| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 11/21/2006 : 18:16:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
Isn't it fair to say, then, that regardless of what anyone percives as a "prevailing definition," continued used of an offensive word in an offensive context will continue to keep the original definition alive and offending? "I's thinks so." says Ali G.
Note my highlighting - that is the key, I think.
Soup [epithet]. Popcorn [epithet]. Jazz [epithet]. Hmmm... somehow, however, the offending context seems to stick to racial epithets. I tried it with various racial slurs, and the result was the same (except "cracker," which was kind of humorous and seemed to refer naturally to a retail product). 
As a bred-and-buttered Southerner, I can assure you that while "redneck" has fallen into general use [there are rednecks in every region in America, and in every country on earth], "cracker" was once reserved for Southerner-on-Southerner trash talking, most specifically in Georgia. To hear a Yankee [mouth-breathing Dixie society's term for anybody other than a Southerner] use it is as mildly irritating as is hearing a lousy Southern accent in a Tennessee Williams play produced by Yankees. Trust me; it grates. |
 |
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 15:14:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Of course, this is going to happen more often now that we have that little Nazi button.
Did you not mean 'Nasty'? |
|
|
|
MguyXXV 
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 15:47:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Of course, this is going to happen more often now that we have that little Nazi button.
Did you not mean 'Nasty'?
OHHHHHHHHHHHHH! It was a typo!
Nevermind.  |
|
|
|
Rovark
"Luck-pushing, rule-bending, chance-taking reviewer"
|
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 22:42:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Of course, this is going to happen more often now that we have that little Nazi button.
[size=1]BTW: Fascism does not, however, inherently involve the craven eradication of other racial, ethinic, or religious groups. National Socialism did.
size=1]
Blimy,
Take your eye off the ball for few days and look what happens
Personally I have no problem at all with calling this the Nazi button. Like so many reviews on this site, it works on two levels. One, it sounds like Nasty and two, implies totalitarianism, ethnic cleansing of undesirable types and craven secret denunciation coupled with the posibility of settling of personal scores.
Yup, Nazi works for me.
I've never had a problem with removing factually inaccurate reviews, correcting spelling or removing exact duplicates. However "Generic" and "Similar to another" - I have a problem with.
I've always have had problems with "generic" and have posted to this effect on other occasions. If you're going to remove generic reviews then take look at the top 100 reviews, or just the top 10.
Icy Dead People - now how many films does that fit. It certainly fits "Scott Of The Antarctic" better.
Pretty Shitty Gang Bang - again, how many films does that fit and frankly "Eyes Wide Shut" features, if anything an orgy, but not a gang bang.
Brother Gets Own Room - like no other film features one brother dying, leaving another alone.
If you're going to be some racial purity "lets cleanse the site of the unworthy" Nazi, fine but start with these highly visible examples.
As to the new "similar to another review" category. Similar perhaps - BUT NOT THE SAME. The difference may be subtle but important. I've just been the the lucky recipient of some of my old reviews joining my reject pile with the "Similar" notation. When questionable reviews were offered in open forum, we at least had the opportunity to explain / justify the submission. Now they've just gone and without seeing the context they were originally submitted, how can I now speak up for them?
Whipper admitted that the original reporting was by him, and big up for him for the guts to do so. But if I now get pissed at say BBabe, I could conduct a private campaign of whittling away at her reviews. Lets face it we've nearly all got reviews that barely scraped through somewhere in our past. The whole reporting in secret thing leaves a nazi (sic) taste in the mouth.
Actually to this effect, I need to clear my concience. I reported one from "Gothica" which I just saw and immediately reviewed. 'Halle gets arm broken'. With 2 votes. She doesn't get her, or anyone else's arm broken. Her arm is badly cut hence the bandage on it but that's all. Any further reporting I'll do in the usual way so there's an opportunity to defend.
Temporarily also Pissed
Rovark
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/22/2006 : 23:03:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rovark
But if I now get pissed at say BBabe, I could conduct a private campaign of whittling away at her reviews.
 
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 11/23/2006 : 01:42:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rovark
Whipper admitted that the original reporting was by him, and big up for him for the guts to do so.
Its nice of you to say that, but for me it took no guts whatsoever. I am entirely comfortable that I reported RedPen's review as I believe it was in the best interests of the site and I have no problem explaining it to him or anyone else.
I agree that "similar" has to be considered with caution, but that's ultimately Benj's job. I considered that "Showing Ryan's Privates" was in effect the same as "Seeing Ryan's Privates". Clearly so did Benj. Neither of us thought "Oh, one word different, it should stay". Neither of us have got it in for RedPen, we both don't feel that duplicates do anything for the site. Knowing Benj, if he feels the call is marginal he will show his customary generosity and leave it in.
Picking on Baffy's reviews is a really good idea though. I think I'll start that in the morning.  ...
|
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/23/2006 : 03:33:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Picking on Baffy's reviews is a really good idea though. I think I'll start that in the morning. ...
Excellent idea! I think I'll pick on foxy. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/23/2006 : 05:42:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Of course, this is going to happen more often now that we have that little Nazi button.
Did you not mean 'Nasty'?
OHHHHHHHHHHHHH! It was a typo!
Nevermind.
How MANY times have I told you all that I'm dyslexic???!!!???!!! |
|
|
|
Rovark
"Luck-pushing, rule-bending, chance-taking reviewer"
|
Posted - 11/23/2006 : 20:15:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Rovark
But if I now get pissed at say BBabe, I could conduct a private campaign of whittling away at her reviews.
I only used you as an example BBabe, as I don't think you've ever offended anyone. Well, not on forums anyway.  |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 11/24/2006 : 03:20:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rovark
If you're going to be some racial purity "lets cleanse the site of the unworthy" Nazi, fine but start with these highly visible examples.
That's actually a great idea. Nazi button them! We all complain that the top 100 is not longer viable because they self promote. The way to change them is to blast the ones that no longer fit within the stricter guidelines of reviewing. Is there any reason why they should be spared if newer, less well-known reviews bite the bullet?
quote:
As to the new "similar to another review" category. Similar perhaps - BUT NOT THE SAME. The difference may be subtle but important. I've just been the the lucky recipient of some of my old reviews joining my reject pile with the "Similar" notation. When questionable reviews were offered in open forum, we at least had the opportunity to explain / justify the submission. Now they've just gone and without seeing the context they were originally submitted, how can I now speak up for them?
I feel your pain, Rovark, but if there's a subtle difference in your review that got shelved which improves on the one already listed under the film submit it again. Sucks I know if you were voted on already, but if the difference is significant then it will pass. If it's not, then it probably is too similar. Can you give us an example of one of your rejects? It's really interesting.
In the old system you had to keep an eye on the fourum to defend your questioned work unless the kind soul who spotted the dupe PM'd you first to let you know he/she was flagging it up. I wouldn't think to check that often. If the review ends up in the reject pile you presumably get the chance to resubmit again with comments like usual.
quote:
Actually to this effect, I need to clear my concience. I eported one from "Gothica" which I just saw and immediately reviewed. 'Halle gets arm broken'. With 2 votes. She doesn't get her, or anyone else's arm broken. Her arm is badly cut hence the bandage on it but that's all. Any further reporting I'll do in the usual way so there's an opportunity to defend.
That review doesn't need defending, and you needn't clear your conscience - it should go. I haven't seen the film, but from what you say about it it's just a wrong review, period. I don't personally see anything wrong with making sure the quality of the website meets the levels Benj wants of it. He can't so it on his own, so you're doing a good thing by pointing out a dud. I think it's going to be grim for a while, but in the end the quality of reviews on site will improve. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/24/2006 : 04:26:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by Rovark
If you're going to be some racial purity "lets cleanse the site of the unworthy" Nazi, fine but start with these highly visible examples.
That's actually a great idea. Nazi button them! We all complain that the top 100 is not longer viable because they self promote. The way to change them is to blast the ones that no longer fit within the stricter guidelines of reviewing. Is there any reason why they should be spared if newer, less well-known reviews bite the bullet?
I'm not sure if your tongue is in your cheek or not (I suspect it partially is ) but I'll do a minor rant anyway. 
I see the Report button as a way to bring to benj's attention reviews that for some reason should not be on the site, or need fixing. Benj is most unlikely to be ignorant as to the Top 100 reviews, these have been the most visible reviews for years. So if they're still on the site it's because he wants them there. Hence there's no reason to waste his time reporting them. Reporting these would be nothing more than a whinge.
Most of us know that the rules have changed over the years as the site evolved. Sure, some of the Top 100 wouldn't pass if submitted today. But is anyone really going to jump up and down with glee if some old popular reviews with plenty of votes got deleted? I wouldn't. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 11/24/2006 : 04:51:55
|
Quite right Sean, I am playing advocatus diaboli in this case.  
I think it's a fair point though that if some reviews that might have been here for a long time and get reported for being generic or similar go down the tubes where is that line drawn? And then other questions arise. How old can a review be where it is allowed to stay on site because it was written long before the rule change? Is that rule different if that review has 1 vote or 30 votes? Are reviews automatically safe because they are in the Top 500? Is it only to do with popularity that they are allowed to stay and promote the kind of reviews we can't write any more |
Edited by - demonic on 11/24/2006 04:53:21 |
|
|
|
Koli
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 10:49:18
|
My review of The Execution of Mary Stuart, "Mary, head off state", has been removed after two years on the site. The reason? It is said to be too similar to another review of the same film.
Presumably the 'similar' review is Bife's "Mary, head of state".
I think I am in danger of having a sense of humour failure myself, so I shouldn't lecture anyone else for such a failing. But surely the point of my review was that by changing just one letter you can entirely change the meaning of the existing review and introduce a new concept. I remember a discussion at the time about exactly that.
I can't help feeling that a superficial judgement has been made and that my carefully crafted effort has been dumped unceremoniously in the bin without good reason. Granted, the injustice is not quite on the scale of Mary's execution, but in my little world this is a big source of aggravation.
Does anyone agree, or am I barking up the wrong tree? Has the ruthless cull of 'similar' reviews gone too far? |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 11:06:05
|
| No offence to Bife but I like yours better. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 12/10/2006 : 11:06:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
My review of The Execution of Mary Stuart, "Mary, head off state", has been removed after two years on the site. The reason? It is said to be too similar to another review of the same film.
Presumably the 'similar' review is Bife's "Mary, head of state".
I think I am in danger of having a sense of humour failure myself, so I shouldn't lecture anyone else for such a failing. But surely the point of my review was that by changing just one letter you can entirely change the meaning of the existing review and introduce a new concept. I remember a discussion at the time about exactly that.
I can't help feeling that a superficial judgement has been made and that my carefully crafted effort has been dumped unceremoniously in the bin without good reason. Granted, the injustice is not quite on the scale of Mary's execution, but in my little world this is a big source of aggravation.
Does anyone agree, or am I barking up the wrong tree? Has the ruthless cull of 'similar' reviews gone too far?
Well, I'm not the N*** this time, although I have seen both reviews and I thought both were valid and complimentary (and if anything yours was the better review). IMHO yours should not have been deleted because it had a different meaning, unlike RedPen's "In The Cut" review which had the same meaning. I wouldn't want it to be implied that deleting reviews like RedPen's leads inexorably to deleting reviews like yours as there is a clear distinction.
I'm sorry that your review has got the chop, but then imagine how Mary felt! 
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Okay, NOW I'm pissed!
