Despite the absurdity of much of his post, saulgoode actually made a valid point that to me is the major flaw in Ladon’s candidacy, not the alleged morality record.

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.

I am opposed to a rubric. More precisely, I’m opposed to an interactive rubric. I don’t mind giving the film raters suggestions, or outlining a sort of guide for them to follow, but to specifically instruct them what to rate a film based on pre-written criteria seems sort of unappealing to me. It would also most likely eliminate my freedom to rate a film with more precise numbers; 7.5, 6.2, etc.

Telling a film-rater how to rate films is supremely patronizing. There are always instances in which unforseen details merit a tweaking in the rating. Though I am not opposed to a general standard or guideline for the film-rating process, raters must be given the respect of being able to use their judgment and free thought to assign ratings to a film.

Watson: Your last post is a wise one. You have voiced your complaints, and there’s no further reason to bicker about them. We know from experience Ladon is tough to outlast in that regard.

Whether Watson is Mudslinging or showing a legitimate concern, I think this issue should be addressed as it hasn’t only showed it’s face in TCOTY. The abusing of film ratings is a problem and should be one of the first things to be fixed, in my opinion. Although some people have chosen to ignore this issue and just go along with the responses in their film thread, I feel that something officially linked to the Brickfilms.com name should be accurate no matter what the cost.

I do have a solution for this problem, and I hope you, Ladon, take it upon yourself to read and sincerely consider this suggestion.

My Solution is a pretty simple one, Moderation and Limits. Yes, these both seem Extreme but they are totally ration. The film directory is a place in which Brickfilms.com Officially accepts (or rejects) a film. If we did a better job at making sure the films that are accepted were good quality films then there would be no reason to rate a film to much lower than the average rating. Yes, there are some exceptions, and I am sure we could bend a little for those films. The Next move would be to Eliminate voter privacy.

Before I even explain the next step of my method, I would like to point of that some people do disagree already.

[spoiler=Disagreements]

“saulgoode” wrote: 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.

“Ladon” wrote: I don’t want to take away people’s privacy by trying to install a ‘Who rated what?’ feature. People have the right to rate a film poorly without being chased down because of it.

[/spoiler]I am sure there are a few more but I am satisfied with those two examples.

My Solution would be to allow other users see who voted what. Why? Because by not allowing privacy it would discourage people who like to play jokes on Certain directors or even want to down their film out of anger or some other emotion. Beside each rating there would be a report option,(This is just a side idea: it could only appear if a person rates a film lower than average or above average) if a fellow member sees some one giving a film an unjust rating (e,i; all ratings of 3 and/or below) they can report this and allow a Mod or some other form of authority to check this out and make sure it is a just rating. To decide whether or not this is a just rating he would look at the average staff rating and/or User rating(I think most people can tell when some one blatantly rates something low). If it is considered to be “just” the person of Authority can click an option that no long allows this rating to be questioned, if it is unjust there should be some form of Discipline taking upon the rater in question, maybe a PM warning at first then something more serious if he/she persists.

Some argue that The raters should get privacy. I don’t think so. Why does it matter if some one knows that you do or do not like a film? They see it in the P&R forum all the time. If you don’t want some one to see your rating then don’t rate it in the first place. This suggestion does not control the individual’s Decision, it just warns them that if they do the wrong thing that they will get some form of discipline. What would the form of discipline be? I would assume PM them with a warning and then if it is still a problem remove the rights of voting, but that is not my decision.

“Ladon” wrote: People have the right to rate a film poorly without being chased down because of it.

If we Eliminated low-grade films there would be no need to rate films low. Then the only reason to rate film low is if you didn’t enjoy it so you rated the “Enjoyment” down. If a person DOES rate a film row for reasons of unfairness then yes, They do need to be “chased down”.

So, my solution is by eliminating the low-grade of films we Officially accept and by keeping check with who rates what, it would all be fixed. What about the films already reviewed? You should get some assistants and slowly fix this problem.

I think we could sacrifice that small amount of privacy for peace of mind that we won’t be cheated out of a fair film rating.

About the rubric system:

Even if you do not add a description to every number (1-10) in the rubric I suggest you have them all. There are times we need “In between” Numbers to Justly rate things, and by eliminating some of the numbers you are then controlling what could be a just rating.

I hope you read and consider my suggestions and comments.

-Christopher

“brianfast” wrote: I don’t like the idea of a rubric. I wouldn’t have paid 3 dollars to follow your guidelines. I will rate as I please. I do think the staff ratings being displayed is a good idea, however.

The Rubric system is just a neutral guideline system, it would help members decide how to rate a film. Really, what is to dislike about the rubric system? Could some one please explain?

-Christopher

I apologize to now finally go off topic and addressing more personal points, but I don’t feel it warrants another topic. If anyone wants to respond to anything relating to my own character, I’ll be making a free-for-all thread later today where you can bring it up.

“Ladon” wrote: 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.

I fail to find a better way to phrase this, so excuse me for the outburst, but screw you. I’ve made it clear that I get quite irked when someone claims to know my motives, especially when I have stayed far away from making them known. I also am amazed that you still see this all as some sort of an attack, instead of a legitimate question of your thoughts concerning rating abuse. I am not here to discredit you or make you look foolish; I thought Watson brought up a good point, and defended him. I also don’t know why you assume I actually care who nominated you.

“Ladon” wrote: 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?

“Ladon” wrote: 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.

I thought you said you weren’t here to play politician?

Regardless, when did I ever say I still don’t support you? And even if you no longer had my vote (which you do as of this moment, as no one else has proposed anything yet), am I not allowed to change my mind when new candidates and ideas come forward?

“saul” 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.

Watson is not running to be Grand Master of the Forums, and so it is not really comparable. Or to clarify, Watson is not asking Ladon to respect something important to Watson, but that Ladon respect something that he wishes to be in charge of.

—-

To the current topic of discussion: I’m not sure how I feel about a rubric system. I think Krick brings up a good compromise, in which the rubric is displayed to clarify the ratings, but people can still input the exact numbers they think are correct.

Cometgreen

I would personally like to see what the other candidates have in mind as a plan. Candidates criticizing another candidate without having yet laid out a plan of their own looks desperate and does look like mudslinging. Despite Watson’s concern, this does not need to go on for nearly 3 pages and is almost something that could have been solved privately instead of trying to make a scene which doesn’t look good for the attacking party either.

Ladon’s goals are not set in stone. They’re detailed laid out ideas with multiple examples showing one way to accomplish a revamp of the Film Ratings system which is much more than I can see from any other candidate.

Pierre Films

And there are 24 days left. And these new positions were only announced three days ago.

Cometgreen

“brianfast” wrote: I don’t like the idea of a rubric. I wouldn’t have paid 3 dollars to follow your guidelines. I will rate as I please. I do think the staff ratings being displayed is a good idea, however.

Sir, rating ‘as you please’ is the exact problem here. Because ‘as you please’ isn’t the same as ‘as someone else pleases’, which means that the films aren’t getting the rating that they deserve. If everyone decides for themselves what an average film is, then the ratings are never going to be accurate, and an accurate rating is what the director deserves.

Just something to think about…

The trouble with ratings scales, as has been noted, is that those with extreme opinions, dishonest or not, have a greater affect on the final number than those with more measured opinions, and there is no way to coax everyone to the same level of zeal or moderation in rating. The proposed rubric system is one solution to this, but it demands a certain time commitment from the film reviewer that may be ok for a dedicated ratings group but is, I fear, too large of a barrier for casual reviwers.

The ratings scale problem is similar to that encountered in ratings voting systems: if you want your candidate to win, you’re best off lying and rating that candidate a ten and everyone else a zero. One solution to this is Approval Voting, which does away with the scale and has only “yes” or “no”, eliminating the advantage of those with extreme opinions by forcing everyone to use the extreme. I don’t see how this system would be of much use to brickfilm ratings however.

Another interesting voting system is Ranked Pairs. The voter ranks the candidates from most favored to least favored. This also does away with explicit ratings, reducing the problem of voters gaming the system by rating in the extreme in contradiction to their true ratings. To find the best candidate, Ranked Pairs takes each pair of candidates in turn, A and B, and looks to see if more ballots ranked A above B than B above A; if so, A is better than B. Since any reviewer is unlikely to have seen all films, rather than think in terms of a complete ballot with all candidates or films ranked, it is better to think in terms of preferences such as A above B. A preference of A above B is only added to the ballot box if a reviewer has watched and ranked both A and B.

From an interface usability perspective, the “review a film” part of the film page need ask but a single question to add to the ratings information: it could choose a film from those the reviewer has already watched and simply ask “is this new film better or worse than this old film you’ve already seen?. A more complex version might list some or all of the reviewer’s past rankings and ask for a click setting position the new film in the list. The “rubric” is merely comparing films to one another and requires, I believe, less effort than trying to follow a scoring sheet. It’s certainly not as accurate as a careful and honestly done ratings system; the advantages are simplicity and greater robustness to dishonesty. Of course, implementation would be quite different from what is in place now and possibly not worth the effort.

Then again, this only works for an “overall” or “enjoyment” type category; trying to remember the quality of sound effects in some film you saw 15 months ago to compare to those in the new film might be a bit of a stretch. Of course, relying on memory is also a problem with a fine grained ratings system. “These sound effects deserve a 6 or 7, but they are a little better than that other film which I gave a 6.2 … or was it 6.5?”

other comments on ratings systems vs. rank only