In response to Deadron (#38)
Deadron wrote:
It's one thing to have a general issue with the system. It's another to insult those putting a lot of work into it.

If you want others to be thoughtful and professional in their approach, then perhaps you should start by presenting the same yourself.

I agree with you 100% Deadron, the comment was in reference to what Nadrew replied.
Nadrew: "I would hate that, really. I only review when I feel like it, and having a set date would only make me not want to do it more."

LJR

ps. ANYWAYS.. I've attempted to make a point, shared my views.. and don't really to carry this any further. Thank you.
In response to LordJR (#39)
LordJR wrote:
It may of been in a thread up. The guideline I'd like to see in place(not to be as blunt and rude as my rebutters) is just to have a system setup BY the reviewers themselves to a timely review. I don't play a part in that process so I'm sure among yourselves you can come up with something better than currently in place.

Define "timely". =) Remember that nothing is being reviewed at the moment, pending changes to the system. After they're completed, it should speed up a bit.

From what I've gotten so far from most the staff, is they most want these positions not to fill a need, but for personal reasons.

Bull. If that isn't unfair, I don't know what is. What personal reasons? Do you have any basis for those allegations?

This isn't the issue here.
In the past I was told it wasn't.. yet.. still things were being put off time and time again.

Eh? I don't remember any reviewers having to take time off for any reason.

Excuse me if this is a little blunt, but complaining that the reviewers are lazy sounds extremely selfish and rubbishes all of the hard volunteer work the reviewers have been doing.

I find a problem with that Deadron..

Deadron? Me? I'm honoured. =D You do know I (Crispy) am not even a reviewer, right?

you're speak up as though people were doing a great job! I beg to differ.. I'm sure there are many more out there who would enjoy the chance to review and in a more responsible time.

But can they be trusted? And how does Dantom know that they can be trusted? Are they helpful to newbies and do they conduct themselves well (on the forums and in general)? Have they made enough valuable contributions to the community, to show that all of the above isn't just an act? Are they responsible enough to be impartial judges?

Actually, forget that. Let's just make EVERYONE reviewers! Then they can approve their friends' games and reject the games of people they don't like, regardless of quality! Reject Wars for all! =P

Also the lazy statement was only taken out of context from one of your own reviewers. If you missed it, you may want to see where that first came into discussion.

You mean accusing people of not doing a job "on time" isn't calling them lazy? How'd you figure that?

Out of most the reviewers, I saw Nadrew taking up most the slack, and doing from what I could tell a great job. Some of the other newer reviewers even complained of not having anything to review, I'm sure they were doing go work as well.

If they don't have anything left to review, doesn't that indicate that something must be going right? =P

I'll repeat again I would just like a agreed upon timeframe to be set into place, not slack on the fact that everyone here is giving their time, therefore bottle necking the process and making hard working developers have to wait.

And I'll repeat again that (1) it will speed up, and (2) I see no need for scheduled reviewing periods, as long as things are reviewed within a week or so (if they aren't, see #1).

Is there anything here I've not made myself clear on? I really only have two issues with the review process.
1) The amount of time it takes and not having an set standard

It will improve, and I still fail to see the need for strict schedules. Just makes everyone's life harder.

2) The lax mentality that if you are a volunteer of your time you not to be held to any timeframe or responsiblity. I'm sure your local Fire Dept would like to use that one.

Ha! Thanks, that made me laugh. =) In all seriousness, though, the situation here is on a completely different scale. Firefighters have the responsibility of protecting people from loss of lives and/or property. If BYOND game reviewers don't do their job at a particular time, the worst thing that can happen is that someone has to wait few weeks longer to get their game accepted or rejected. The two situations just don't compare.

I'd also like to note that, at least in Australia, there are paid firefighters as well as volunteers. Some people have entire careers built on extinguishing fires. =)
In response to LordJR (#39)
LordJR wrote:
Is there anything here I've not made myself clear on? I really only have two issues with the review process.
1) The amount of time it takes and not having an set standard
2) The lax mentality that if you are a volunteer of your time you not to be held to any timeframe or responsiblity. I'm sure your local Fire Dept would like to use that one.

We will work to improve this. Most likely be making reviews occur less often for fewer games, but more reliably.
In response to Deadron (#42)
1) Offical Review
-General overall 1-10
-Can request a re-review after 90 days.
2) Player Review
-Each key can vote 1-10
-Can reset total score

-Salarn
In response to Salarn (#43)
90 days?
I find that to be a bit harsh. I mean what If I'm reviewed then answer within 14 days. I make the changes the reviewer suggested. does that mean I must wait 76 days before I can ask to be renewed again?
I think what is happening now is a good system.
In response to Nadrew (#26)
But this would rid of the mystery of when reviews will happen, and stop those annoying "When will my game be reviewed?" posts. It also is more professional than just do it whenever you feel like it.

All reviewers may be volunteers, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be rules for them too. It does give a set date, but you can set the date to however far ahead as you need if you don't like reviewing often. Also, being a reviewer doesn't come without rewards, maybe not as much for you because you have to review a huge amount, but I, along with probably most other reviewers, consider it a privilege to review, not a job. If you find it to be such a hassle, why not get more trusted volunteers to help on the job?
In response to LordJR (#28)
Definition of professional: Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.

Gee, so you want VOLUNTEERS, who are working FOR FREE, to act more like people who would NOT WORK FOR FREE? How logical!
In response to LordJR (#39)
Excuse me if this is a little blunt, but complaining that the reviewers are lazy sounds extremely selfish and rubbishes all of the hard volunteer work the reviewers have been doing.

I find a problem with that Deadron.. you're speak up as though people were doing a great job! I beg to differ.. I'm sure there are many more out there who would enjoy the chance to review and in a more responsible time. Also the lazy statement was only taken out of context from one of your own reviewers. If you missed it, you may want to see where that first came into discussion.

Uh, for one thing, Deadron didn't say that. For another thing, many other people want to be able to review, but the opportunity isn't there because the system, as it currently stands, can't support it. That is why it's being revamped, which is the point of this whole thread.

Schedules are never part of this volunteer work, though. Otherwise it's not volunteer work, it's mandatory work. There is a difference between having a set list of things that must be done each day, and having a set list of things for each person to do each day. Dantom can't afford to pay anyone to do the hub reviewing, so at this point, it will exclusively be volunteer work. The process can get some kinks removed, yes, but forcing people to adhere to specific schedules erases the first word from "volunteer work" and just turns it into "work".
In response to Kunark (#45)
This is the kind of person I want to have on the BYOND review team. He shows the clear line of those who have worked in a professional enviroment opposed to those who haven't!

Cheers Kunark!
LJR

Kunark wrote:
But this would rid of the mystery of when reviews will happen, and stop those annoying "When will my game be reviewed?" posts. It also is more professional than just do it whenever you feel like it.

All reviewers may be volunteers, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be rules for them too. It does give a set date, but you can set the date to however far ahead as you need if you don't like reviewing often. Also, being a reviewer doesn't come without rewards, maybe not as much for you because you have to review a huge amount, but I, along with probably most other reviewers, consider it a privilege to review, not a job. If you find it to be such a hassle, why not get more trusted volunteers to help on the job?
In response to Garthor (#46)
Garthor wrote:
Definition of professional: Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.

Gee, so you want VOLUNTEERS, who are working FOR FREE, to act more like people who would NOT WORK FOR FREE? How logical!

Look up professionalism next time will ya? Its covers a broader sense than what your trying to imply here.

LJR
In response to LordJR (#49)
LordJR wrote:
Look up professionalism next time will ya? Its covers a broader sense than what your trying to imply here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=professionalism

The most relevant entry I see there is "Professional status, methods, character, or standards." Which then requires a definition of "professional"...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=professional

Most of the entries there refer to paid activities, or to being an expert.

Which meaning(s) did you mean? =)
In response to Crispy (#50)
In LordJR's defense, though, the word "professional" doesn't necessary have to only apply to those who are getting paid... It can be used to describe anyone who performs a task seriously, as a professional would...

So I can see what he's getting at... Just because these guys aren't getting paid, doesn't mean they can't take the job seriously, and perform professionally, rather than the very relaxed system currently in place... The mentality of "I'll get to it when I get to it, but I don't feel like it right now" seems to be the norm...

Asking someone to adopt a professional work ethic even when they're only doing a volunteer job is perfectly acceptable...

However, I personally disagree with putting deadlines on the reviewers... After all, they've all got lives of their own to take care of, and reviewing BYOND games can't always be their number one priority... [i]Especially[/i] since it's an unpaid job...

And to be perfectly honest, having a game reviewed for inclusion on a BYOND channel isn't a life or death situation... In fact, it's not even [i]important[/i] in the grand scheme of things... I mean, no one here relies on getting their works accepted into a game channel... No one makes a living off of this site...

If having a creation reviewed were something that held more importance, then I'd definitely crack the whip on the reviewers... But as it stands, it's just not a huge priority...

And frankly, anyone who gets impatient waiting for their game to be reviewed needs to rearrange their own priorities... Sure, it's nice to see your work up in the spotlight, or at least to get some feedback on what to improve to get it there, but honestly, it's not going to kill you to wait a while... So my general thought towards people who make this complaint is: [i]quit whining[/i]...

Of course, I agree that the process should be sped up (and it most likely will be sometime in the near future)... But even if it isn't, it's no big deal... And definitely not worth all of this controversy...
In response to SuperSaiyanGokuX (#51)
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:
[snip]
Asking someone to adopt a professional work ethic even when they're only doing a volunteer job is perfectly acceptable...

Perhaps, but it shouldn't be required.

However, I personally disagree with putting deadlines on the reviewers... After all, they've all got lives of their own to take care of, and reviewing BYOND games can't always be their number one priority... Especially since it's an unpaid job... [snip] So my general thought towards people who make this complaint is: quit whining...

Hear hear! =)

Of course, I agree that the process should be sped up (and it most likely will be sometime in the near future)... But even if it isn't, it's no big deal... And definitely not worth all of this controversy...

Indeed.
In response to SuperSaiyanGokuX (#51)
I think the thing that annoys people most about the current system is that it isnt a case of wait a while and your game will be up in the channel, its a case of wait awhile get a list of changes, wait longer get another list of changes, get in.
Im not saying that they should loosen the rules and accept junk, Im just saying that is why its so frustrating to wait a long time.
In response to DarkView (#53)
I just think we need more guys reviewing the games. For example, I send off my game to be reviewed, and get a nice polite response a while later. I then make the change, get another change to make etc. If more people were reviewing, then more games would get reviewed, so the games would get better.

In fact, I'd like to review games.
In response to Hazman (#54)
I think Dan and Tom would like to get more people reviewing games, but their isnt enough trust in the community.
I would like to be a reviewer aswell, but too Dantom I probably appear as just another kid after instant/easy respect, who will walk away when it gets hard or abuse the power.
In response to DarkView (#55)
I agree. I would love to be a reviewer, but I just don't think that I have the open mindedness to review some of the games that I've played. I am sort of prejeduce to icon/DBZ games, and the games that I feel don't really have a high quality...after playing HrH, almost no graphical RPG seems to be good enough....
In response to DarkView (#55)
DarkView wrote:
I think Dan and Tom would like to get more people reviewing games, but their isnt enough trust in the community.

In some cases this is pretty true, not many people trust others.

But, off of this case now :) -- On to my point :P

I would offer my services as a reviewer, and would do my job daily by checking whether or not any games need to be reviewed.

I have the open-mindedness to give out the best result any game is worthy of -- Meaning; If say EoE is worth a 7 graphically, 4 for Gameplay, 5 for effort, then I would give my game an overall total of 5.

(That was an example)

Anyhow, that is how I would give my game a review, because the graphics aren't bad, but the RM2k sprites put the graphics down, the turfs and objects make up for the sprites downfall.

The gameplay is low because there is little to do within the game and the system as an overall is rather slugish.

The effort put into the game is at an average, because I became very unmotivated and started slacking off from the project and for months it has been untouched.

Anyhow, other games, ranging from FanGames down to all-time classics like Lexiconomy would be given the best review as they deserve, based upon their current practical statistics.

Time to the main point, as much as I would love to be a reviewer, and as much as I could possibly talk about it, I am not the one to decide if I am a reviewer.

The choice would be Dan's, Tom's and the current reviewers. -- They would decide on whether or not the applicant is trustworthy, capable and indefinitely try to make sure they would give out fair results.

IE;

Good Reviewer; Reviews the games he/she hates fairly and gives a result that best fits the game without involving the judgement of hatred.

Bad Reviewer; Would not give a decent enough rating to games that he/she hates. Say, their favourite game is rated 7 overall, and the hated game is worth a 7 overall, he/she would more-than-likely derate the overall score/review based on how much they hate that particular game.

Anyway, I am babbling >:P

--Lee
In response to LordJR (#48)
They are volunteers, in which they have more freedom, but if you want a job done right and well, you get people who are going to get the job done... If you are going to set up a voluntary (spelling?) hot line for say, drug abuse, you don't allow someone in who is a drug dealer, just because he is the only one available. No, instead you keep trying.

They have a point when they say that they are volunteers and they are doing it for the good of the community, so just work around their schedule, but, they need to realize that like I said, it isn't really even volunteer "work" to most people, it is a privilege, and them stepping down would allow ones who want to regardless of what rules are set to step in.

They have been doing a great job once they came in, for the reviewers before them pretty much were hardly ever heard from, and I think the review system is OK for how it is, for about once a month for all is an ok time.
In response to Hazman (#54)
As I stated elsewhere on this thread, Dantom already has plenty of people that want to be able to review -- but since the system is currently on hold, adding them is pointless at the moment.
Page: 1 2 3 4