| Author |
 Topic  |
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
 Posted - 06/16/2007 : 05:08:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
Someone has let me know that I've stirred up discord by posting this thread in the first place and that I shouldn't have posted it. My apologies.
Whoever told you that can shut up. Everything stirs up discord. |
 |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 05:33:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
Someone has let me know that I've stirred up discord by posting this thread in the first place and that I shouldn't have posted it. My apologies.
Then allow me to do some stirring too (no, it's not my review). 
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?sort=5&id=1058&Mode=&Rows=1&Start=2&do=
Note that "sheik" is pronounced like "shake" not "sheek".
 |
|
|
|
Tori 
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 05:58:57
|
Thanks buddy!! I have a cute review for each side of the world, allowing for the two different pronunciations they each have of the word sheik.  |
|
|
|
Koli 
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 07:41:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
Someone has let me know that I've stirred up discord by posting this thread in the first place and that I shouldn't have posted it. My apologies.
Whoever told you that can shut up. Everything stirs up discord.
Amen to that. Don't apologise, Tori. |
|
|
|
Chris C
"Four words, never backwards."
|
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 10:33:58
|
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.  |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 12:26:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Respect to Sludge for doing the right thing. It's not easy when you thought of a really good pun independently but, as Zulu says, there's no point in having three identical reviews.
I'd just say that Chocky's review has some justification as it is applied to a film specifically about Anne Boleyn unlike Tequila's original which is more general.
Yes, but Tequila's was first for Henry VIII, and as you'll see from the other thread, I'm not sure if I should keep mine up for Ann or not.
(If the answer is I should delete mine, I will - as much as it pains me that I'll be executing my highest voted review.)
|
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 17:27:36
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
Sludge 
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 00:32:57
|
Folks, I've messaged Tori and Chris C in total agreement - no apologies! This is a fine illustration of FWFR's system of checks and balances at work. It would be a drag if nobody said anything.
Sludge
P.S. I apologize to all the affected parties, and to the Duke lacrosse team, and to those women basketball players.
|
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 04:14:59
|
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.
I will quite happily report spelling errors, inaccurate reviews and reviews that seem to be too close to others through the Report button.
Very often they are for fwiffers who don't post on fourum. But it's too easy to feel bad when I am familiar with a fwiffer through the fourum, since it is as if you know them (in the virtual world at least). This then seems to suggest a PM is required - but is that fair?
How do people feel when they get a review removed because it has been reported and they don't know who by?
To answer the question myself - I don't mind when I get a reported review removed, because it is anonymous and therefore seems less personal. There is always the option to appeal if you don't agree once Benj or the MERPs have decided if the report is valid in the first place.
Also, I assume it would be easier for Benj and the MERPs to deal with reports if they are chronologically listed through the Report button rather than via a PM, or through the fourum, which then seems to ask for an immediate solution.....?
What do you think?
Oh, and the whole concept of the review that prompted this thread is very clever. As for the unintentional 'duplicating' - well, great minds think alike, don't they say!!
|
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
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. |
|
|
|
zulu 
"Resisting the Bay lobotomy"
|
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?  |
|
|
|
Rovark
"Luck-pushing, rule-bending, chance-taking reviewer"
|
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
"Resisting the Bay lobotomy"
|
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  |
Edited by - zulu on 06/17/2007 11:29:12 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
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.
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 06/17/2007 11:55:31 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
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. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Incredible new review by Sludge...
