The Review Game
News: We have a new For Fun thread called Chain Story! Go crazy with it.
New Follow Forum Follow Topic
« Prev Page 1 .. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 19 .. Last Next »
simpleplan13

I know you said you were on vacation, so I dunno when you'll get this, but you're saying that prose poetry should only be allowed in the poetry thread? I think that's fair. Basically I was just thinking someone could take a piece that is prose poetry and use it in both the story & poem RG.

So, basically I'm cool with Meve's definition assuming I interpreted it correctly that prose poetry would only be in the RG poems.

6/23/2008 #241
Lime-Cat

Thanks for the definition, Meve.

SUG: I think we should have the author/player state that the piece they want reviewed is a prose poetry so that people playing will not confuse it with a story and skip them.

I also agree that prose poetry should only be allowed in the RG poems because those playing in stories may not catch on to the poetic aspect of the piece.

6/23/2008 #242
Midnight In Eden

Yes and yes. prose poetry in poem thread and it should be stated that it is a prose poem. And I'm out =]

6/23/2008 #243
simpleplan13

Mini approves the this plan (meaning prose poetry in prose & stating that it is such so ppl do not get confused)

6/24/2008 #244
dreamer999

...wow frac, you seem to separate everything XD

anyway, when you ban someone. You ban them forever or do you ban them for a certain time?

7/2/2008 #245
Fractured Illusion

Most bans, if I remember correctly, are made so that you can get back in to the RG (aka, get un-banned). That takes initiative from the banned person, though.

Ie, for RM you get banned for not reviewing. To get un-banned, they have to review those they didn't the first time around. It's in their hands entirely.

You can get banned for plagiarism but you get unbanned if you delete the plagiarized forum/thread

You can get banned for disobedience, vulgar language, spamming, etc, and after the banned person does their time they can be let back in if they make signs of change

And you can get banned in RG for not reviewing people properly but getting reviews yourself.

7/2/2008 #246
dreamer999

Oh, then I don't need to do the suggestion. I was gonna say something about making a period of time for banning if you ban someone forever.

7/2/2008 #247
dragonflydreamer

Well, on the topic of banned people . . .

If someone is banned from the RG, can an active RG-er still request reviews for them?

7/3/2008 #248
Fractured Illusion

If someone is banned from the RG, can an active RG-er still request reviews for them?

Of course NOT! They are banned for a reason! So they cannot partake in the RG and benefit from it in any way, shape or form! If people start requesting reviews for banned people, those people are going to be warned as well.

7/3/2008 #249
dragonflydreamer

Figured as such.

I'm just in the weird situation that snowdance-lyghtning posted something for another friend, and I want her to get reviews, but not necessarily Snow :p

7/3/2008 #250
Fractured Illusion

Still a no, I'm afraid. It's possible when Snow gets herself un-banned though (when will that be, btw?)

Get your friend to learn how to make an account (which, by the record, is super easy anyhow :p)

7/3/2008 #251
403 Forbidden

How do we know when the Review Marathon is happening?

7/3/2008 #252
Lime-Cat

How do we know when the Review Marathon is happening?

*gently nudges Geisha to the Review Marathon thread*

Read it. It will be to your best interests in the long run. I promise. =)

7/3/2008 . Edited 7/3/2008 #253
simpleplan13

Giesha... Frac normally writes a new post in the RM topic about a week before & opens it up for reregistration.

7/3/2008 #254
Fractured Illusion

@Geisha

I wrote a post about it in the News topic, too. Just follow that topic and you will know when you will register (I intend to post there when I open for registrations as well)

7/3/2008 #255
simpleplan13

OK someone just registered... and posted it twice.. lol.

7/4/2008 #256
simpleplan13

In easy fix DeeFective was reviewed by jesusfreak & then ramenluver. Instead of stating that Dee owed Jesus a review, Ramen reviewed Jesus as well. I made a post saying what should have happened so that they know for next time, but does Dee now owe Ramen a review b/c that review was extra since they also reviewed Jesus?

7/7/2008 #257
Fractured Illusion

@mini martini

Huumm... Tricky. (the following text is to clear it up for myself mostly. As long as I get it all is good and well :p Do ask if you guys dont though)

DeeFective is Person A

Then Jesusfreak as Person B

Then Ramenluver as Person C.

THEN!

Ramenluver reviewed B.

C gave 2 reviews, received one.

For the DeeFective she is not owed a review, according to Rule 10, Jesusfreak is owed the review. But because C reviewed B too, that obligation looses effect since there is no missing 1:1 review trade. That is complete.

What is the next problem to solve is if C owes a review from B. If B reviewes C, B will have given 2 reviews but only been given one. This is unfair. So maybe A should review B, so B can review back C? Then everyone gets 2 reviews.

A gave review to person above them (already done), and then now to B

B gave to A, and now to C

C gave to A and B and now does nothing.

---

This is a complicated one. Does this make sense? O.o Is it fair? I won't tell them to review anyone until I get some confirmation because it was a tricky one.

7/8/2008 #258
Fractured Illusion

To dumb it down:

Defective owes Jesusfreak a review back. Rule 10.

Jesusfreak owes Ramenluver a review back, kind of like Rule 10, because Jesus was already reviewed (or to be reviewed) by Defective

7/8/2008 #259
Kyllorac

Because Frac's explanation confused me, I'm going to try my hand at making it less confusing. :P

DeeFective is Person A

Jesusfreak is Person B

Ramenluver is Person C

Person A was reviewed by Person B and Person C. Because Person C reviewed Person B (instead of Person A as per Rule 10), Person A owes Person C a review. In this way, all 3 parties will recieve 2 reviews.

7/8/2008 #260
simpleplan13

Kikyuu you confused me more! lol

I wasn't sure if maybe Ramenluver's extra review canceled out Rule 10, but basically it doesn't...lol

7/8/2008 #261
Fractured Illusion

Well, one way to do it would be to have Defective and Jesusfreak to get 2 reviews, but Ramenluver only gets one, because s/he created the situation by not knowing the rules. And I suppose since Rule 10 doesnt flat out cover these situations we could cancel out the review for Her/Him regarding the B-C relation. Since it was unnecessary and all. Feels a bit mean, though.

Edit: Mini, it's not Kikyuu, it's KYLIE :p

7/8/2008 . Edited 7/8/2008 #262
Fractured Illusion

Question:

How long can you wait before claiming a review you didn't get?

Reason I ask is because of RisanF and her revelation in the Stories EF. She claimed to get back a review that was supposed to be given all the way back in May. And we're in July now...soo....is the door always open or what? This time I allowed her to claim that review, but it feels to me there has to be an expiration date or something.

7/9/2008 #263
simpleplan13

@ Easy Fix Poetry

What I was thinking is that Jesus got the review she would've gotten from DeeFective from Ramenluver. Therefore I thought DeeFective should review Ramenluver, this way DeeFective gives out 2 reviews for the 2 she received, Ramenluver will get 2 reviews for the 2 received, and Jesus gave one review for the one she received.

But you're way works fine too.

@ Easy Fix Stories

Im confused... did she say that someone owed her a review from May & she just realized it or that someone who owed her a back review from May just finally reviewed her now?

7/9/2008 #264
Fractured Illusion

No the person had not reviewed her, this is why she brought it up in the RG thread.

7/9/2008 #265
simpleplan13

Is there a penalty in place for not reviewing someone who you owe a RG review to? I think there should definitely be a limit & am penalty of some sorts, maybe they can't play in that RG thread until they do it if they haven't done it in a week or something? I dunno.

My vote is move this to suggestions & see what other ppl think the rule should be 'cause I do think there should be some sort of rule.

7/9/2008 #266
Fractured Illusion

can't play in that RG thread until they do it if they haven't done it in a week or something?

No, I dont want that rule. That means people will think it is okay to wait with the review for one week. As it is now, people HAVE to give the review before posting and lets keep it at that. There are only FEW that dont review. NJ is a rare exception. I really dont want to throw out banning rules all the time, I am getting so sick of it. It's sending out the wrong signals.

My point is: sure they may be owed a review, but if they make a remark on it over one month later, should it matter still? I mean the person that was supposed to review them might have quit the FP then for all we know! I mean, in the judicial system, you have time limits to report certain offenses, and if you cross that time limit, you can't bring it up anymore. I think that works well.

I don't want any more rules about punishments and whatnot. I just make the person review RisanF and whoever else. Usually works.

I just want to know what people think about time limit.

7/9/2008 #267
simpleplan13

If the person who was suppossed to review left fp or something then it doesnt matter whether they bring it up.

What if a person takes a haiutus from fp, or they're email spazzes and they don't get alerts for awhile or something. I think that no matter how long if a person owes someone a review they should be responsible for that review. Definitely they should be reminded, hey I think you forgot to review this person awhile ago and then they should still hafta do it no matter how long ago the reviewed was owed b/c it's still a review that is owed.

EDIT: You come from things from a judicial pov. I work in a credit union. If someone owes us money they still owe it years from now, whether we send them a letter the moment they become delinquent or we do it at the end of the year. It's tehir responsibility to pay us what is owed. Not our responsibility to remind them to do so.

7/9/2008 . Edited 7/9/2008 #268
Imalefty

i think the "statute of limitations" should depend on whether or not this person who was supposed to have reviewed has returned or not. that way, it takes care of mini's scenario (if the person left FP or has taken a hiatus or something) and still holds the person responsible. for example... if the person who owes a review has not returned since he/she owed the review, we can remind him/her but if he/she still doesn't come back, we can't continue to hound him/her for a review. but... if this person is playing relatively regularly... then we should go after him/her. XD there would be no excuse for not giving the review.

-Lefty

7/10/2008 #269
simpleplan13

I agree with Lefty. If someone is no longer an RG player, we should rmeind them once, but that's it. If they are still an active player they definitely should be responsible for the review.

7/10/2008 #270
« Prev Page 1 .. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 19 .. Last Next »
Forum Moderators: Fractured Illusion Dr. Self Destruct, dragonflydreamer, lookingwest, Lime-Cat, simpleplan13, Imalefty
Rules:
  • Forums are not to be used to post stories.
  • All forum posts must be suitable for teens.
  • The owner and moderators of this forum are solely responsible for the content posted within this area.
  • All forum abuse must be reported to the moderators.
Membership Length: 2+ years 1 year 6+ months 1 month 2+ weeks new member