I'd like to say something about the state of the Level Judges.

[aero]

Oh right, I'm supposed to make color coded 10-scale reviews with a mini paragraph that says nothing. That's what's constructive.

Nobody is fine with it. I have people PMing me about how much shit sucks but there is such a hostile environment for critique around here that they would rather leave quietly or PM. You are disposable.

[PixelPest]

Oh right, I'm supposed to make color coded 10-scale reviews with a mini paragraph that says nothing. That's what's constructive.

This is another one of your issues. You state that people have said things that they haven't. You have almost no experience in the field of level judging, yet you act like you're the best one at at. Well let me tell you something: you're not. What you call reviews are small bits if criticism that touch on very few of the important things in reviews--they are not reviews.

Nobody is fine with it. I have people PMing me about how much shit sucks but there is such a hostile environment for critique around here that they would rather leave quietly or PM. You are disposable.

I highly doubt it. If you really do it's their own faults. We enforce the guidelines. If people don't follow them we respectfully tell them that what they've done is against the rules. If they freak out about it, not our issue

[DarkWolf658]

I actually wouldn't mind more active judges. Afterall, I did wait around 4 months for a review on a level while others get their's within hours. So maybe the level judges should review the oldest levels first? Proof for post http://www.smbxgame.com/forums/v ... 64&t=12396

[glitch4]

I actually wouldn't mind more active judges. Afterall, I did wait around 4 months for a review on a level while others get their's within hours. So maybe the level judges should review the oldest levels first? Proof for post http://www.smbxgame.com/forums/v ... 64&t=12396

I'll try to review the old levels this week as I'm done with reviewing all kaizo levels and I don't have busy stuff anymore.

[CynicHost]

Oh right, I'm supposed to make color coded 10-scale reviews with a mini paragraph that says nothing. That's what's constructive.

While I kinda get where you're coming from, I feel like there's no better system to judge levels other than the current one, which is very organized.

[aero]

Oh right, I'm supposed to make color coded 10-scale reviews with a mini paragraph that says nothing. That's what's constructive.

While I kinda get where you're coming from, I feel like there's no better system to judge levels other than the current one, which is very organized.

You do understand that levels are sitting for weeks and months at a time with little to no attention from users, and typically none at all from judges right? Or that once a thread is moved, it dies? Getting rid of this arbitrary and pseudo-objective nonsense that comes from LJs is far more organized since there's none of that clutter. It's all a mask of professionalism that stifles efficiency and actively discourages positive outcomes.

[diamantico21]

I think there should be a mark system that rewards people which are helpful to the community, furthermore, if someone does good reviews and has an high number of marks, he can become, if he wants, a LevelJudge.
The main problem now is having a big part of the community getting involved in level judging because doing it now would just look like a "waste of time" if they don't want to become level judges.
More people care about level judging, more people become level judges, less levels would still un-reviewed after a month. On a sidenote, there should really be a part dedicated to the "most helpful user/s of the week/month".

[PixelPest]

I actually wouldn't mind more active judges. Afterall, I did wait around 4 months for a review on a level while others get their's within hours. So maybe the level judges should review the oldest levels first? Proof for post http://www.smbxgame.com/forums/v ... 64&t=12396

I almost always review oldest first. It's obvious that others don't since I have a level posted in January that doesn't have an official review still

Will you? It's obviously a stalemate since you're too stubborn and full of pride to learn from people who know more about things than you do and to I don't-know-what to even listen

[aero]

I think there should be a mark system that rewards people which are helpful to the community, furthermore, if someone does good reviews and has an high number of marks, he can become, if he wants, a LevelJudge.
The main problem now is having a big part of the community getting involved in level judging because doing it now would just look like a "waste of time" if they don't want to become level judges.
More people care about level judging, more people become level judges, less levels would still un-reviewed after a month. On a sidenote, there should really be a part dedicated to the "most helpful user/s of the week/month".

We used to have a reputation system but this community can't handle that sort of thing. And for getting people interested in level judging, the Level Judges group has to be abolished. What is the point of reviewing or talking about a level after it has an """"""""""official"""""""""" review, y'know?

[Valtteri]

Level judges' reviews weigh more because we pick the level judges based on whether they're competent reviewers.

[aero]

Yeah well that's dumb though and you're doing a terrible job at it.

[HeroLinik]

I think there should be a mark system that rewards people which are helpful to the community, furthermore, if someone does good reviews and has an high number of marks, he can become, if he wants, a LevelJudge.
The main problem now is having a big part of the community getting involved in level judging because doing it now would just look like a "waste of time" if they don't want to become level judges.
More people care about level judging, more people become level judges, less levels would still un-reviewed after a month. On a sidenote, there should really be a part dedicated to the "most helpful user/s of the week/month".

What should be done is a global announcement get put up asking that more level judges are needed, and then outlining the process on how to do it.

[underFlo]

Why shouldn't the ones reviewing stuff be the ones competent at reviewing tho

[aero]

Because they don't review in a timely manner.
Because their reviews aren't that spectacular to merit an entire group.
Because it heavily discourages activity from other people which could have helped level makers.
Because they pretend to be moderators instead of reviewing levels.

[HeroLinik]

Because they don't review in a timely manner.
Because their reviews aren't that spectacular to merit an entire group.
Because it heavily discourages activity from other people which could have helped level makers.
Because they pretend to be moderators instead of reviewing levels.

If that's the case, then the problem doesn't lie with the judges themselves, but with the actual regulations surrounding them. They're just not stringent enough to allow someone that has not reviewed in a month to retain the position. They were made to review levels, and the moderator thing is a side-benefit, and you're making it seem as though it's the other way round. And the way you're phrasing it makes it seem as though there is a common stereotype among all the level judges in that their reviews are terrible, when they were picked because they make good reviews.

And then again, it's been stated before you clearly do not know how level judging works because you've never been one. This information is coming from a person who has been a level judge almost five times.

[aero]

If that's the case, then the problem doesn't lie with the judges themselves, but with the actual regulations surrounding them.

What I described hinges upon the whole concept of there being a group that gives "official" reviews. Sure, the regulations around them are just as bad but they're not the only part of the problem.

They were made to review levels, and the moderator thing is a side-benefit, and you're making it seem as though it's the other way round.

What?

And the way you're phrasing it makes it seem as though there is a common stereotype among all the level judges in that their reviews are terrible, when they were picked because they make good reviews.

I didn't phrase it that way at all and you know it. This whole thread I've been talking about arbitrary 10-score reviews and nothing about the quality of the reviews that would suggest they're terrible.

And then again, it's been stated before you clearly do not know how level judging works because you've never been one. This information is coming from a person who has been a level judge almost five times.

That was coming from the weak link of the Level Judges, and honestly it means nothing. I don't have to be a Level Judge to make the two second observation that the system that's in place is stagnating activity in the Levels forum, and I don't have to be a Level Judge to know what's best. This attitude is just elitist and cancerous.

[zlaker]

and slacking off but still tho.

.◠.

[aero]

♪~ ᕕ(ᐛ)ᕗ

[Zipper]

so what happened to the "good level judging should be a 'badge', not a state of power" idea earlier in the thread

[Valtteri]

Turned down in the light of the fact that we're already pretty much doing that. The only difference would be passing the level judges' mod duties to the moderators and it wouldn't fix anything to just have the mods do the moving instead of the judges.