| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Tori |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 20:04:13
Love it.
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?id=18121 |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 07:35:43
When you were young, and your heart was an open book, you used to say live and let live (you know you did).
But if this ever changing world in which we're living makes you give in and cry, say live and let die.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 07:18:17
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
If ChocolateLady doesn't want to keep the review, the fairest thing to do with the votes is to transfer them to Tequila Mockingbird.
I'm going to let Tequilla decide what I should do. As for giving my votes over to Tequilla's review if I delete mine, I can understand doing that for two similar reviews for the same film, but I'm not sure why I would ask Benj to do that for two identical reviews for two different movies. If you explain your reasoning, I'll certainly think about it.
|
| randall |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 02:09:15
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I'm thiiiiis close to Alan Smithee-ing my review for Ann of a Thousand Days. The only reason I'm hesitating now is because I think it fits the movie just a touch better than it fits Henry VIII and his Six Wives.
It is a better fit, so I don't think that you should get rid of it. However, if you do, you should delete it. Like I said in the other thread, existing under Smithee does not in any way lessen its existence on the site.
True, but Smithee-ing it makes sure that someone else doesn't get the same review accepted for that movie later on.
Chocky, if you're zapping, go Smithee! |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 22:06:31
quote:
Originally posted by Chris C
Apologies if I have upset anyone - that wasn't my original intention (it still isn't!). I would have thought it possible that all three could be approved under the recent relaxation of rules on generic reviews.
Kudos to Sludge for dropping his one. 
Ah I was wondering what all the fuss was about!! |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 18:22:04
If ChocolateLady doesn't want to keep the review, the fairest thing to do with the votes is to transfer them to Tequila Mockingbird. |
| randall |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 15:06:49
If you decide to delete, disown instead. Al S. is a great reviewer! Why waste those votes? |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 12:19:24
Hm... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Sal. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 12:06:38
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
True, but Smithee-ing it makes sure that someone else doesn't get the same review accepted for that movie later on.
Since Smithee having it is no better than someone else having it, this is no advantage. Indeed, it is worse, since it will make the review definitely exist continuously, rather than possibly exist in the future. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 12:03:09
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I'm thiiiiis close to Alan Smithee-ing my review for Ann of a Thousand Days. The only reason I'm hesitating now is because I think it fits the movie just a touch better than it fits Henry VIII and his Six Wives.
It is a better fit, so I don't think that you should get rid of it. However, if you do, you should delete it. Like I said in the other thread, existing under Smithee does not in any way lessen its existence on the site.
True, but Smithee-ing it makes sure that someone else doesn't get the same review accepted for that movie later on.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 11:58:03
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I'm thiiiiis close to Alan Smithee-ing my review for Ann of a Thousand Days. The only reason I'm hesitating now is because I think it fits the movie just a touch better than it fits Henry VIII and his Six Wives.
It is a better fit, so I don't think that you should get rid of it. However, if you do, you should delete it. Like I said in the other thread, existing under Smithee does not in any way lessen its existence on the site. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 11:46:49
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I'd do what you feel most comfortable doing Chocky - no one will pass judgement if you decide to keep it - it's a personal thing. You know that you didn't intentionally copy Tequila's, even though it was first, also bearing in mind yours is more appropriate for the film you reviewed.
When I first saw Tequila's review, I thought he/she had taken it from me, actually. My mistake since further investigation (yesterday) found that Tequila's review was far older than mine.
As for my similar review for The Other Bolyen Girl, I thought I was copying from myself, and not anyone else. I'll almost certainly delete that review when I get another one accepted for that film.
I'm thiiiiis close to Alan Smithee-ing my review for Ann of a Thousand Days. The only reason I'm hesitating now is because I think it fits the movie just a touch better than it fits Henry VIII and his Six Wives.
|
| zulu |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 11:24:30
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
This had to be one of those things that camped out in my subconscious - I had previously voted for both but did not have that in mind when I submitted it. I remember the specific and much slighter pang of guilt for it being inspired by Chocolate Lady's FWFR for the new film.
Awwwww shucks. And I have one vote for each Henry. I think the only fair move is to dump it, in part because Chocolate Lady most likely thought of this and opted not to use it since she had it elsewhere.
This shock news just in! Sludge is a repeat offender 
We have a two of these:
Monster's ink 1
Monster's ink 2
I was looking at Sludge's FYC and thought that's a great review. 
I bet somebody will now point out an earlier third version  |
| Rovark |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 10:52:26
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
A question for you all - relating to this thread and how people should raise the topic of identical reviews, spelling errors or other issues to do with fwfrs.
How do people feel when they get a review removed because it has been reported and they don't know who by?
It's a purely personal thing but I get mighty pissed when an old review of mine suddenly dissapears because it's been reported as Inaccurate or Generic or whatever.
I liked the old system where reviews were highlighted under a Site Maintainance thread and you had the opportunity to defend it. Still, I can see how the reporting system does streamline the whole process and allow people to report 'bad' reviews without fearing reprisals. I don't care who has reported it, but I'd like the chance to explain my rationale and sometimes the 100 charactor limit on explanations for re-subs just isn't enough.
On the other hand, the system is what it is, and the only way the site could be utterly perfect would be if I had created it and controlled every aspect of it myself. Which I didn't, and I don't. .
|
| zulu |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 09:58:00
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
[quote]
...I'll be executing my highest voted review.
So you'll be executing a review about Anne Boleyn: sad irony 
or comically appropriate? |
| TitanPa |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 06:01:06
Woah.. Thatrs alot of discord. I also agree that Tori shouldnt apologize. She was only showing one of her Fav new reviews. Something that everyone does now and then. It wasnt her fault that it was the third of the same review. |
