Schlockading's film ratings terminus ad quem

Home Forums Governmental Forums Citizens Schlockading's film ratings terminus ad quem

This topic contains 31 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by Profile photo of Schlockading Schlockading 8 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 32 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #251255
    Profile photo of Cometgreen
    Cometgreen
    Member

    It would be nice to get Rev’s take on rating priveleges, primarily concerning Schlockading’s original proposal. Obviously, who rates films affects the Minister of Film Ratings, but it is still an issue of the patron system, which is an issue of money, which is an issue that should be near and dear to RevMen.

    Cometgreen

    #251257
    Profile photo of RevMen
    RevMen
    Member

    saulgoode, quit stealing my thunder!!!

    I was actually planning on working with the minister of film ratings to implement a system very much like that.

    #251268
    Profile photo of Night Owl
    Night Owl
    Member

    One practice I think is unfair is purposely giving films unrealistic ratings to bump down a score. If one person thinks a film deserves a nine, then there’s no reason why that nine has to be taken out of the average by giving a low rating to counter it. The same applies for bumping up ratings.

    #251274
    Profile photo of An Old Ore
    An Old Ore
    Member

    “RevMen” wrote: …it would introduce the concept of peer pressure in voting…

    Good point, that hadn’t occured to me.

    Don’t be sheep people!!!

    I had thought about suggesting some sort of reward / quota system wereby members (or patrons) were encouraged to rate a minimum number of films. The main problem with this idea is that there would be many people who would simply fill in the ratings without actually watching the films.

    I think that there is also a strong bias towards our equivalent of the summer blockbuster. We see so many fantastic films (like Robota, anything by Nosniborus, Faithless – stuff like that) where the Director spent months (or years) producing the film that when we look at “average” films were the director spent “only” a few weeks on it, it looks like crud when it really isn’t.

    That might be why a lot of the earlier films had such high ratings and so many people react with wonder when they see crappy youtube lego films but we look at them and call it for what it is – a short, cheap film made in an afternoon.

    Okay, I forgot what my point was, but dammit, it was important! Important I tell you!

    An Old Ore, off looking for the marbles that he misplaced……

    #251282
    Profile photo of Schlockading
    Schlockading
    Member

    On Toph’s comment, the thing that I’m trying to get across is that I wouldn’t necessarily want to show who rated how on what films, because it could potentially cause flame wars, etc. There shouldn’t be absolute freedom in giving film ratings, because there has to be something that both the director and people viewing the films can base the ratings off of. With an overall rating standard, people could compare their own personal preference scales with the overall standard to get an exact feeling of what the film is going to be like.

    For qualifications, I disagree with the fact that you should have to be a patron to rate films. Although that might bump down the income a little, I really don’t think that’s the sole reason people sign up for patronage. If there were standards that everyone who wanted to be a rater could qualify under (generally speaking), we could obviously get a better community consensus on the rating of films, and get a lot more rated than currently are. I see everyone’s point about the decimal thing. I think my original intention was to only have integer ratings but have the averages be in decimal form, but I wasn’t thinking straight. Thanks for pointing this out. The Rater Qualification test was sort of just a rough draft of what I had in mind. Z might be overloaded as it is, so I guess I need to formulate a new plan for that. As for saulgoode’s idea, it seems that it would take an eternity and be very cumbersome to rate 100 films before someone else could be nominated. It seems that personal preference would play too much of a part in this type of system. Someone who really wanted to rate films might be never seen by those who are already qualified. Indeed, the entire thing seems like it would take way too long and never get “finished.” I still think there could be a usergroup on the forums that was for qualified raters. I really don’t see how that could be a problem, since creating usergroups is very easy.

    If there were to be any page that needed to be created, it’s a type of thing that wouldn’t have to be constantly monitored by Z. I could probably take care of it. Plus, I was thinking that at a least a few other programming people might be able to assist if they wanted to (Schlaeps, etc.)

    However, it does seem that the OFReP is a bit too cumbersome in the eyes of the people, so I probably will hold off on that for the time being.

    #251284
    Profile photo of Ladon
    Ladon
    Member

    There shouldn’t be absolute freedom in giving film ratings, because there has to be something that both the director and people viewing the films can base the ratings off of.

    This is starting to sound awfully familiar…

    Can you give an example of how people will access and view the ‘overall standard’? Just to make sure we aren’t offering the same thing.

    #251298
    Profile photo of Watson
    Watson
    Member

    I think you should both be able to offer the same things. We don’t have a monopoly on ideas, but borrowing ideas from other candidates might be a bad move politically.

    In any case, I don’t think that area should be considered a stealing of ideas. One of the the notions I had going into this was that it would be one the Minister of Film Rating’s main jobs to clarify what the numbers meant. I think the idea of telling raters what a 5 or 7 or 9 means was more of a requirement for this job, rather than revelation had by one person.

    #251436
    Profile photo of Schlockading
    Schlockading
    Member

    I can tell you, Ladon, that I haven’t read your thread in enough detail to be “stealing” ideas from you. What is yours like? The overall rating standard I am suggesting (which I emphasize will be decided on by vote) will be readily available for viewing on a simple webpage. Where a link to this page would be in still uncertain, but it would be simple to create one that outlined the basic guidelines for how to rate films. That is, not to limit the goal of my campaign – to allow freedom of rating preferences – but to tell people not to give purposely bad ratings, use extreme rating scales, etc. That’s basically what the overall rating standard will be – not anything too drastic.

    I don’t see what you mean by “revelation,” Watson. Could you elaborate a bit?

    #251478
    Profile photo of Toph
    Toph
    Member

    There shouldn’t be absolute freedom in giving film ratings, because there has to be something that both the director and people viewing the films can base the ratings off of.

    Why can’t there be? Everyone will rate as they see fit, and most of the time, it will be pretty similar. But the few people that don’t rate a film in general accordance with the rest of the group will have their votes (along with each individual) shown to the public. If a film gets ratings which most people feel are undeserved, they will see that not everybody holds that opinion. The rogue voter can still rate, but no one will hold his vote in high esteem.

    To sum that up, I think the best way to deal with bad raters is to let them fall into their own trap. If they want to act that way, they’ll lose respect and their films might get poor ratings. I think most raters will be mature enough not to let this get between them, however. This would require that the individual votes go public, but I can see you wouldn’t approve of that.

    On the issue of flame wars, I can think of two examples. The first is TCOTY, which has already been discussed plenty in Ladon’s thread. The second is my own film, Stilts. In the 10 brick contest, I negatively reviewed a competitor’s film, and it wasn’t very constructive or wise of me to do so. We ended up in a little fight, and he gave Stilts a very low rating in the competition (it eventually placed 9th out of 20-something movies). I felt that the rating was out of place, but I came to learn to not give anybody a good reason to do that to me. I have come to see it as a good thing.

    And by the way, I don’t think you should reformat your entire system if you think that’s best. I’m just giving my opinion on how this position should be run, and it would be fine to end up agreeing to disagree.

    #251522
    Profile photo of Schlockading
    Schlockading
    Member

    Sounds fine to me. But you’re saying that people’s ratings should be shown publicly because they’re bad? That doesn’t really make sense. There has to be some sort of order to it, or else the ratings system won’t change at all, and that’s the whole point my campaign is trying to get across.

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 32 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.