[Molly]

I think it would be a bad idea to just 'censor' the reviews. Lies should be exposed to the light and dealt with, not just suppressed. If someone posts a 'flat out lie' about a game in a review, it should exposed and proven to be a lie, rather than just censored in the original post. If this is done, the poster of the lie will lose all credibility, which is a much more effective way to deal with things like that. TMC has a system with comments to reviews that seems to work very well. I remember seeing some partly negative reviews there, which the Mud owners dealt with in such a balanced and mature way that it left me with a high degree of respect for them, and actually made me a lot more inclined to try out their game than I would have been if the original review had been a 100% positive one.

I would have preferred 'professional' reviews, written by independent authors, without a vested interest in the game they review, but I can see the difficulties in recruiting qualified and respected reviewers. However, the changes that Lasher proposes for the current system seems to be a definite improvement. Allowing the option to respond directly in the review thread should be a very effective way to deal with any 'defamation' or obvious mistake, (intentional or accidental). And even if the original review was poorly written, the comments would definitely make it more interesting, and isn't that what we are looking for here?

Rathik's suggestion to give the readers the option to 'rate' the reviews for content might be helpful too, provided it was used actively. As it is, very few of us actually read any reviews (except of course the ones for our own games), because the general quality is so low. But if the content improved a bit, that might quickly change, and the ratings would sort out and expose the bad posters - at least theoretically.

I'm not sure if it would work well in praxis however. In my own Mud Forums we have a system where the readers can 'applaud' or 'smite' a post, and this will in turn affect the 'Karma' of the poster. While the idea seemed a good one theoretically, it caused some abuse in praxis, where one player would 'smite' all posts of another, just because he disliked the poster. (I could see the same thing happen here). Also it seems that the rate system was used very actively in the first few weeks or so, and then people just tired of it, and would stop using it. Today it is hardly ever used by anyone.

I definitely agree with Valg that the present option for some games to turn off all reviews should be removed. The site should offer the same conditions for all members.
It boggles me why some mud operators are so afraid of reviews. If you have any confidence in your own game - which you should if it is a good one - what is there to be afraid of? People are usually not that easily fooled, they will see through the disgruntled-player flames as well as the fanboy fluff.

One would have thought every Admin that runs a decent Mud would welcome seeing reviews about it. After all, it's exposure, and isn't exposure what we all are looking for? Even if some negative things are occasionally pointed out, isn't it be a good thing for the Admin to be made aware of the problems, so you can deal with them? And even if there is the odd mainly negative review, wouldn't the majority be good, if your game is any good?