test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
POLL: Should UGC have to be approved before going live?
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
This is obviously a highly debated topic at the moment. Some feel that UGC missions should have to be "approved" by players to ensure that the missions that go live are appropriate. Others feel that there are simply too many ways this can be abused, and that any inappropriate missions should be reported after the fact. All arguments asside, lets see what the numbers show:
Should UGC have to be approved before going live?
After you vote, feel free to share your thoughts.
Should UGC have to be approved before going live?
After you vote, feel free to share your thoughts.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I'd like to see an option to play "Unreviewed" UCG missions where you fully assume any risk associated with such content. The very nature of playing with other people behind the complete anonymity of the internet means you are eventually going to be subjected to "content of questionable nature" so I see no reason to provide absolutely no means to play UCG missions without someone first reviewing them.
Let those who wish to assume the risk play them and let those who only want to play reviewed missions wait for them to be reviewed.
What you describe is how it will work. If you want to see unreviewed and reviewed missions you sign the UGC eula (this also makes you a reviewer).
Here's what the FAQ says...
So the question is, does everyone who sign up automatically become a reviewer or do you have to be selected as a reviewer by someone on the dev team? If everyone can be a reviewer, then why bother to separate between "reviewers" and "non-reviewers".
I think it'd be better to allow all content to be available and given an "unreviewed" status. Basically you trade signing up to be a reviewer with a checkbox that says "unreviewed" when choosing UCG content. The end result is the same except I think it would cause a lot fewer waves within the community.
missions should have 2 gradings
Does it violate STO content rules, no racist, TRIBBLE, ect.. TRIBBLE YES or NO
If yes, it is reported and removed
ok, it is not vile
how good is it ? 1 to 5 stars...by folks who played it
Dats it.
absolutely no more is needed
>>>> K. I. S. S. <<<<
Keep
It
Simple
Stupid
The way I understand it anyone can sign the UGC eula and become a reviewer. The separation is probably just a way for Cryptic to protect themselves from any lawsuits, etc.
I like the system that Cyrptic has devised. I don't want to sift through junk to find a good mission, and I want the quality of missions to count for something with the playerbase.
The system makes sense and it's the best of both worlds.
Basically, yeah. Everyone can play a new mission if they acknowledge that the mission could contain offensive stuff, so don't hold Cryptic responsible for what this or that pervert or racist did with the tools. Clicking that agreement is the only thing that separates reviewers from the entire playerbase.
If i log on and want to do a UGC mission that i know works or if someone who is perhaps a child, or is easily offended they should be able to cycle through a list of mission that have been approved as safe, so they know nothing too bad is going to jump out at them, and that its completable.
if you want to go find any mission, sign the EAUL and then go play any mission you choose, so yes all missions should be approved.
There is nothing with this process from stopping you from finding any UG mission in the game, if that is what you want to do.
The review process is just to make sure if you only want to see missions that work as you would expect them then you can. How is this a bad thing?
Thus you get a weighed review system.
There will need to be incentives for people to review missions though. I m thinking that you cant get the mission reward / XP without evaluating the mission. And then there would be a daily mission where you would meta review the score of other players on missions you already did.
Thus, you could nt game the system by badly reviewing a mission because your review score would be effected, making your reviews count less.
It's not as I understand it like a mission has to get a 3/5 star rating to be pushed to 'live' just played X times from start to finish and not get any reports for inappropriate content.
Since anyone who uses the Foundry can review missions I don't think there will be a problem with too few people to try the new missions.
Any player can sign up to review newly published community authored missions.
The reason we require a sign up, and have a separate EULA for this is because we believe that since STO is a family game, and inevitably someone will create content which is inappropriate, we need to provide a filter of sorts to be able to catch this sort of material.
By asking for people who are not concerned about coming across this content, but whom understand why someone's episode about [Insert your worst case scenario here] isn't healthy for the game, we can catch a large amount of this content before it is seen by those who would rather not be subjected to unvetted material.
Thanks,
Stormshade
I don't understand why you didn't just make this required for everyone. "In order to play UGC, you must sign a new EULA, and report any offensive material." Instead, due to a poorly worded announcement, you've split the community into "reviewers" and "non-reviewers."
I mean, I can see the desire to keep stuff away from the kiddies, and it's a good thing to do, but I don't see what's to prevent them from scrolling through the new EULA, clicking the "Yes I read the whole thing I swear, no really I did" button, and playing stuff anyways.
You risk entering an Apple App Store-esque doo-doo storm if you get into limiting user content based on a pre-set series of conditions. Whatever you do and however fair you think the rules are you will offend someone, and one person's fair is the next one's harsh and unnecessary.
Let us self-moderate. If it doesn't work out, then maybe you could look at a compromise measure, but to start with at least lets us give it a shot?
I may have missed this somewhere, but where/how exactly does someone sign up?
How is the community split into "reviewers" and "non-reviewers" if anyone can sign up to be a reviewer?
I'm not trolling, I'm just asking for some clarification of your point of view.
thanks in advance.
We'll have more information regarding that once The Foundry for Star Trek Online (Beta) goes to Tribble. However, it will be done in-game, and should be very easy to sign up for.
Thanks,
Stormshade
I certainly hope I don't encounter Tuvok's "Worst Case Scenario"
I dont get it: why not just require EVERYONE who uses UGC to agree to the EULA? That way you completely protect yourselves, and you completely avoid this whole debate?
You're right, they're not. BUT, the way this was announced, they have been perceived to be. And continuing to talk about having people sign up to be reviewers isn't helping. Sure, anyone can sign up, but if you don't, you're not going to have quite the same UGC experience. Just make everyone sign a special UGC EULA, and be done with it.
Edit: Oh hey Grand Nagus. Great minds, eh, wot? Say no more? Wink wink nudge nudge?
At this point I can't make any more judgments because there are too many unknowns:
Uh-oh. Ironically, I plan on trying to recreate that episode, heh.
LOL! The same is true of most of the threads here, but ok....
because they want it to remain at a T rating and a family game.
it was a good episode, but I'd rather my XO NOT try to take over the ship! XD
Exactly. The point of approval is to proofread, not to review qualitatively. You're looking for bugs that make the mission non-completable, profanity, trademark infringement, etc.
This is a task which players under 18 and in some countries may not be allowed to do, hence the separate EULA. Also, it's likely a privilege that can be taken away without banning someone from the game or otherwise playing and authoring UGC.
What if someone wishes to play UGC content, but would not for risk of coming across content which is inappropriate? Should they simply not be allowed to play through other community member's episodes for fear of coming across something which should have been caught be people who review content?
Didnt you guys say people would be able to read actual comments by people who have played the mission?