Thread Rating Warnings

[2010DigitalBoy]

[COLOR=DarkOrange]I can't help but find the enforcement of ratings in the Anthology to be a bit overdone.

I think it's a bit extreme to close some one's post just because they forgot a rating. Perhaps a major warning or something could work? I mean, I know they can redo the post, but I've never seen it actually done. I think it scares a lot of people away who go to the Anthology first. There have been many times where I have seen a new mwmber post a poem, get it closed, and then never show up again.

I don't know if it's possible or not, but I wish this were a little less strick. The Anthology is not the most lively of areas and this is not helping.[/COLOR]

[James]

[font=arial]I understand your concern, but all we really do is ask people to copy and paste their post and create a new thread with a rating.

Unfortunately members can not edit thread titles. This means that they can not include a rating after the thread is posted.

At the same time, I'm not sure if it's reasonable to have Moderators slapping ratings on everything all the time - it would take a while and would end up being a waste of their time (when they could actually be moderating content).

In the future we will have a way to prevent this problem through software, but at the moment I don't think we can do anything on a technical level (other than give members the ability to edit threads, which I am not prepared to do).

Depending on the size of the forum though, it might be possible to trial the idea of Moderators just editing threads. So we'll see how that goes.

But believe me, I understand your concern - I have the same issue with the current system.[/font]

[Doublehex]

While we are on the topic of thread ratings, why is it that the 'teen' rating is PG? That makes no sense to me - when I see PG, I think kid stuff. I think something like Shrek. But when I tried to make my 'Summoners of the New Age' PG-13, I was told Ozymanndius Jones that PG was the teen rating. That makes no sense whatsoever. I want to ask why can't PG be replaced with PG-13?

[Ikillion]

[color=#d2b43b][SIZE=1][FONT=Trebuchet MS]^
Reason unus: Because in the official thread, there is no PG-13 rating, so just smile and nod.

More elaborate / explanitory reason duo: When you want to go and divulge the difference between PG and PG-13 really isnt to much, the main differences being that one has more violence, cursing, and what not. There are some PG movies that really test the bounderies on sliding into the next catergory. An example of this could the fat that even in high school, although we are all 13+ we must still have a signed parent permission form to even see a move which we could probably just go out to a theater and see the same thing. So I guess you could say that they had instead "Rounded off" the ratings, sending PG-13 to PG, and (most) PG to E. Besides, does it really matter that much >.>;

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in some way, since that all just poped into my head while doing Latin homework (hence the numbers).[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[DeadSeraphim]

[quote name='James][font=arial']At the same time, I'm not sure if it's reasonable to have Moderators slapping ratings on everything all the time - it would take a while and would end up being a waste of their time (when they could actually be moderating content).[/font][/quote]
[size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]Maybe a system. They do it for members only once or twice, but if its consistent they get locked regardless.[/font][/color][/size]

[Sandy]

The ratings don't have that much to do with people's ages than they have with the content. There's no way to prevent say a sixteen years old person to participate in a M-rated RPG, nor there should be, because if the sixteen years old person thinks he or she can take whatever the game includes, then it's appropriate for him or her.

It's the same other way around: some over eighteen years old people don't want to participate in games with gore, swearing and sex, and with the rating system, they can avoid that type of games.

So think the ratings outside their "real-life" context, they are not there for censorship, just as enforced guidelines.

What comes to closing threads scaring people away, if the mod has closed it with respect towards the creator and no humiliation involved (so the blame's not on the [I]way[/I] the mod closed the thread), then those people should really go into themselves: are they perhaps too sensitive? It really isn't that hard to copy everything and paste it to a new thread, [i]although[/i] at least I am case-sensitive when it comes to missing ratings - usually if the other content inside the RPG is good/great, I'll PM the creator and ask for the rating. It doesn't happen very often, but that's just my way of doing this job.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

When it comes to the thread ratings, I have to admit I've always felt that a decent thread that simply lacks a rating should just have one added to it rather than being closed, it always seems a bit spammy to see a bunch of threads closed for lacking a rating. Of course that's not to say anything against the Arena's staff, often threads that lack ratings are simply stuff thrown together without any real effort and thus would be closed anyway. However having hit the return button by accident while still posting a thread, it's annoying to have to PM a friend on the staff and have them change it.

As for the ratings themselves, there's been arguments before for an additional rating of T for teen to compensate for those threads that wouldn't be PG but still not fall enough into the M category. Personally I think there should be an additional rating, but that's a debate for another time.[/SIZE]

[Ezekiel]

[SIZE=1]As James said, it would be frustrating for moderators to have to PM a person, ask them for a rating and then edit it in. It's much easier for the person to just recreate the thread entirely.

I know myself and a few other Arena mods will edit in a rating if we can clearly see the creator has simply forgotten it, but more often than not threads without a rating are breaking a few other rules as well because the members are new and simply aren't aware of how we run things.

As for the rating system, as far as I've always seen it, they just represent Low, Medium and High. I don't usually relate E to something only kiddies would watch, just the fact that it has no mature content. I'm pretty sure that's how the ratings were meant to be seen; so saying 'PG-13' would be a little redundant, as PG simply means it will have mild mature content.

I like DeadSeraphim's idea, too, and I'd be willing to work with that.[/SIZE]

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=Ezekiel][SIZE=1]
I like DeadSeraphim's idea, too, and I'd be willing to work with that.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

With new members posting new games weekly, along with all the older members with their new games, I for one could not keep a track on who I've already put a rating for once and who not - and the sheer amount of PMs we'd have to send! X/ Plus, with four mods working on the Adventure Square, we wouldn't know who has already sent a PM to which member, and just the thought of that is making my head hurt!

Trust me when I say, people, the current system is the simplest. You'll get it if you'll ever get the chance to moderate the Arena. The simplest solution is the best.

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']However having hit the return button by accident while still posting a thread, it's annoying to have to PM a friend on the staff and have them change it.[/SIZE][/quote]

It'd be equally annoying for us to have to PM the user about what rating he or she would prefer to have in her game. [I]And[/I] we would most likely have to send that kind of PM much more often than the single user in this current system. Try to think about our workload, too. We aren't exactly paid employees here...

We do this out of the goodness of our hearts! <3

[2010DigitalBoy]

[COLOR=DarkOrange]Well, I don't want to change the rule that we put ratings in our thread, but if someone forgets or something they shouldn't loose their whole post.

And also, isn't it quicker to edit a title real quick instead of going through the trouble of writing a message explaining the close?

EDIT:

[quote name='Sandy']What comes to closing threads scaring people away, if the mod has closed it with respect towards the creator and no humiliation involved (so the blame's not on the way the mod closed the thread), then those people should really go into themselves: are they perhaps too sensitive?[/quote]

Look at it from the eyes of a new member. Somone they've never met or heard of is basically telling them that their post isn't good enough. Some people take it in stride, but I wouldn't hold it against someone to take that to heart. There are some times when it feels like you're being looked down on in these cases.

Also, does their sensitivity level have anything to do with this?[/COLOR]

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE=James][font=arial]
In the future we will have a way to prevent this problem through software, but at the moment I don't think we can do anything on a technical level (other than give members the ability to edit threads, which I am not prepared to do).
[/font][/QUOTE][color=crimson] Didn't OB remove this feature because people who were getting pwned in their debates were deleting their threads?

In that case, is there an option the Admins can select that would allow members to edit thread titles, but not delete the thread? I know members can still edit their post, so would it be a big leap to allow them to edit the title too?

That would come in handy for any spelling mistake on behalf of the OP. Instead of leaving it up to a mod, the OP can correct his/her mistakes.[/color]

[James]

[QUOTE=Shinje][color=crimson] Didn't OB remove this feature because people who were getting pwned in their debates were deleting their threads?

In that case, is there an option the Admins can select that would allow members to edit thread titles, but not delete the thread? I know members can still edit their post, so would it be a big leap to allow them to edit the title too?

That would come in handy for any spelling mistake on behalf of the OP. Instead of leaving it up to a mod, the OP can correct his/her mistakes.[/color][/QUOTE]

[font=arial]The problem is that, as far as our software is concerned, "editing" includes "deleting". If we allow members to edit threads, they can also delete them (in the same way that they can delete posts).

When a member deletes their own post, however, the post is only given what we call a "soft delete". This means that no members can see the post, but [i]Moderators[/i] can view the post even after it's been removed. We can then hard delete it (completely remove it) or we can restore it and make it visible again.

I'm not yet certain if this can be done with threads or not. I would have to investigate that first.[/font]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DarkRed] [quote name='2006DigitalBoy][COLOR=DarkOrange] I mean, I know they can redo the post, but I've never seen it actually done. I think it scares a lot of people away who go to the Anthology first. There have been many times where I have seen a new mwmber post a poem, get it closed, and then never show up again.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]One of the reasons you don't seem to see members reposting a thread that they created without the proper rating, is that some of them do re-post it and then edit the original asking a moderator to delete it. Something I have done several times. In fact I removed such a thread just this week since the member reposted it with the required rating. And since as Gavin put it: [QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1'] However having hit the return button by accident while still posting a thread[/SIZE][/quote]I don?t give a member who has done this any grief as it wasn?t a case of ignoring the rules. I just remove the redundant thread. [QUOTE=2006DigitalBoy][COLOR=DarkOrange]Well, I don't want to change the rule that we put ratings in our thread, but if someone forgets or something they shouldn't loose their whole post.

And also, isn't it quicker to edit a title real quick instead of going through the trouble of writing a message explaining the close?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]It may seem quicker, but the one problem I see with simply editing someone?s thread is although it may start out at a pg rating, even with poetry they may be planning on later adding more mature content to the thread they started. So the only way to be sure about the proper rating would be to pm the member to ask them. And in the long run simply closing the thread and asking them to repost it is far more efficient. At least I think so as that means you don?t have to keep track of whom you?ve sent pm?s to or who has answered, or worry about closing it later if they don?t respond. [/COLOR]

[Lady Asphyxia]

[font=Arial][size=2]As one of the mods who were around when the ratings system first came in, I think it's important to understand both sides of the debate. When the system first came in, it was being completely ignored. I sent many, [i]many[/i] PMs to [often] the same people, asking for their rating, reminding them that they need to post the thread, following up, changing the rating. So the process included; seeing the offending thread, writing and sending the PM, getting the reply, and then editting the thread. To change one thread would often take at least several days, which was ridiculous.

Now, we see the offending post, and we lock the thread. Problem solved.

That said, I tend to think that ratings are all subjective, just like most cases when you become a moderator. If a member is new and has missed it, I try to explain sincerely why their thread is being closed. It's important for all the Arena moderators to keep in mind that although we've closed numerous amounts of unrated threads, the people whose threads are being closed haven't always [i]posted[/i] numerous amounts of unrated threads -- and I honestly believe that all the staff in the Arena keep that in mind.

If anyone forgets a rating, my best advice would be to [b]edit your thread to include it in the post, even though it won't show up on the main forum page[/b]. I know that I, and all the other Arena mods that I've spoken to, will simply edit the thread to include the rating you've added. It takes us all of two seconds, and we aren't unreasonable. We know very well that you can't edit thread titles on the main page, so we do keep an eye out.

To be honest, I would absolutely dread having another 'edit rule' come in. It's time consuming, frustrating and it felt pointless.

As for the E, PG, and M ratings; when it first came in, we discussed which ratings to use in depth, and we revisited the issue after we'd brought them in. We felt that it would be too difficult to bring in a new rating and stop people from becoming confused. I would think that most ratings on the boards would be PG. The way I define PG, honestly, is 'not E, but not M'. It's the inbetween, sort of the blanket rating.

[quote][/size][/font][color=DarkOrange]
Look at it from the eyes of a new member. Somone they've never met or heard of is basically telling them that their post isn't good enough. Some people take it in stride, but I wouldn't hold it against someone to take that to heart. There are some times when it feels like you're being looked down on in these cases.[/quote][color=Black][size=2][font=Arial]I don't think it's like that, at all. I always check when I close a thread to see how long a member has been there; whether they're still a new member or not. If they are, I will always make sure I explain it properly.

[quote][/font][/size][/color][/color]
[font=Arial][size=2]Welcome to OB Anthology, madwitch5! Before you begin posting here, I'm going to get you to read the OB Anthology Basics, which you can find [b][url="http://otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=44313"]here[/url][/b]. It has details on all the rules that are specific to OB Anthology, including the Ratings System.

The Ratings System requires all creative threads in OB Anthology to have a maturity rating, such as [E], [PG] or [M]. Any thread that does not have that rating must be closed.

However, you can recreate this thread with the appropriate rating.

Thread Closed.[/quote]I don't honestly see how that could be offensive to a new member.

When it comes to thread ratings, it's all subjective. If I know for a fact that a member almost always posts a rating and has just forgotten [and you can pick it up quite easily, just be searching their past threads], then I'll PM them. If a member is just ignoring the rules, I'll close the thread. If it's a new member, I'll close the thread and explain it as fully as possible. If they need further help, I'll give it.

At the moment we have [b]seven[/b] moderators in The Arena, four of which [not including myself] are in Adventure square. I know for a fact that all of these moderators are very active, and very good at their jobs, but they aren't always online at the same time. So how do we keep that kind of communication up, to have an 'edit, close' system?

I think the best thing is to make it clear to new members that they are more than welcome to create a new thread, and leave it at that. When the new software comes in, it should be much easier, and until then, I think we should leave it as it is. It isn't the perfect system -- nothing ever is -- but it's a temporary one, and I think it's preferable to the alternatives. [/size][/font]

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=Sandy]It'd be equally annoying for us to have to PM the user about what rating he or she would prefer to have in her game. [I]And[/I] we would most likely have to send that kind of PM much more often than the single user in this current system. Try to think about our workload, too. We aren't exactly paid employees here...

We do this out of the goodness of our hearts! <3[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]Well actually what I meant Sandy, and this was probably me being unclear was that the moderator who is reading the thread simply assigns a rating based on the perceived content. Generally most of us add a kind of "Here's what to expect" segment for those who might be unclear, but I can definitely understand your point of view in regard to having to PM everyone who forgets a rating.[/SIZE]

[Sandy]

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']Well actually what I meant Sandy, and this was probably me being unclear was that the moderator who is reading the thread simply assigns a rating based on the perceived content. [/SIZE][/quote]

Oh, okay.

But if [I]I[/I] got to decide what rating should go to what game, most of the games that the creator rated [M-LVS] would be [E] or at most [PG]. Like the game featuring cute warrior cats, which is now rated [PG-LV]. XP

As it is, I just have to trust the game creator to put a correct rating in it (although there have been cases when I've adviced the creator to put a lower rating for the game - like for instance in a game with a [M-LVS] rating, the creator stated that s/he doesn't want any sex or too harsh language in it).

But who are we mods [I]really[/I] to say what rating your game should have and what not? It's the creator's game, and as long as it follows the basic guidelines about grammar and post length, the contents can be just as mild or excessive as the creator wants.

[Ellerby]

[COLOR=DimGray][FONT=Tahoma]If they forgot a rating, then it's their own fault. They deserve to have to recreate the thread. lol[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]Without bothering to read any of the other posts in this thread, I have a suggestion.

Any thread posted has the title scanned for [M] [PG] [XXX] etc. and if there is no rating found [in square or regular brackets] then a popup message shows which tells them that their thread must have a rating.

It's definitely possible, as another forum I am at warns the user if they have the word 'banned' in their message.[/size]