ladon

“chosen1″ wrote: I shan’t be voting for you, as you completely Ignored my post. (:P)

“At the top of the page, I” wrote: chosen1, thank you for your input. I do want to try and get it to be more acceptable to give a 5 as an average rating. If you aren’t thinking about the numbers when using the rubric, perhaps you’ll think more about the description you’re ending up with. This most likely means that I’ll end up removing the numbers from the rubric so that you can’t really try and guess what the final score will be, you’ll be more focused on your own experience while watching the film.

I know I didn’t mention all of your points, but I am taking them in mind, and they’ll help with my decision of what else to try and implement :)

January 5, 2007 at 7:45 pm #250103
Avatar of Mr. Less
Mr. Less

“saulgoode” wrote:
It is hypocritical of you to complain that others are not respecting a part of Brickfilms that is important to you, while you are unwilling to respect the part they feel is important.

I believe Watson just made the movie. It was KG, CG, and Dragoon doing the actual “disrespecting.”

Also, they were supporting a BRICKFILM. I would understand your anger if they bombarded the site with Drug Ads, and Apple Logos, but they were promoting the primal essence of this community.

On another note, I don’t understand how Septemberfest was working to breakup the very fabric and existence of this site, as some of you claimed. How many people actually left the site because of it?
All it did was create a slight rift. And hell, if Revmen didn’t want rifts he wouldn’t have allowed elections and seperate parties.

January 5, 2007 at 8:25 pm #250112
Avatar of Watson
Watson

For the record — and I think that I made this clear right from my first post — I am not looking for rectification of this problem. I know as well as anyone that the system is subject to abuses from unscrupulous members, and that eliminating the practice completely would encroach on the freedom of the raters. So whether or not you can fix the problem is not my concern here, and I have stated this again and again. I was concerned by Ladon’s stance on this kind of behavior — whether he thought it was right, or wrong.

He danced around the issue for several posts until finally saying that it was wrong, but he continues to add the caveat that he won’t condemn the actions, or that he sympathizes with the people who do it. Why? As he said, because he doesn’t want to lose the votes of those people. In my opinion, this is unprincipled and unethical.

Nevertheless, Ladon has, at this point, fully clarified his position on this issue now, and answered my questions. I don’t agree with his stance, or to the idea of pandering to those who’ve done something that you say “is wrong, and there is no excuse for it,” to get their votes, but that is something for everyone to weigh personally.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 94 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.