Review "Team": First Impressions

[Mania]

@tracer - I'm not going to address all of your points because I tend to get wordy and it would take too long, but it seems like you are getting extremely defensive. Flip is not suggesting a wild, crazy brand new idea in order to bash servers. He is just suggesting a group with the same set of rules reviewing servers in a standardized manner. I see nothing wrong with that.

If Flip wants he can start with my server. I have nothing to hide. I know the pros and cons that my server offers and I'm fine with whatever the out come is of a non-biased review.

[tracer]

It's not a smart idea to give a group of individuals the right to give first impressions of a server. In-fact, you can derive first impressions from the review page yourself. A majority of them may be false, but some of them may contains some truth. I doubt that the reviewers for this team, would be any different from the rest. Especially if they are volunteers. And jugding by your respond, I think you might actually be agreeing with my points.

This idea has honest intent in it, but we all know when good things turn sour.

Take a look at my review for CharmRO. Was I wrong? I took the information straight from the control panel's donation page, I make observation base on the headgear's stats, I went in game to check out the scripting, and I even gave sources for my main points, such as the forum posting dates. What was the owner's response? "You hate me, this review is fake." I mean come on, take a look at your freaken donation page. Compare your first impression of CharmRO and my review, http://www.ratemyserver.net/forum/server-reviews/charmro-t12263/0/ maybe you could do a better job than me.

I bet that if you give them a honest first impression, they would mob your thread.

[Mania]

I think the whole point of the "first impression" is countered by Flips rule of 3 days of play so the review isn't based on perusing a site or forum for 10 minutes.

[Flip]

It's not a smart idea to give a group of individuals the right to give first impressions of a server. In-fact, you can derive first impressions from the review page yourself. A majority of them may be false, but some of them may contains some truth. I doubt that the reviewers for this team, would be any different from the rest. Especially if they are volunteers. And jugding by your respond, I think you might actually be agreeing with my points.

This idea has honest intent in it, but we all know when good things turn sour.

Take a look at my review for CharmRO. Was I wrong? I took the information straight from the control panel's donation page, I make observation base on the headgear's stats, I went in game to check out the scripting, and I even gave sources for my main points, such as the forum posting dates. What was the owner's response? "You hate me, this review is fake." I mean come on, take a look at your freaken donation page. Compare your first impression of CharmRO and my review, http://www.ratemyserver.net/forum/server-reviews/charmro-t12263/0/ maybe you could do a better job than me.

I bet that if you give them a honest first impression, they would mob your thread.

I appreciate your efforts and I have seen your CharmRO thread.

I fully intend to put evidence on any point that needs it, especially if that point is potentially controversial.

To be totally honest and blunt, I really don't care if people mob my thread. If I have evidence and facts to back it up and the server owner still gives me a hard time, that shows a negative on him, not me. That shows that person is not willing to listen to reviews. Furthermore, that server owner cannot threaten me in any way, since I'm not even in that server anymore.

We definitely have a difference in opinion, so I ask you to just wait and see an actual review when I put one up. You can criticize it all you want then, and I will be looking forward to answer your criticisms then.

[Pandora]

A server's website is important as part of a first impression, specially in regards to how easy it is to obtain basic information on the server, to get the files to play it and to register, I think you should include that somewhere.

[tracer]

I appreciate your efforts and I have seen your CharmRO thread.

I fully intend to put evidence on any point that needs it, especially if that point is potentially controversial.

To be totally honest and blunt, I really don't care if people mob my thread. If I have evidence and facts to back it up and the server owner still gives me a hard time, that shows a negative on him, not me. That shows that person is not willing to listen to reviews. Furthermore, that server owner cannot threaten me in any way, since I'm not even in that server anymore.

We definitely have a difference in opinion, so I ask you to just wait and see an actual review when I put one up. You can criticize it all you want then, and I will be looking forward to answer your criticisms then.

Please do your review or first impression or whatever on CharmRO first.

Because I spend more than 6 hours on the server to give a pretty good impression. If you can write one for them, I would like to see what you have to say.

[Flip]

I already started on a different server, but I fully intend to do CharmRO at some point.
Posted on: Nov 05, 2009, 08:08 amPosted a review of OracleRO. It's a day early for reasons stated in the review. Please criticize the review, but more for the format and factors included rather than the actual review itself. I'm personally more interested in what I did right and wrong.

Review Link: http://www.ratemyserver.net/forum/server-reviews/oraclero-first-impressions-series/0/

[Green]

Perhaps each of the reviewers can have a little thing somewhere with a quick description of what they like in servers in general?

For instance, I might be more compelled to look at what someone who likes low-rates, community orientated thinks over a SHR PvPer.

[Flip]

Lol. yC made the right choice.

No, the right choice would be smacking you in the face.

Stop trying to defend your piss-poor reviewing skills because you don't want to admit you had it in for the Admin.

yC never stopped the idea; in fact, the last message I got before I left RMS for a bit was that he/she wanted me to pursue this idea and go ahead and make an official team.

Of course now I don't know what he/she feels, hence why I'm starting from scratch.

I'm unhappy though that you don't seem to like it. May I ask what you find wrong with the review?

[Flip]

I know. Don't worry.

My reply was directed to tracer as well.

[GorthexTiger]

@Team People:

I agree with Green, if implemented, I think it'd be best if each reviewer wrote like a small bio about what they like, what types of servers they played at (don't need names) as far as rates, whether it was an RP, PVP server, or regular. That way, we have people for instance, who are familiar with HR's, play the HRs.

An HR player obviously is gonna give a bad review to an LR (most LR's don't allow certain @go commands to give a more "RO" experience) citing the lack of abilities or slow level progression, whereas they might give a great review on an HR.

This would give people a general idea of which type of server to look for (oh, so-and-so does reviews only on (insert rate abbreviation here) servers, so, I should see what they recommend).

Also, I think a "hiring" process should be set up, so it's easier to establish a way to replace people, when people do decide to leave or whatever. Maybe establish some sort of "Leader" to help set things in order, keep the team updated, do hiring, firing, and overall management of the group.

My final suggestion, would be to "date" the reviews, anywhere from 3 days since the reviewer left the server, up to 2 weeks.

This prevents server owners from trying to figure out and or discover the reviewing parties IP address, while this may not be powerful in and of itself, it could allow for the creation of a "blacklist" and either allow server owners to ban potential reviewers, or, even worse, know when they arrive, and tamper with their experience, to get a better review.

That's all for now.

[Flip]

@Team People:

I agree with Green, if implemented, I think it'd be best if each reviewer wrote like a small bio about what they like, what types of servers they played at (don't need names) as far as rates, whether it was an RP, PVP server, or regular. That way, we have people for instance, who are familiar with HR's, play the HRs.

An HR player obviously is gonna give a bad review to an LR (most LR's don't allow certain @go commands to give a more "RO" experience) citing the lack of abilities or slow level progression, whereas they might give a great review on an HR.

This would give people a general idea of which type of server to look for (oh, so-and-so does reviews only on (insert rate abbreviation here) servers, so, I should see what they recommend).

Also, I think a "hiring" process should be set up, so it's easier to establish a way to replace people, when people do decide to leave or whatever. Maybe establish some sort of "Leader" to help set things in order, keep the team updated, do hiring, firing, and overall management of the group.

My final suggestion, would be to "date" the reviews, anywhere from 3 days since the reviewer left the server, up to 2 weeks.

This prevents server owners from trying to figure out and or discover the reviewing parties IP address, while this may not be powerful in and of itself, it could allow for the creation of a "blacklist" and either allow server owners to ban potential reviewers, or, even worse, know when they arrive, and tamper with their experience, to get a better review.

That's all for now.

Thank you for the suggestions. Let me address each point.

1. Familiarity of server: Already established. Between the 4 active reviewers right now, we are keeping to servers that we are most familiar with.

2. Hiring process: As much as I personally like to keep things organized, I cannot do so due to the following reasons:
A. yC/RMS has NOT given me any right to form and organized group within RMS. Doing so would mean that RMS is directly involved in the matter. Thus, what I'm doing right now is getting anyone and everyone who wants to do the same thing I do; simply that. If I were to start hiring/firing, then that would mean RMS is my "base of operations" so to speak but without getting the "landowner's permission".
B. For right now at least, I do not intend any review that comes out of this to be more "powerful, special or valid" than any other review. I want to keep things low-key, at the very least for now, and just take people who are willing to take the effort in doing the reviews.

3. Dating the reviews/Blacklist controversy: Oh god, I personally would laugh if it gets at this point. Anyone is open to make a review on their server, and potentially a bad one at that. So if owners started banding together to ban a specific type of reviewer... well, I think that says more about those server owners rather than us. Simply put, if they do that, I wouldn't give them the time of day anyway.

As far as "skewing the reviews" go: ensuring that when we enter we get the red carpet, again, I doubt that we hold that sort of "powah" to even invoke such a reaction at least for now. This team is politically inexistent until RMS decides to take the site to a new direction and have its own review team. If/When that time comes, then this'll become an issue that needs to be tackled. But for right now, I think its a non-issue.

Hope that answers the concerns you have.

[Final]

@Team : Great idea, I think this will help out the RO community quite a bit.

[tracer]

[flame removed]

The fact that this project is either going to filled up the server review section with imcomplete and worthless first impressions or the fact that the only reason some of you even like this project is because I am against it. But honestly, even if this was implemented, I don't really care. Before this thread was derail, I advise flip that this project is a complete waste of time. On four facts.

1. These first impressions are not consistent with server updates or expansion.
2. They are 6 hours overview of a server, which mean that you won't have much to say about the server.
3. The review outline is similar to the review system on RMS, which means one thing. People would rather want a 300 comment rather than a full page of a 6 hour oveview.
4. These first impression may attract players from the server to mob your thread.
I think the honest intend in this project was to find the "real facts" about the server. Because the ratings for most servers are "fake."

But you probably already thought of that.

[flame removed]

[yC]

So I have been reading and am not too sure why this is a suggestion to me. 

I have no problem with anyone making a review to a server with any specific format as long as they are not lies.

As for giving power to a group of people, the technical problem comes again.  Who to choose is going to be a major problem, and relationship/background checks are impossible because this is the internet.  I am not even going to try at this point.

I think who came up with this idea can form the team and choose the group wisely.  If the reviews are honest, helpful and worthwhile the reputation will build up without the help/power given by RMS.  Further, reviewers shall be treated equally.  I don't want to affect the attention given to certain reviews because of some special status that is not earned with hardwork.