Let me tell you the truth about this, a long time ago there were a lot of different Brawl hacking team, most of them were small with only a few big ones that always got a lot of attention. After a while Kitty Corp started taking people from other teams causing the small teams to die out, and the big ones to have posts less frequently. Kitty Corp also successfully convinced the community that every other team was dead, and that Kitty Corp was the only site worth visiting. That's what really happened.
Prove it.
People asked to join us, not the other way around.
If we said teams were dead, it's because they were, or they were on life support with maybe one or two posting, and not frequently.
If people decided we were the only site worth visiting, that's because they took a look at what we offered and decided it for themselves. We don't advertise. We just run a forum and maintain BrawlVault, and we do that pretty well, especially since we're all volunteers. We don't need to tell people we're great; the site speaks for itself.
And in the end, whether your version or mine is true, is it really as bad as you make it out to be? Do you really think such a fragmented community was ideal? That visiting ten or more different sites just to browse a small selection of mods on the blogs of each, in addition to checking each one's forum, was how the average user wanted to experience what the community had to offer?
The people who rail against us for "absorbing" or "crushing" or whatever term you want to use for what happened to the other teams seem to be a lot more interested in personal pride and vendettas than in seeing this community flourish.
There are different methods of ratings and reviews that avoid all of the listed problems. First, I don't think that "arbitrary" works as an argument against ratings or reviews.
You're not "avoiding" a problem by dismissing it and acting like it doesn't exist.
Quote
personal taste isn't a large determiner of movie or game ratings.
It is. That's why, for example, EGM would have multiple people review the same game. Different perspectives of the same thing.
Quote
The point of ratings and reviews is to fairly evaluate something
This is not something I believe is possible.
Quote
There have been efforts made by some to create reviews, such as SilentDoom's. They're unbiased, quality reviews. Ain't nothing wrong with these reviews.
That is not a review. That is a showcase. The only time that comes close to being a review is when he says it might be a bit overpowered. The rest is descriptors like "good" and "fun" and "satisfying"; that it's good would be evident from any video, and "fun" and "satisfying" are totally arbitrary.
Quote
Ratings and reviews are beneficial to the community; they allow for constructive feedback that helps modders improve their works, they give users of brawl vault more insight into what they are downloading before they download it, and they allow people that don't contribute to the community through brawl vault submissions to contribute in this way.
If people didn't use them to just circlejerk and spam, threads on the board would already serve all of these purposes.
Quote
Please consider.
I've been talking with Miacis lately about putting a lot more emphasis on features instead of team posts on the blog. There's some minor differences, but our ideas basically amount to the system you've described, using the blog instead of a special board.
Arbitrary: How many people here would rate down a Shadow mod simply because of its name? How many others would rate it up for the exact same reason? Or a Naruto mod? Or Cloud? The hack's rating would never be indicative of its actual quality, and that defeats the purpose.
Abuse: We already had/have people pumping their download counts. This would just invite more of the same. Ratings really only serve to inflate some egos and stomp on others. There's too many cults of personality around here for ratings to be effective.
Resources: Keeping track of every rating that every user has given every hack, checking to make sure users can't rate hacks twice, calculating the averages for every single hack... The last would be cached, like most other stats, but it still seems pretty demanding.
Not really. Since the forums and the vault are not exactly the same thing. I don't think censoring words work on the vault as they do in the forums.
Correct. SMF's censoring is part of the post/title rendering process. But I might be able to borrow that functionality. I've never looked at it before.
Show Posts